![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page shows an APO chapter at a university in Australia. If legit, the article should be expanded to cover. Someone should probably contact National or International and ask. If not legit, I'm sure they'll take proper steps. GRBerry 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
We now support diversity per the 2006 national convention. Woot!! 129.2.175.110 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the national director, board members, and region directors be included in the article? They play a large part in the fraternity and it could expand the information available on wikipedia. I am personally partial to Mike "Spreeeeeeeee" Haber, Region 2 director, and would like to see him and other region directors listed on the article. 72.226.238.186 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Matthew Mosesohn, Xi Zeta chapter, 26 Feb 07
Gamma (Cornell) and Delta (Auburn) have gone back and forth for years about which one has been active longer. (Alpha is currently inactive and Beta was inactive for many years). I'm just not sure that fact is significant enough for the Wikipedia page. Note that the person who added the fact that Gamma was the longest continually active chapter came from an IP address at Cornell. Naraht 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for good article status, based on Justinm1978's recommendations (see history of this page). Wish it luck! Dr. Cash 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to keep GA status, find more inline citations (refs), otherwise I can almost guarantee one day someone will come along and submit it to WP:GA/R. Rlevse 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we use the APO abbreviation at all in the article (other than explaining that it is a common abbreviation)? Naraht 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the isse of "Torch & Trefoil" mentioned as a source?
The trefoil is not a symbol of scouting, but of guiding. The Girl Guides are a sister movement to the Scouts, even though in many countries scouting is now coed, in some others scout and guide associations merged.. and in some countries (such as the USA) the local guiding association calls themselves "Girl Scouts".
Therefore, the origin of the Trefoil might be something else...
-- Lou Crazy 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do have access to it. Volume 10, No. 1 (May 1935).Page 3 Column 3
Title: Debut of the Torch and Trefoil
With this edition the magazine of Alpha Phi Omega takes its new name, "Torch and Trefoil." This new name for our publication was derived by the Fifth Biennial National Convention with the belief that it carries much more signficance than did our former name, the "Lightbearer". The "Torch" is the emblem of Education; the "Trefoil" is the emblem of Scouting. Alpha Phi Omega brings together Education and Scouting, hence the significance of this new name for our magazine.
(There is a second paragraph in that article, but not relevant to the source of the name.) Naraht 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Number of active chapters 371. School (Region/Section)
Petition Groups:7
Interest Groups: 9
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Changes as of August 7, 2007
Active chapters 361 (-10 from before)
For Petitioning Groups - Now 9 (+2) add
For Interest Groups - Now 9 (0) Delete the two that became Petitioning Groups and add
Naraht 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
New list as of November 14, 2007 Petition Groups:11
Interest Groups:15 (incorrectly stated as 13)
Naraht 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Changes as of January 27, 2008 Petitioning Groups: Now 14 (+3)
Add
Drop
Interest Groups: Now 16 (+1)
Add
Drop
Naraht ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was delisted, see the article history template for a link to the discussion. Quadzilla99 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A note was left on my talk page requesting further comment on this article's recent delisting, especially with regards to its level of referencing. Also, the above comment by Justinm1978 disturbs me. I made the comment requesting external sources, and am requesting a retraction of the above accuation. I made the comment in good faith in the interest of seeing this article improved to the point where it CAN be a good article. Blatant accusations of bad faith, where there is no evidence to support it, should not be leveled. Please stop with that. One of the central tenets of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Another important tenet is reliability of sources. When you put these two ideas together, there is a key importance that the information in an article is referenced to independant references. References FROM the subject of an organization are a useful and important part of building an article, but where an article lacks ANY independant sources, it can hardly be neutral. Please consider the following quotes from wikipedia guidelines and policies:
These concerns I expressed in the Good Article Review were based on policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and out of a genuine concern that I want this article to be a Good Article some day However, it is clearly NOT THERE YET. Do NOT bandy about accusations of bad faith, especially where none exists.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that lists of APO-USA and APO-PHIL national conventions have recently appeared in the article. This is actually good, but I'm not sure it should go exactly IN this article. Since they're mainly just lists, I think it might be better to add them to a separate, linked page. Perhaps, we might also want to add a short paragraph or so into a section in this article, telling people about the significance of national conventions to the fraternity, since non-members reading this will probably not know what their significance is; then, this new section could link to the separate page with the lists of conventions.
I'm also thinking that we might want to put the lists of national presidents on a separate page as well; the templates at the bottom are a bit awkward to read, and could probably be better organized as a sequential list on another page. Dr. Cash 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I went in and added links for all the convention cities for every year. I realize that there was one link present in the list for each city, but I thought it looked uneven and weird. Henrymrx 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The secretary at the APO National Office said that the colors were pms 286 and pms 1253 and included the RGB values. Naraht 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following information recently added to the 'gender' section:
Other than the first sentence, I fail to see either (a) it's significance, or (b) exactly what it has to do with the topic. Plus, it has no source.
Not sure who added it; arin.net whois lookup indicates that 24.159.34.136 is a subscriber of Charter Communications somewhere in Tennessee. Dr. Cash 06:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This was put in from an alumni. In the 70's and later (to present time). The addition of women of women was a large fight. After Zeta's proposal (came shortly after Zeta's proposal that the fraternity actively oppose the Viet Nam War) for women, Zeta was the first and only chapter to have a motion to have them removed from the fraternity proposed. Luckily, most chapters realized that the fraternity had to have women members to survive. The chicken ranch doorprize was a not "uncommon" event for the MEN (sic) of the fraternity at that time. Several years ago, Zeta and alumni threatened to the Board to have the tax status of the fraternity removed if coed was not made mandatory. They were reasoned with to wait several years as it would naturally happen. It appears that this is now true. Thus the significance is that the "fraternity" fought the coed issue for many years. Beth should be recognized as being the first member and of having being threatened to be removed from the convention is she appeared. For ref, cf some of Earl's letters. Jrhmdtraum 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
CASH, I note that you are from Tucson. Interesting. That is where I came from. I remember it as a town of 50,000 and when Sears (Wilmont) was on a dirt road way past "the edge of town". You are correct about Beth. She pledged in 1972 as "B" which was approved by Earle Herbert. I would assume that National made her "official" in '75 as Beth. I was gone by then (undergrad and #1 at Zeta -- we did not use president, etc). Ref " http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/clearinghouse/misc_2004_zukowski_womeninAPO.pdf", however, Zeta's records show her date of pledge (and $ being accepted by National) as before that of Judy Mitchell and Maryilyn Tschinski) As noted, in '70 we (Larry Quan) introduced a motion that The Fraternity sign an anti-Vietnam statement. That raised the ire of "the fraternity" against those liberal Californians. Then when we made the motion in '72 for coed, a sizable number of the fraternity (led as you can guess by Texas) tried to get Zeta expelled. In 74" women were allowed as associate members and in '76 as full members with the "gentleman's agreement" (it was actually part of the vote) that only NEW chapters HAD to be coed. Title 9 was used as reasoning, but was vague enough that it did not force the chapter rights. About 10 years ago, Zeta alumni who were involved in the previous fight with Zeta tried to get the Board of Directors to use their power to "override" the National and force the issue. Tax attorneys were consulted by both us and the BOD (this will be in National's minutes). The agreement was to give it several more years to work itself out and if it did not, the Board would act -- which as you know they did several years ago.
The chicked ranch as I am sure you are aware is a famous whore house in Vegas. There was a regional meeting there in 72 or 73 where the door prize was a visit there. This was specifically done by UC Davis against Zeta. It was condoned by the National when Zeta complained.
All of this is relevant to the history as many feel that the coed issue was not hard. Many chapters threatened to form another fraternity in '76 if the agreement had not been made. They still felt that way in the early 2000s. Several female members were not allowed to join new chapters when they transferred schools. I feel that the work the Zeta and others did to fight this and make it the great fraternity it is today (with obvious continued fighting the traditions of a few) should be known. Jrhmdtraum 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The vandilism by Justinm and Nat need to STOP. You are young members who don't know the whole history of the fraternity. It is a great organization and I was life member way before you and advisor, etc. HOWEVER< the bad history of the fraternity also needs to be told. The fact that several chapters still refuse to go coed (I think that you might have been one?) and that chapters used whore houses as Door Prizes needs to be told. Do not neglect the past as it might happen in the future. Ref can be to the National or Zeta history or Earles notes. Jrhmdtraum 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is quite fascinating information, and I'm certainly not one to discredit it. I'm not sure of the best way to verify this, other than by a personal account. Maybe the national history book mentions this (though I don't have a copy personally, it is certainly a reliable source). If Zeta chapter's history were online and we could check it, it would certainly be verifiable (though the Zeta chapter website, as linked to from www.apo.org, is a 404 not found). Some information on women in APO is available at this reference, in the Leadership Resources Clearinghouse (as the clearinghouse is part of apo.org, it meets the WP:RS guidelines, IMHO. Though that document doesn't really talk specifically about Zeta chapter, it does mention that women were initiated "illegally" in the early years.
This debated information does seem to focus more on Zeta chapter than the fraternity as a whole, so I'm not sure how important it would be. I think, for one, if we do mention it, certainly we should be able to find information about other chapters that were involved in this process (Zeta is only one chapter among many). But I don't think we should just write the issue off; if this really is a truly NPOV encyclopedia, we should be focused on improving the article from ALL points of view, and talk pages are meant for research and discussing issues with the article. Dr. Cash 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Citations are interesting. T&T which is used alot here would not be allowed as a "scientific" verification as it is usually just one reporter's writing. The true value of kikipedia for "living" organizations is that "living" members can add to it as the source. Cash wonders about Zeta/ As #1 (president for the rest of you) of Zeta during this time period, I can tell you that while a number of chapters suppported us at the National, no other chapter came out with the proposal or had other chapters threaten them. As to B Hesselmyer, my source is past National president Earle Herbert. Yes there might have been previous "illegals", but to his and my knowledge, she was the first that the national accepted moneys from. The initial was looked at because of this sex issue. With Earles help and that of other past national presidents from zeta, we got it by. I have not gone to a National for awhile, but the last ones in the late 90s were strife with the coed issue. I believe that others need to know this history of our fraternity and know that there are still a sizable number of "brothers" who feel that chapters should have the right to do as they believe.
As for sources if "personal communication" is not good enough for you (it is for scientific articles), the national archives should have most of the notes on the above. Jrhmdtraum 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, why would Board superseding the National convention violate WP as would "long road"? Both are true and correct. National refused to force the issue until the Board forced the issue. We will not mention the legal reasons nor Stanford's Law Professors willingness to help force the issue nor National's lawyers telling them that it had to be done for Title IX reasons among any others. The fact remains that it has been "a long road" and that the Board did supersede National in using its powers.
The Wiki policy of "ref" material is correct when you are writing about Dead issues, eg The War of Northern Aggression. However, for live material "personal communication" is also correct. Using the T&T as a ref when there is no basis for its writing is not correct and newspaper articles without ref are not WA correct either. We are using wiki to write textbooks of surgery based on writers experiance. It is great. As is this section. T&T is not a "verified" source as defined by WA - yet you all continue to use it??? Jrhmdtraum 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki guidelines are that material must yield to consensus. This is vague definition as it can relate to "the truth" of the article or "the relevance". From reading the above comments, it is my opinion that most of the disagreement comes from the wording. I have thus reworded by comments and edited some already written. As to referance, I have used "personal communication" which is a valid ref foe peer reviewed scientific journals which the Kikipedia guidelines rate as the best type of ref. In disagreement with Derek, The T&T is not really a "reliable source" as the articles within are not peer reviewed nor referenced. ALL jounals are "edited". The articles are simply that of the author based on information she/he obtained.
Justinm, I hear your comment. Based on information that I was given by Earle, Beth was the first female whom the fraternity "collected" money from. Due to the boxes of "cuss mail" that I and Larry Quan received after we proposed in '70 that the fraternity go coed and oppose the Viet Nam war and the motion at National that Zeta be withdrawn from the fraternity, I THINK that we were the first. HOWEVER, as we were not voted out and as the following years the motion did partially carry, their must have been other chapters who felt the same - perhaps just not so out-spoken. Thus, I believe my current comments related to that. Whether the Chicken Shak was a "prank"? U Davis knew we had female members coming to the meeting and we took it as an insult and did not go. However, you are correct, it belongs here in the discussion and not on the page Jrhmdtraum 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Justinm. Nice edit. Good compromising. However, I added back the threat of law suit. Readers need to know that the National Conferences would not have gone coed for quite awhile due to the threats of succession. If you have been to a National, then you will know exactly what I am talking about. The threat of suit was by myself, Stanford University and others. Title IX forbids the use of federal moneyes (ie any building on any university) for organization who are not "open". In addition, the tax-exempt status of the fraternity would be lost. cf Bylaws: There shall be a National Board of Directors which shall be the governing body of the Fraternity between National Conventions, with power to act on all matters for the best interests of the Fraternity, consistent with the provisions of these Bylaws. For further referance, you can ask for copies of the minutes of the pertinent Board meetings. I am a life member and value the fraternity. However, I believe that future members need to know the history and that it was not "all gold". I also think someone (perhaps you if you are interested in history) should look up the problems some of the southern chapters had with black members. I cannot add this as it would only be heremsay for me. However, it is my understanding that blacks were excluded early on, too. Jrhmdtraum 11:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)•
Jumping in with both feet here. (I've been in a situation where I was able to read the comments, but not edit there) There may be enough information here for a Women in Alpha Phi Omega article. This could start with the current entries in the Pledge Manual and the National History book.
Having read through Title IX and some of its case law, I fail to see how Stanford University has standing (in a legal sense) in such a lawsuit. The university has a much simpler way to eliminate its own exposure to violating Title IX (if it thought it was doing so), by denying recognition to Zeta chapter. If the University as a legal entity threatened a legal suit, this should be in the minutes of the Board of Directors. As a brother of the Fraternity, yes, you do have standing.
As for the possibility of losing its tax exempt status, I have never heard of that. Given that most of the single-gendered Social Fraternities and Sororities are just as tax-exempt as Alpha Phi Omega, I'm not sure how that would have been an effect. Most other greek letter organizations (both co-ed and single gender social) are 501(c)7 (Social Clubs). Alpha Phi Omega is 501(c)3 (charitable organization), but this has to do with our historical tie to the Boy Scouts of America. (We received 501(c)3 standing back in the 1930s, when were close to a de facto BSA subsidiary)
The National History book does mention that an effort to add Women as auxiliary members failed in 1972 (it got a majority, but not the needed two-thirds.) That should probably be included.
As for blacks, consider the following. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at schools that did not allow blacks, most certainly, my completely off the cuff guess is 30-40. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at Negro (and I use that term as relevant for the time) schools, yes.
The fraternity had only two chapters in the South (Auburn & UVA) when Harold Roe Bartle became National President. Given his opinion on the Klan (as referenced in his Wikipedia article), I doubt that his beliefs went in the direction of white supremacy. Delta Phi @ Johnson C. Smith University chartered in 1946(7?) (I have an electronic copy of the T&T announcing their chartering at work). Given that this was *years* before the large majority of the NIC Social Fraternities did so, I'll at least give Alpha Phi Omega, some credit.
Jrhmdtraum: Yes, as far as I can tell, you became a brother prior to anyone else who has posted here, but the brothers posting are not all wide-eyed undergraduates who believe that Alpha Phi Omega's history consists exactly of what is mentioned in what you seem to believe is a completely white-washed version of the National Pledge Manual. I pledged in 1986 at a chapter (Kappa @ Carnegie-Mellon) that allowed Female brothers prior to 1974 and during my entire time as an undergraduate refused to work with the all-male chapter (Pi Chi @ Duquesne) in our city. I have been a fraternity staffer for all but 4 months that I have been an alumnus and have been on National History and Archives Committee for the last four years. (To give you an idea of lack of wide-eyedness, I consider the first sentence of the "Story behind the Founding" to be true only on a technicality)
An in regard to the personal communication entries in the Notable, would you cease to attempt to add un verifiable content if those were removed? Naraht 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As a female at Mu Alpha, I too, have heard of the threatened lawsuits. I believe it should stay. It is verifiable by minutes of the the past BOD minutes for the past 10 years. (or a simple phone call) MUGIRL 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets follow logic. The only reason that the Board CAN defy the National in between national conferances is for a major problem. I think that we will all agree that the "gentleman's agreement" was done to keep some of the chapters from leaving. I think that we will all agree that following conventions did not remove that for the same reasoning. It was voted down again in 2004. Thus, there had to be a good reason for the Board to go against the National in 2006. I would propose that personal communication be used as a source and the site NOT be changed unless someone can find evidence AGAINST the prosposed change. The fact that you have never heard of it and one brother states that he was involved and knows it to be fact makes we weigh for the brother that states it as a fact and not against it just because I never heard of it. MUGIRL 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well Some believe you are wrong. As others have stated, a personal communication which jrh.. gave is an acceptable WP source. If you are going to challenge it, you thus need to find another source. If JRH... states that he was part of the process, than we should assume that is correct. Unless you are a Delta or ..Theta from Cremson and want to push the other side. As a woman I am proud of this organization and appreciate the fight that others have done. I am however, embarrassed that there are those who still want to keep it an ole boys club. You Henry have the burden against you. As noted, the source is acceptable to WP and it should stand. If not, then I for one do not want to have anything more to do with your "ole boys" site. MUGIRL 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Stanford law profs volunteered as I knew them and asked them. While Zeta was coed, the National was defacto not and this could have been argued that they could not meet on areas that received federal money. 2) Sorry, it is not conjecture as "I was there". Therefore "personal communication" is a valid footnote. I have emailed Roger Sherwood for his "pc" too. 3) The vote that changed the bylaws had the provison that current chapters did not have to change. However, I did argue to the Board that "as written", the ByLaws stated differently. This was brought to National several times and "did not fly". The Board doed have the power to make changes (forget the exact wording) when the bylaws, etc deviate from University, State or Federal Laws. 4) I am putting the comment back in. Unless you have some ref to negate my response, by Wiki protocal, you are guilty of Vandelism if you remove it and will so be reported to Wiki and your rights to post removed. Even Cash (and I believe he may be the best "expert") that "pc" is allowable when it is the only source. Jrhmdtraum 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. I need help. I cannot figure out how to "add a reference". I know I did it wrong. Thanks. As per [WP:PSTS] I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication. As noted, the only other verification will be other "PC" and I will try to obtain that. But, unless some verifiction to the contrary is suggested, it meets WP rules and regs.(also WP: COS). Thanks Jrhmdtraum 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Justinm, you have been reported to wiki for vandelism. Do NOT reverse it again. To be honest, I really don't care about YOUR interpretation of WP:PSTS; the definition is as an eyewitness which I was. I don't know about you, but I joined APO after being an Eagle and having a full Eagle Scout scholarship to Stanford for 4 years. My word still means something and I don't appreciate your challenge. (Yes I am taking it personally). If you can find some evidence to refute my memory, please try to do so; until then it meets verification and LEAVE IT ALONE> Jrhmdtraum 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Jrhmdtraum, please read the Vandalism page again. What Justinm has done falls into *none* of the categories of what is considered. The only category it does seem to fall into is stubbornness, which is *not* vandalism. Naraht 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is has he has been "warned" to be neutral and not to continue to refuse that the fraternity's history is other than roses. It is refusing to follow verifiable source work and thus if falls under vandilism. Jrhmdtraum 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot the Level 2 OA. How it got paid makes no diff, what does is the challenge to the verification.--- which he also did to mugirle Jrhmdtraum 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree and I did not state they were. However, How did they vote? Jrhmdtraum 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Then in what way do you think he challenged mugirl? How did who vote? Naraht 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The 1/4 chapters who did not vote to force the coed issue (to leave "chapter rights") were as "prejudiced" as those who wanted to keep all-male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Justine, your repeated undo shows that you are not "neutral". My question is to why? My comment re: "no one is from an "all-male" chapter" statement from Naraht is my belief that not fighting predudice is the same as having it. You remind me of some of the comments of Neurenburg trials of "we did not support killing of jews". You will recall that the Courts response was " you did not stop it either". If you went to any of the National Conventions with the discussions on women, you would have known that comments were much more caustis than mine. Jrhmdtraum 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I see the following as verifiable primary sources for the issues of Gender in the Fraternity.
As Secondary sources (to be used if they do not conflict with primary)
I'd like to propose the following addition/change to the gender section. In place of
In the early 1970's, co-ed membership was proposed by several chapters but failed to reach the two-thirds majority support at the National Conventions which was required to alter the organization's bylaws.
it is proposed.
At the 1972 Convention, delegates for the first time considered a proposal to admit women to the Fraternity as affiliate members. While this amendment was supported by a majority of the delegates, it did not receive the three quarters necessary to pass. A resolution was passed to encourage and expedite the involvement of women in Fraternity affairs. <ref>Alpha Phi Omega History Book (1925-1993) p.28</ref>. Earlier that year, the National Board of Directors had taken action "[u]nanimously recommending a serious consideration of the participation and status of women in the work of the Fraternity, both as members and advisors."<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040529180920/www.apo.org/organization/nation/board/minutes/19720225.shtml Alpha Phi Omega Board Meeting Minutes 25-26 February 1972]</ref>
I don't know why it said two thirds was said before, but we current require three quarters to amend and the history book says three quarters was also true then. Naraht 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It did not pass - whether 2/3 or 3/4. Jrhmdtraum 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It went to the "floor" at most of these. About 4 - 6 years ago, there was a major discussion of the topic. YOU need to look at some data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.122.232 ( talk) 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Jrhmdtraum, your behavior on this page continues to be unacceptable.
You have made accusations of vandalism without basis. None of the edits or reverts that you state are “vandalism” violate WP:Vandalism as they are good faith edits.
You have continuously failed to provide sources. WP:V states that “...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source...”, yet you have failed to provide a source when the material was removed and you simply readded it, unsourced.
You have repeatedly raised irrelevant points. Whether something would be acceptable in another format (such as a scientific journal) has no bearing here. We must follow Wikipedia’s policies. Also, your accomplishments or experience (noble and commendable as they are) are not relevant and do not serve to elevate your opinion above anyone else’s. I could cite to you a litany of APO positions, accolades, awards and honors that have been heaped upon several of the editors here, but it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion.
You have incorrectly cited Wikipedia policies. You have made a number of claims about Wikipedia’s policies that are simply not correct. For example, you stated that “...per WP:PSTS I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication.” This is not correct. You read the part about the eyewitness accounts but then you ignored the part where it says “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used...” and also “Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.” Your account would be fine if it was published somewhere. If it was, please cite it. You also use WP:COS to justify citing yourself, but again this refers to citing published sources; furthermore, it specifically forbids editors “drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.”
You have not assumed good faith. You have accused a number of editors here of trying to hide or cover up the fraternity’s history. This violates WP:AGF. No one here wants to whitewash anything. That being said, we need to find a way to document this chapter of Alpha Phi Omega’s history using cited sources. I think many people here are still willing to work with you, but your unproductive behavior has to stop.
You have violated the three revert rule at least twice. This alone is enough to get your account temporarily blocked. You have been tolerated here to the extent that you have been because you claim to be a Brother and we, in good faith, without any verification, believe you. And that brings me to my final point.
Your behavior is un-Brotherly. Your accusations, your belligerance, your ignoring of our legitimate points and your refusal to assume good faith are all, in this Brother’s opinion, behavior which is not fitting of a Brother of Alpha Phi Omega. This is made especially more grievous since your behavior has been directed at fellow Brothers. I realize that this isn’t totally relevant, as this is not APO’s site, but I think it needed to be said.
Henrymrx 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hen: you need to reread the wiki documents. Eyewitness does NOT have to be published. It can be verified by other sources (others on the Board at that time). Personal communication meets the WT:PSTS and COS policy. Even Cass believes so. It has also been confirmed by another brother (MUGirl). Yes I believe that a number of editors are trying to whitewash the history. As mine has been been verified by Wiki standards, Just has violoated the three reverts as he has no claims to back him up except his beliefs. The only reasons that I can explain is his lack of good faith Jrhmdtraum 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to go to mediation as your actions to me and others do show that you only wish "happy days" to show. Your undo are also very disruptive as you do not "own" this page. Jrhmdtraum 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A vote would apparently not be acceptable to Jrhmdtraum because there have only been two users who support his changes: himself and mugirl. At minimum, Justinm1978, Henrymrx, Dr. Cash (Derek Cashman), Bornyesterday and myself(Naraht) have found many of his proposed changes to be inappropriate in some (or many) ways. Naraht 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are NOT trying to white wash the bad part of the fraternity's history, then I suggest instead of "deleting", you make some suggestions how to record the fact that just about every National Convention voted down changes in the bylaws forcing mandatory equality until the Board forced the issue. I agreed to some compromises by Justin and Cash. I do not agree to removing this part of the history. Jrhmdtraum 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Henry, If you were there, you do know that it was discussed on the floor at most of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean exactly that the issue to change the bylaws to ALL chapters was discussed. If you had attended more than one of the conventions in the past 20 years, you would also be able to verify it yourself. Jrhmdtraum 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets see. The edit of the article by 172.164.122.232 just happens to be someone who continues the argument on jdhmdtraum's side without missing a beat. The edit from 66.168.81.139 is from Charter Communications KNGPT-TN-66-168-80, which happens to be the same company and city where the original edit that started this entire things is from. Naraht 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The edit of 66... is me, sorry I forgot to sign in. I would argue that Naraht and Justin have said the exact same thing with almost same semtax???? Jrhmdtraum 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
About as funny as my being in DC and Tenn Jrhmdtraum 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected, in lieu of blocking nearly everyone involved. This is not an endorsement of the current version. Work out your differences on the talk page, and don't edit war. -- Haemo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that one year it did not get out of committee. But it was still voted down. Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) The point is it was discussed at somewhere between the majority and most and voted down at all. Some it did not get out of committee because of the bitterness of the debate. If you or your wife were there in '98 (which I think was one of the real bitter debates, you will remember. Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, had to correct something I wrote. Henrymrx 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Haemo. I was at or was involved with chapter discussions re proposals at 78, 80 84 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 2002, 2004 and their was heavy discussion re it. Some might not have made it out of committee (which legislatively is the same as not being passed). The reasoning for all was the heavy thoughts of the all - male and their threat to succeed. At least 10 of 16 conventions and I am pretty sure it was proposed for the remainder. It did make the floor in the late 90s and as Henry will attest (I think) there was much bitter debate.
Justin, you seem to have the Board justification, post it.
I have written to several past and present members of the board for verification (or not). I cannot find the legal advisor's email address. Does anyone know it? Jrhmdtraum
As I noted, I have no problems with "better editing" if you wish. What I do have problems with the the pollyanna approach that the bitter debates never happened. Jrhmdtraum 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) It would also be interesting to have one of you history buffs research the colored issue. Earle was my mentor and we discussed the coed issue repeately with his thoughts that 'like the colored issue before, the fraternity would grow out of this problem'. He did turn out to be correct. Jrhmdtraum 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: At the 1976 National Convention, women were allowed in the fraternity in all new chapters with the agreement that current chapters, that wished, could stay all-male. This vote is widely thought to have saved the fraternity. This "gentleman's agreement" was made to keep these chapters from seceding. This topic was brought up at multiple future conventions with bitter debate and all propositions again defeated. Finally, in 2006, the Board of Directors used their emergency powers to override the gentleman's agreement of 1976 to force all chapters to go coed. This was done as not only was it "correct" but there was also fear of violating Title IX. Jrhmdtraum 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the Fraternity, one means the National Organization. While not in the majority (at least in 76) I for one think we would be better off wtihout HBCU,etc. Prejudice in any form should never be tolerated! (ref Joe Scanlon) Jrhmdtraum 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Also from personal communication Roger Sherwood: John,
I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternity Jrhmdtraum 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Justin, See below. The "gentleman's agreement was voted on by National Convention and thus part of bylaws and was thus was overruled by the Board. Jrhmdtraum 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all can everyone please stop adding comments in the middle of sections without indenting them? It makes the threads hard to follow. Let me clarify. I'm not just saying that there was no floor discussion about this in 1992, 1994 and 2000. I am saying there was no proposal whatsoever, not even in committee. It is possible that something got proposed in New Business after I left the Convention in 1992, but that would have been immediately ruled out of order due to the 90 days notice rule. Such an incident would probably not even make the minutes. Henrymrx 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok:
1)
I just received the following from Roger Sherwood by email (is that personal communication ok)
." What we did in 1976 was to change the bylaws to make it possible for chapters to admit women as members. What may be referred to as the agreement was that the amendment did not require chapters to admit women, so those who wanted to remain all male could do so without violating the bylaws. We very carefully pointed that out, and those who wanted to remain all male did so until the forces of change caught up with them. Per Roger Sherwood 9/12/07.
2)
Per the T&T:
Winter 97 Board minutes: “appointed a committee to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing all-male chapters at co-ed institutions to remain all-male and, based on the committee findings, submit the relevant legislation to the 1998 National Convention. T&T Spring 97
July 98 Board meeting: Determined to encourage all chapters to make membership ..available to all students regardless of gender on their campuses. T&T Fall ‘98
Convention minutes 1998: The fraternity continues to encourage all Chapters and petitioning groups to open their membership to all students. All Chapters..have the right to choose their own members using …policies that are consistent with the Fraternity’s governing documents, the rules of the host institutions that they serve and the traditions of that Chapter. Single-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational. T&T Winter/spring 1999
Note that the "Gentleman's Agreement" was solidified at this convention. It is my memory that it was in '76, but I gave you Roger Sherwood's account above. Jrhmdtraum 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
' 'Boy Justin, you are hard headed. Look at the T&T that I referanced above. In the printed minutes of the '98 convention, it states xtSingle-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational. T&T Winter/spring 1999. That is the gentleman's agreement. [[ Jrhmdtraum 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
July 2005 Board: …The actions of the 1976 and 1998 National Conventions have attempted to clarify the Fraternity’s open membership policy…The National Board is charged with…enforcing the membership policies of the Fraternity as well as ensuring compliance with applicable laws…UPON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, all chapters must practice open membership without regard of gender…T$T fall 2005
July 2006 Board: Board of Directors proposed a Diversity Resolution to the 2006 National Convention. 2006 Convention adopts and will have transition committee make recommendations
From pledge manual: In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Title IX Federal Higher Education Act, which denies federal funding support to institutions that allow organizations with restricted membership. Many campuses felt that service organizations like the all-male Alpha Phi Omega and all-female Gamma Sigma Sigma were in violation of Title IX; Chapters located on these colleges and universities were in danger of losing their recognition if they did not become coeducational….
Note the "per legal advice" and title IX confirmation of my statements.
3) In regards to "saving the fraternity": Our most recent 25 years. 75th Anniversary Countdown by Wilfred M. Krenek, 75th Anniversary Chair. The Fraternity was going through turmoil…declining membership. However a major decision by the voting delegates to the 1976 National Convention was going to radically change that. Full membership for women “become” (sic) a reality, which began a growth cycle for the Fraternity. T&T Fall 2000
In 1976…women became full members in the Fraternity. In the next 10 year period, the number of pledges increased by 86% and active members by 32% with the number of Chapters decreased by 14% T&T Winter ’95. A message from the National President, Wilfred Krenek.
From Pledge manual: Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter. In 1977, membership was up by 21%, and by 1978, 40% of the Chapters in the United States registered women as official members.
Thus most agree that membership was rapidly declining and had the Fraternity NOT been opened, it would have died. 4)
Further, for your information from the pledge manual: Joseph Scanlon, then National Executive Director, wrote an editorial in a 1970 Torch & Trefoil, entitled "Why Discriminate Because of Sex?" In this editorial, Brother Scanlon wrote, "Forty-five years ago Alpha Phi Omega dared to differ with the times. It set out to prove an organization committed to Service, opposed to membership discrimination because of race, creed, color, economic status or national origin, could exist on college campuses. … From the beginning, the Fraternity insisted that membership must be inclusive and it is, but not totally so. Women are excluded from active membership. This exclusion based on sex is justly questioned. … Con[vention] '70 delegates have the power to change all this." But, the amendment to the National Bylaws that would open membership to women did not pass at the 1970 National Convention. And at the 1972 National Convention, even affiliate membership for women was defeated, despite the recommendation by the National Board of Directors that women be allowed full member-ship. Women were allowed to be associate members if they were advisors to a Chapter, but they were not allowed to undergo the membership rituals, and undergraduate students were not allowed to be advisors. It was not until 1974 that affiliate membership for women was approved by the National Convention. Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter Jrhmdtraum 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Justine and Naracht: I quote Roger Sherwood who was executive director; "I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternity" I don't know how much more of an "expert opinion" you want. The history shows that membership was drastically dropping. It SAVED THE FRATERNITY.[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ps Justin: If your wife is a brother as it sounds -- then maybe you should thank some of us old farts that fought to allow her to be a brother so that you could meet so that marriage.... Jrhmdtraum 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Prior to 1974, affiliate membership was NOT allowed, in fact it was voted down in 1972[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In 1972, less than half voted for women. Affiliate membership was voted down. Jrhmdtraum 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That is my whole point for the additions Naraht. You younger guys see women membership as a "done" deal. It was not and the fights in the 70s were HUGE. If you made the '98 convention, you saw some of it for total coed. I think that this history needs to be told [[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, on a slightly different note, does anyone have any verifiable information on when Chartering groups had to be co-ed? I think it was about 1986, since I've heard that the rechartering of Zeta Phi in 1986 included only men?
Naraht
02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some quick guidelines for this discussion to help it stay clear. If you are responding to someone, please indent your paragraphs by using the colon (:)character at the beginning of each paragraph. 1 colon per level of indentation. Please just append your response to the end of the section with the proper number of indentations so that the discussion doesn't get jumbled. And try to remember to sign your comments with four tildas (~).
Below is the current text of the section, with my thoughts inserted in bold, and changes in italics.
Ok, I hope that is readable. I hope that serves as a strong starting point for us. While I find Jhrmdtraum's information about the role Zeta played in the 1907s valuable, unless we can get more verifiable information other than his own word on the matter (which I do take in good faith), AND unless we can find out what role other chapters may have played in those, and similar, events, it would be egregious on our part to present a distorted/unbalanced picture which makes it seem like Zeta was the only chapter promoting the change to coed status.
In LF&S Bornyesterday 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, couple of comments.
Been out of the country. Hope my addition is refed ok and acceptable ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I should have the remainder of the Themes up within the next couple of days. Both the 75th anniversary CD and the National History book have most of them post WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in Opinions on what I've done with the Conventions, putting them into Sortable Tables (well, I've got the Dates properly sorting, I just have to figure out how to *not* have 10th occur between 1st and 2nd). I've actually gone farther on the APO-Phil table because it take *more* research. Between the APO-USA National History Book and the 75th Anniversary CD, I have the actual dates (not just the year) for everything from 3rd convention on. I wish I knew what the date of the actual meeting for the 2nd National Convention, but I don't have access to the November 1928 Lightbearer. Naraht 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the image of the APO crest was deleted by a copyright nazi, claiming that there was no copyright information on it. This should be addressed. While it is definitely copyrighted, I don't think the national office would have a problem with using the crest on the wikipedia page,... It should also be noted that it was speedily deleted by ElinorD without posting any type of comment to the talk page or nominating it for deletion, which I find to be a rather bold and unacceptable move considering that the image has been on the page for a long time. Usually, wikipedia etiquette calls for information editors on the talk page prior to deleting an image, particularly one that has been posted on a page for a long time - this gives ample time to find the correct copyright tag or permissions. Dr. Cash 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.gmanews. tv/video/ 11505
Hazing of APO Mu Delta Chapter or TIP QC, apparently one of their sis who is a researcher of GMA News approached her brods and asked if she can have an interview with their brods about thier initiation rites. (GMA is doing documentaries about fraternity hazing as an offshoot of the recent death by a neophite of the sigma rho fraternity in U.P.) In the course of the interview, their asked permission to take video shots with the agreement that nothing will be aired on TV. apparently it was shown last saturday in Jessica Sojo Reports and then again the following day in GMA's early evening news 24 Oras.
TIP QC have expelled 23 residents of APO in connection to the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.230 ( talk) 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this section is getting very long, and it's primarily just two lists, one of APO-USA conventions and the other of APO-RP conventions. I think it would be better to move both lists to a separate page (or two separate pages), and focus on a brief description of how the national conventions relate to the respective national organizations of APO, as well as how they relate to ICAPO. Dr. Cash 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Some context defining what a national convention is should be on the main APO page, so a paragraph or two should be there, with the link to the list. The paragraph describing conventions can be identical in both the main article and the list article, but the list article, of course, would have the full list. Dr. Cash 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The national convention lists have now been moved. Dr. Cash 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've finally located Zeta chapter's website. It appears that the issue was the correct website address is not on apo.org since it wasn't entered in a case-sensitive manner. So the correct address to access their chapter website is http://www.stanford.edu/group/APhiO/. The site appears to be active and currently maintained as well, which is good in terms of reliability.
Checking out the 'about us' section, they have a few details that they are claiming regarding their chapter which are rather interesting:
Hope this clarifies a few things mentioned earlier. Dr. Cash 07:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been contemplating some restructuring and organizational changes to this article for awhile. Mainly, much of the content in the article is really history, yet there is no specific 'history' section. The 'background' section really is not appropriate, as basic background information should be covered in the lead. Plus, info there about the founding is historical, and the info on the T&T should be moved to a new section entitled 'publications'. The organizational info in the 'organization' section either deals specifically with the history of the ICAPO or APO-RP, or with the specific organizational structure of APO-USA (not covering the organizational structure of APO-RP at all).
The 'membership requirements' section should be changed to simply, 'membership', and most of the gender info should be moved to a history section, since it's largely history. Although I understand that there were concerns previously about putting this lower in the article to somewhat "hide" it from anonymous editors who might want to vandalize it -- most of that has really calmed down with the decision of the 2006 convention, and that's really not a reason to not put it where it belongs.
I think the article should also have a new section covering 'national programs', similar to the Alpha Phi Alpha article. Some things to cover here are some of the more notable national programs, like APO LEADS, National Service Week, and Spring Youth Service Day, which aren't even mentioned in the article at all. Also, if we can find a good, independent media source for some of these programs, it would help to counter some one of the criticisms of self-referencing brought up in the article's GA delisting (NSW might be the easiest to find here, since it's been around the longest).
What do others think about these suggestions? Dr. Cash 06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest a new section called "National Programs" with subsection for APO LEADS, National Service Week, National Spring Service Day and.... any others? Sure, there are other programs but they may not have much interest for the general public.
Also, I'm going to go ahead and agree that it's time to split off the Filipino stuff. I would rather not, but those of us who maintain this article simply don't have the expertise necessary to expand the article the way it needs and also keep the international scope. Henrymrx 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have placed the contents of the "Story of Inclusion of Women" in Alpha Phi Omega on the the 75th anniversary CD on a sandbox page User:Naraht/WomenInclusion. I see two possibilities here. First, that the article be combed for facts to be added to the Alpha Phi Omega page or second, that it become the basis after being rephrased for a separate Alpha Phi Omega Gender article. Note, this isn't entirely cleaned up since I had to take cut it from the source file and the quotes are goofy. Ideas? Naraht 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
At this point in the article our two significant changes in membership are dealt with *completely* differently. The admission of women is now up in history and is four or five times the size of the admission of non-scouting men, which is still down in membership. I would like to see the two in the same place *and* I would like to see the two equalled in size by moving a significant amount of the information about the admission of women into its own article along with what is in the sandbox page User:Naraht/WomenInclusion. Naraht 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The following list of Filipino Colleges and Universities was added to the article. I've moved it here.
- University Belt Association (UBA) 1. Alpha - Far Eastern University (FEU) 2. Beta - National Universtity (NU) 3. Delta - Mapua Institute of the Technology (MIT) 4. Epsilon - University of the East (UE) 5. Iota - Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI) 6. Kappa - Guzman Institute of Technology 7. Mu - Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU) 8. Pi - University of Santo Tomas (UST) 9. Sigma - Adamson University (AdU) 10. Tau - University of Manila 11. Upsilon - Philippine College of Criminology 12. Psi - Centro Escolar University (CEU) 13. Omega - Feati University 14. Alpha Delta - San Sebastian College 15. Alpha Epsilon - Technological Univ. of the Phils (TUP) 16. Alpha Eta - Philippine School of Buss. Admin. (PSBA) 17. Alpha Theta - Lyceum of the Philippines 18. Alpha Lambda - Technological Institute of the Phils. (TIP) 19. Beta Sigma - San Beda College 20. Beta Tau - Arellano University 21. Gamma Epsilon - De La Salle University (DLSU) 22. Gamma Iota - Philippines Christian University(PCU) 23. Delta Beta - Gen Emilio Aguinaldo College (EAC) 24. Epsilon Beta - Perpetual Help College 25. Eta Kappa - Colegio de San Juan de Letran (CSJL) 26. Iota Eta - University of the Philippines, Manila (UP-Manila) 27. Iota Psi - Arellano Law School 28. Kappa Alpha - Pamantasang Lungsod Ng Maynila (PLM)
I'm fairly certain that this is not by any means a complete list of chapters in the Phillipines. Can someone tell me the relevance of this list then? Henrymrx ( talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking for better numbers for APO-Phil chapters. I'm not really sure where the number 250 came from, but the change to 326 didn't have any references. From the sources for lists of chapters that I've found on the net, one goes up to Lambda Phi, another to Lambda Beta and a third to Lambda Iota. Given that they overlap, I trust that APO-Phil Lambda Phi does exist (it gives a school name for that and the previous), so I think this shows that APO-Phil does have any least the 264 charters that Lambda Phi indicates. I don't know if we have *any* sources on the number of chapters that are active. For the purposes of APO-Phil activity, I believe that the only logical way to count is those charters were either the Fraternity chapter or the Sorority chapters is active. Note I also updated the charters for APO-USA to 735, the most recent is Alpha Zeta Omicron. Naraht ( talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently came across two articles mentioning an ‘Alpha Phi Omega Forensic Society’, which was a debate team at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, back in the 1930s. The stories seem to be related to a new movie coming out on Christmas, “The Great Debaters,” directed by & starring Denzel Washington, and produced by Oprah Winfrey. So I suspect we might see more hits in the APO news feeds based on this,…
I don’t think the forensic society has anything to do with the fraternity, however. There is a charter at Wiley College, though: Kappa Pi, chartered on 5/18/1952, about two decades after the forensic society. The chapter is currently inactive. Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page shows an APO chapter at a university in Australia. If legit, the article should be expanded to cover. Someone should probably contact National or International and ask. If not legit, I'm sure they'll take proper steps. GRBerry 22:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
We now support diversity per the 2006 national convention. Woot!! 129.2.175.110 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the national director, board members, and region directors be included in the article? They play a large part in the fraternity and it could expand the information available on wikipedia. I am personally partial to Mike "Spreeeeeeeee" Haber, Region 2 director, and would like to see him and other region directors listed on the article. 72.226.238.186 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Matthew Mosesohn, Xi Zeta chapter, 26 Feb 07
Gamma (Cornell) and Delta (Auburn) have gone back and forth for years about which one has been active longer. (Alpha is currently inactive and Beta was inactive for many years). I'm just not sure that fact is significant enough for the Wikipedia page. Note that the person who added the fact that Gamma was the longest continually active chapter came from an IP address at Cornell. Naraht 11:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for good article status, based on Justinm1978's recommendations (see history of this page). Wish it luck! Dr. Cash 17:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to keep GA status, find more inline citations (refs), otherwise I can almost guarantee one day someone will come along and submit it to WP:GA/R. Rlevse 10:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Should we use the APO abbreviation at all in the article (other than explaining that it is a common abbreviation)? Naraht 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to the isse of "Torch & Trefoil" mentioned as a source?
The trefoil is not a symbol of scouting, but of guiding. The Girl Guides are a sister movement to the Scouts, even though in many countries scouting is now coed, in some others scout and guide associations merged.. and in some countries (such as the USA) the local guiding association calls themselves "Girl Scouts".
Therefore, the origin of the Trefoil might be something else...
-- Lou Crazy 01:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do have access to it. Volume 10, No. 1 (May 1935).Page 3 Column 3
Title: Debut of the Torch and Trefoil
With this edition the magazine of Alpha Phi Omega takes its new name, "Torch and Trefoil." This new name for our publication was derived by the Fifth Biennial National Convention with the belief that it carries much more signficance than did our former name, the "Lightbearer". The "Torch" is the emblem of Education; the "Trefoil" is the emblem of Scouting. Alpha Phi Omega brings together Education and Scouting, hence the significance of this new name for our magazine.
(There is a second paragraph in that article, but not relevant to the source of the name.) Naraht 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Number of active chapters 371. School (Region/Section)
Petition Groups:7
Interest Groups: 9
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
Changes as of August 7, 2007
Active chapters 361 (-10 from before)
For Petitioning Groups - Now 9 (+2) add
For Interest Groups - Now 9 (0) Delete the two that became Petitioning Groups and add
Naraht 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
New list as of November 14, 2007 Petition Groups:11
Interest Groups:15 (incorrectly stated as 13)
Naraht 19:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Changes as of January 27, 2008 Petitioning Groups: Now 14 (+3)
Add
Drop
Interest Groups: Now 16 (+1)
Add
Drop
Naraht ( talk) 10:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The article was delisted, see the article history template for a link to the discussion. Quadzilla99 17:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
A note was left on my talk page requesting further comment on this article's recent delisting, especially with regards to its level of referencing. Also, the above comment by Justinm1978 disturbs me. I made the comment requesting external sources, and am requesting a retraction of the above accuation. I made the comment in good faith in the interest of seeing this article improved to the point where it CAN be a good article. Blatant accusations of bad faith, where there is no evidence to support it, should not be leveled. Please stop with that. One of the central tenets of Wikipedia is the neutral point of view. Another important tenet is reliability of sources. When you put these two ideas together, there is a key importance that the information in an article is referenced to independant references. References FROM the subject of an organization are a useful and important part of building an article, but where an article lacks ANY independant sources, it can hardly be neutral. Please consider the following quotes from wikipedia guidelines and policies:
These concerns I expressed in the Good Article Review were based on policies and guidelines of wikipedia, and out of a genuine concern that I want this article to be a Good Article some day However, it is clearly NOT THERE YET. Do NOT bandy about accusations of bad faith, especially where none exists.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I see that lists of APO-USA and APO-PHIL national conventions have recently appeared in the article. This is actually good, but I'm not sure it should go exactly IN this article. Since they're mainly just lists, I think it might be better to add them to a separate, linked page. Perhaps, we might also want to add a short paragraph or so into a section in this article, telling people about the significance of national conventions to the fraternity, since non-members reading this will probably not know what their significance is; then, this new section could link to the separate page with the lists of conventions.
I'm also thinking that we might want to put the lists of national presidents on a separate page as well; the templates at the bottom are a bit awkward to read, and could probably be better organized as a sequential list on another page. Dr. Cash 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I went in and added links for all the convention cities for every year. I realize that there was one link present in the list for each city, but I thought it looked uneven and weird. Henrymrx 18:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The secretary at the APO National Office said that the colors were pms 286 and pms 1253 and included the RGB values. Naraht 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following information recently added to the 'gender' section:
Other than the first sentence, I fail to see either (a) it's significance, or (b) exactly what it has to do with the topic. Plus, it has no source.
Not sure who added it; arin.net whois lookup indicates that 24.159.34.136 is a subscriber of Charter Communications somewhere in Tennessee. Dr. Cash 06:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This was put in from an alumni. In the 70's and later (to present time). The addition of women of women was a large fight. After Zeta's proposal (came shortly after Zeta's proposal that the fraternity actively oppose the Viet Nam War) for women, Zeta was the first and only chapter to have a motion to have them removed from the fraternity proposed. Luckily, most chapters realized that the fraternity had to have women members to survive. The chicken ranch doorprize was a not "uncommon" event for the MEN (sic) of the fraternity at that time. Several years ago, Zeta and alumni threatened to the Board to have the tax status of the fraternity removed if coed was not made mandatory. They were reasoned with to wait several years as it would naturally happen. It appears that this is now true. Thus the significance is that the "fraternity" fought the coed issue for many years. Beth should be recognized as being the first member and of having being threatened to be removed from the convention is she appeared. For ref, cf some of Earl's letters. Jrhmdtraum 19:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
CASH, I note that you are from Tucson. Interesting. That is where I came from. I remember it as a town of 50,000 and when Sears (Wilmont) was on a dirt road way past "the edge of town". You are correct about Beth. She pledged in 1972 as "B" which was approved by Earle Herbert. I would assume that National made her "official" in '75 as Beth. I was gone by then (undergrad and #1 at Zeta -- we did not use president, etc). Ref " http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/clearinghouse/misc_2004_zukowski_womeninAPO.pdf", however, Zeta's records show her date of pledge (and $ being accepted by National) as before that of Judy Mitchell and Maryilyn Tschinski) As noted, in '70 we (Larry Quan) introduced a motion that The Fraternity sign an anti-Vietnam statement. That raised the ire of "the fraternity" against those liberal Californians. Then when we made the motion in '72 for coed, a sizable number of the fraternity (led as you can guess by Texas) tried to get Zeta expelled. In 74" women were allowed as associate members and in '76 as full members with the "gentleman's agreement" (it was actually part of the vote) that only NEW chapters HAD to be coed. Title 9 was used as reasoning, but was vague enough that it did not force the chapter rights. About 10 years ago, Zeta alumni who were involved in the previous fight with Zeta tried to get the Board of Directors to use their power to "override" the National and force the issue. Tax attorneys were consulted by both us and the BOD (this will be in National's minutes). The agreement was to give it several more years to work itself out and if it did not, the Board would act -- which as you know they did several years ago.
The chicked ranch as I am sure you are aware is a famous whore house in Vegas. There was a regional meeting there in 72 or 73 where the door prize was a visit there. This was specifically done by UC Davis against Zeta. It was condoned by the National when Zeta complained.
All of this is relevant to the history as many feel that the coed issue was not hard. Many chapters threatened to form another fraternity in '76 if the agreement had not been made. They still felt that way in the early 2000s. Several female members were not allowed to join new chapters when they transferred schools. I feel that the work the Zeta and others did to fight this and make it the great fraternity it is today (with obvious continued fighting the traditions of a few) should be known. Jrhmdtraum 21:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The vandilism by Justinm and Nat need to STOP. You are young members who don't know the whole history of the fraternity. It is a great organization and I was life member way before you and advisor, etc. HOWEVER< the bad history of the fraternity also needs to be told. The fact that several chapters still refuse to go coed (I think that you might have been one?) and that chapters used whore houses as Door Prizes needs to be told. Do not neglect the past as it might happen in the future. Ref can be to the National or Zeta history or Earles notes. Jrhmdtraum 01:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is quite fascinating information, and I'm certainly not one to discredit it. I'm not sure of the best way to verify this, other than by a personal account. Maybe the national history book mentions this (though I don't have a copy personally, it is certainly a reliable source). If Zeta chapter's history were online and we could check it, it would certainly be verifiable (though the Zeta chapter website, as linked to from www.apo.org, is a 404 not found). Some information on women in APO is available at this reference, in the Leadership Resources Clearinghouse (as the clearinghouse is part of apo.org, it meets the WP:RS guidelines, IMHO. Though that document doesn't really talk specifically about Zeta chapter, it does mention that women were initiated "illegally" in the early years.
This debated information does seem to focus more on Zeta chapter than the fraternity as a whole, so I'm not sure how important it would be. I think, for one, if we do mention it, certainly we should be able to find information about other chapters that were involved in this process (Zeta is only one chapter among many). But I don't think we should just write the issue off; if this really is a truly NPOV encyclopedia, we should be focused on improving the article from ALL points of view, and talk pages are meant for research and discussing issues with the article. Dr. Cash 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Citations are interesting. T&T which is used alot here would not be allowed as a "scientific" verification as it is usually just one reporter's writing. The true value of kikipedia for "living" organizations is that "living" members can add to it as the source. Cash wonders about Zeta/ As #1 (president for the rest of you) of Zeta during this time period, I can tell you that while a number of chapters suppported us at the National, no other chapter came out with the proposal or had other chapters threaten them. As to B Hesselmyer, my source is past National president Earle Herbert. Yes there might have been previous "illegals", but to his and my knowledge, she was the first that the national accepted moneys from. The initial was looked at because of this sex issue. With Earles help and that of other past national presidents from zeta, we got it by. I have not gone to a National for awhile, but the last ones in the late 90s were strife with the coed issue. I believe that others need to know this history of our fraternity and know that there are still a sizable number of "brothers" who feel that chapters should have the right to do as they believe.
As for sources if "personal communication" is not good enough for you (it is for scientific articles), the national archives should have most of the notes on the above. Jrhmdtraum 10:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, why would Board superseding the National convention violate WP as would "long road"? Both are true and correct. National refused to force the issue until the Board forced the issue. We will not mention the legal reasons nor Stanford's Law Professors willingness to help force the issue nor National's lawyers telling them that it had to be done for Title IX reasons among any others. The fact remains that it has been "a long road" and that the Board did supersede National in using its powers.
The Wiki policy of "ref" material is correct when you are writing about Dead issues, eg The War of Northern Aggression. However, for live material "personal communication" is also correct. Using the T&T as a ref when there is no basis for its writing is not correct and newspaper articles without ref are not WA correct either. We are using wiki to write textbooks of surgery based on writers experiance. It is great. As is this section. T&T is not a "verified" source as defined by WA - yet you all continue to use it??? Jrhmdtraum 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki guidelines are that material must yield to consensus. This is vague definition as it can relate to "the truth" of the article or "the relevance". From reading the above comments, it is my opinion that most of the disagreement comes from the wording. I have thus reworded by comments and edited some already written. As to referance, I have used "personal communication" which is a valid ref foe peer reviewed scientific journals which the Kikipedia guidelines rate as the best type of ref. In disagreement with Derek, The T&T is not really a "reliable source" as the articles within are not peer reviewed nor referenced. ALL jounals are "edited". The articles are simply that of the author based on information she/he obtained.
Justinm, I hear your comment. Based on information that I was given by Earle, Beth was the first female whom the fraternity "collected" money from. Due to the boxes of "cuss mail" that I and Larry Quan received after we proposed in '70 that the fraternity go coed and oppose the Viet Nam war and the motion at National that Zeta be withdrawn from the fraternity, I THINK that we were the first. HOWEVER, as we were not voted out and as the following years the motion did partially carry, their must have been other chapters who felt the same - perhaps just not so out-spoken. Thus, I believe my current comments related to that. Whether the Chicken Shak was a "prank"? U Davis knew we had female members coming to the meeting and we took it as an insult and did not go. However, you are correct, it belongs here in the discussion and not on the page Jrhmdtraum 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Justinm. Nice edit. Good compromising. However, I added back the threat of law suit. Readers need to know that the National Conferences would not have gone coed for quite awhile due to the threats of succession. If you have been to a National, then you will know exactly what I am talking about. The threat of suit was by myself, Stanford University and others. Title IX forbids the use of federal moneyes (ie any building on any university) for organization who are not "open". In addition, the tax-exempt status of the fraternity would be lost. cf Bylaws: There shall be a National Board of Directors which shall be the governing body of the Fraternity between National Conventions, with power to act on all matters for the best interests of the Fraternity, consistent with the provisions of these Bylaws. For further referance, you can ask for copies of the minutes of the pertinent Board meetings. I am a life member and value the fraternity. However, I believe that future members need to know the history and that it was not "all gold". I also think someone (perhaps you if you are interested in history) should look up the problems some of the southern chapters had with black members. I cannot add this as it would only be heremsay for me. However, it is my understanding that blacks were excluded early on, too. Jrhmdtraum 11:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)•
Jumping in with both feet here. (I've been in a situation where I was able to read the comments, but not edit there) There may be enough information here for a Women in Alpha Phi Omega article. This could start with the current entries in the Pledge Manual and the National History book.
Having read through Title IX and some of its case law, I fail to see how Stanford University has standing (in a legal sense) in such a lawsuit. The university has a much simpler way to eliminate its own exposure to violating Title IX (if it thought it was doing so), by denying recognition to Zeta chapter. If the University as a legal entity threatened a legal suit, this should be in the minutes of the Board of Directors. As a brother of the Fraternity, yes, you do have standing.
As for the possibility of losing its tax exempt status, I have never heard of that. Given that most of the single-gendered Social Fraternities and Sororities are just as tax-exempt as Alpha Phi Omega, I'm not sure how that would have been an effect. Most other greek letter organizations (both co-ed and single gender social) are 501(c)7 (Social Clubs). Alpha Phi Omega is 501(c)3 (charitable organization), but this has to do with our historical tie to the Boy Scouts of America. (We received 501(c)3 standing back in the 1930s, when were close to a de facto BSA subsidiary)
The National History book does mention that an effort to add Women as auxiliary members failed in 1972 (it got a majority, but not the needed two-thirds.) That should probably be included.
As for blacks, consider the following. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at schools that did not allow blacks, most certainly, my completely off the cuff guess is 30-40. Did Alpha Phi Omega have chapters at Negro (and I use that term as relevant for the time) schools, yes.
The fraternity had only two chapters in the South (Auburn & UVA) when Harold Roe Bartle became National President. Given his opinion on the Klan (as referenced in his Wikipedia article), I doubt that his beliefs went in the direction of white supremacy. Delta Phi @ Johnson C. Smith University chartered in 1946(7?) (I have an electronic copy of the T&T announcing their chartering at work). Given that this was *years* before the large majority of the NIC Social Fraternities did so, I'll at least give Alpha Phi Omega, some credit.
Jrhmdtraum: Yes, as far as I can tell, you became a brother prior to anyone else who has posted here, but the brothers posting are not all wide-eyed undergraduates who believe that Alpha Phi Omega's history consists exactly of what is mentioned in what you seem to believe is a completely white-washed version of the National Pledge Manual. I pledged in 1986 at a chapter (Kappa @ Carnegie-Mellon) that allowed Female brothers prior to 1974 and during my entire time as an undergraduate refused to work with the all-male chapter (Pi Chi @ Duquesne) in our city. I have been a fraternity staffer for all but 4 months that I have been an alumnus and have been on National History and Archives Committee for the last four years. (To give you an idea of lack of wide-eyedness, I consider the first sentence of the "Story behind the Founding" to be true only on a technicality)
An in regard to the personal communication entries in the Notable, would you cease to attempt to add un verifiable content if those were removed? Naraht 03:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
As a female at Mu Alpha, I too, have heard of the threatened lawsuits. I believe it should stay. It is verifiable by minutes of the the past BOD minutes for the past 10 years. (or a simple phone call) MUGIRL 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets follow logic. The only reason that the Board CAN defy the National in between national conferances is for a major problem. I think that we will all agree that the "gentleman's agreement" was done to keep some of the chapters from leaving. I think that we will all agree that following conventions did not remove that for the same reasoning. It was voted down again in 2004. Thus, there had to be a good reason for the Board to go against the National in 2006. I would propose that personal communication be used as a source and the site NOT be changed unless someone can find evidence AGAINST the prosposed change. The fact that you have never heard of it and one brother states that he was involved and knows it to be fact makes we weigh for the brother that states it as a fact and not against it just because I never heard of it. MUGIRL 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well Some believe you are wrong. As others have stated, a personal communication which jrh.. gave is an acceptable WP source. If you are going to challenge it, you thus need to find another source. If JRH... states that he was part of the process, than we should assume that is correct. Unless you are a Delta or ..Theta from Cremson and want to push the other side. As a woman I am proud of this organization and appreciate the fight that others have done. I am however, embarrassed that there are those who still want to keep it an ole boys club. You Henry have the burden against you. As noted, the source is acceptable to WP and it should stand. If not, then I for one do not want to have anything more to do with your "ole boys" site. MUGIRL 02:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1) Stanford law profs volunteered as I knew them and asked them. While Zeta was coed, the National was defacto not and this could have been argued that they could not meet on areas that received federal money. 2) Sorry, it is not conjecture as "I was there". Therefore "personal communication" is a valid footnote. I have emailed Roger Sherwood for his "pc" too. 3) The vote that changed the bylaws had the provison that current chapters did not have to change. However, I did argue to the Board that "as written", the ByLaws stated differently. This was brought to National several times and "did not fly". The Board doed have the power to make changes (forget the exact wording) when the bylaws, etc deviate from University, State or Federal Laws. 4) I am putting the comment back in. Unless you have some ref to negate my response, by Wiki protocal, you are guilty of Vandelism if you remove it and will so be reported to Wiki and your rights to post removed. Even Cash (and I believe he may be the best "expert") that "pc" is allowable when it is the only source. Jrhmdtraum 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. I need help. I cannot figure out how to "add a reference". I know I did it wrong. Thanks. As per [WP:PSTS] I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication. As noted, the only other verification will be other "PC" and I will try to obtain that. But, unless some verifiction to the contrary is suggested, it meets WP rules and regs.(also WP: COS). Thanks Jrhmdtraum 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Justinm, you have been reported to wiki for vandelism. Do NOT reverse it again. To be honest, I really don't care about YOUR interpretation of WP:PSTS; the definition is as an eyewitness which I was. I don't know about you, but I joined APO after being an Eagle and having a full Eagle Scout scholarship to Stanford for 4 years. My word still means something and I don't appreciate your challenge. (Yes I am taking it personally). If you can find some evidence to refute my memory, please try to do so; until then it meets verification and LEAVE IT ALONE> Jrhmdtraum 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Jrhmdtraum, please read the Vandalism page again. What Justinm has done falls into *none* of the categories of what is considered. The only category it does seem to fall into is stubbornness, which is *not* vandalism. Naraht 00:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It is has he has been "warned" to be neutral and not to continue to refuse that the fraternity's history is other than roses. It is refusing to follow verifiable source work and thus if falls under vandilism. Jrhmdtraum 01:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I forgot the Level 2 OA. How it got paid makes no diff, what does is the challenge to the verification.--- which he also did to mugirle Jrhmdtraum 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree and I did not state they were. However, How did they vote? Jrhmdtraum 11:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Then in what way do you think he challenged mugirl? How did who vote? Naraht 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The 1/4 chapters who did not vote to force the coed issue (to leave "chapter rights") were as "prejudiced" as those who wanted to keep all-male. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Justine, your repeated undo shows that you are not "neutral". My question is to why? My comment re: "no one is from an "all-male" chapter" statement from Naraht is my belief that not fighting predudice is the same as having it. You remind me of some of the comments of Neurenburg trials of "we did not support killing of jews". You will recall that the Courts response was " you did not stop it either". If you went to any of the National Conventions with the discussions on women, you would have known that comments were much more caustis than mine. Jrhmdtraum 14:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I see the following as verifiable primary sources for the issues of Gender in the Fraternity.
As Secondary sources (to be used if they do not conflict with primary)
I'd like to propose the following addition/change to the gender section. In place of
In the early 1970's, co-ed membership was proposed by several chapters but failed to reach the two-thirds majority support at the National Conventions which was required to alter the organization's bylaws.
it is proposed.
At the 1972 Convention, delegates for the first time considered a proposal to admit women to the Fraternity as affiliate members. While this amendment was supported by a majority of the delegates, it did not receive the three quarters necessary to pass. A resolution was passed to encourage and expedite the involvement of women in Fraternity affairs. <ref>Alpha Phi Omega History Book (1925-1993) p.28</ref>. Earlier that year, the National Board of Directors had taken action "[u]nanimously recommending a serious consideration of the participation and status of women in the work of the Fraternity, both as members and advisors."<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20040529180920/www.apo.org/organization/nation/board/minutes/19720225.shtml Alpha Phi Omega Board Meeting Minutes 25-26 February 1972]</ref>
I don't know why it said two thirds was said before, but we current require three quarters to amend and the history book says three quarters was also true then. Naraht 12:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It did not pass - whether 2/3 or 3/4. Jrhmdtraum 20:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It went to the "floor" at most of these. About 4 - 6 years ago, there was a major discussion of the topic. YOU need to look at some data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.122.232 ( talk) 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Jrhmdtraum, your behavior on this page continues to be unacceptable.
You have made accusations of vandalism without basis. None of the edits or reverts that you state are “vandalism” violate WP:Vandalism as they are good faith edits.
You have continuously failed to provide sources. WP:V states that “...any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source...”, yet you have failed to provide a source when the material was removed and you simply readded it, unsourced.
You have repeatedly raised irrelevant points. Whether something would be acceptable in another format (such as a scientific journal) has no bearing here. We must follow Wikipedia’s policies. Also, your accomplishments or experience (noble and commendable as they are) are not relevant and do not serve to elevate your opinion above anyone else’s. I could cite to you a litany of APO positions, accolades, awards and honors that have been heaped upon several of the editors here, but it wouldn’t be relevant to the discussion.
You have incorrectly cited Wikipedia policies. You have made a number of claims about Wikipedia’s policies that are simply not correct. For example, you stated that “...per WP:PSTS I was an eyewitness to the event and thus can be used as a personal communication.” This is not correct. You read the part about the eyewitness accounts but then you ignored the part where it says “Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used...” and also “Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published primary and secondary sources.” Your account would be fine if it was published somewhere. If it was, please cite it. You also use WP:COS to justify citing yourself, but again this refers to citing published sources; furthermore, it specifically forbids editors “drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.”
You have not assumed good faith. You have accused a number of editors here of trying to hide or cover up the fraternity’s history. This violates WP:AGF. No one here wants to whitewash anything. That being said, we need to find a way to document this chapter of Alpha Phi Omega’s history using cited sources. I think many people here are still willing to work with you, but your unproductive behavior has to stop.
You have violated the three revert rule at least twice. This alone is enough to get your account temporarily blocked. You have been tolerated here to the extent that you have been because you claim to be a Brother and we, in good faith, without any verification, believe you. And that brings me to my final point.
Your behavior is un-Brotherly. Your accusations, your belligerance, your ignoring of our legitimate points and your refusal to assume good faith are all, in this Brother’s opinion, behavior which is not fitting of a Brother of Alpha Phi Omega. This is made especially more grievous since your behavior has been directed at fellow Brothers. I realize that this isn’t totally relevant, as this is not APO’s site, but I think it needed to be said.
Henrymrx 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Hen: you need to reread the wiki documents. Eyewitness does NOT have to be published. It can be verified by other sources (others on the Board at that time). Personal communication meets the WT:PSTS and COS policy. Even Cass believes so. It has also been confirmed by another brother (MUGirl). Yes I believe that a number of editors are trying to whitewash the history. As mine has been been verified by Wiki standards, Just has violoated the three reverts as he has no claims to back him up except his beliefs. The only reasons that I can explain is his lack of good faith Jrhmdtraum 11:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to go to mediation as your actions to me and others do show that you only wish "happy days" to show. Your undo are also very disruptive as you do not "own" this page. Jrhmdtraum 14:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
A vote would apparently not be acceptable to Jrhmdtraum because there have only been two users who support his changes: himself and mugirl. At minimum, Justinm1978, Henrymrx, Dr. Cash (Derek Cashman), Bornyesterday and myself(Naraht) have found many of his proposed changes to be inappropriate in some (or many) ways. Naraht 14:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If you are NOT trying to white wash the bad part of the fraternity's history, then I suggest instead of "deleting", you make some suggestions how to record the fact that just about every National Convention voted down changes in the bylaws forcing mandatory equality until the Board forced the issue. I agreed to some compromises by Justin and Cash. I do not agree to removing this part of the history. Jrhmdtraum 14:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Henry, If you were there, you do know that it was discussed on the floor at most of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I mean exactly that the issue to change the bylaws to ALL chapters was discussed. If you had attended more than one of the conventions in the past 20 years, you would also be able to verify it yourself. Jrhmdtraum 17:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Lets see. The edit of the article by 172.164.122.232 just happens to be someone who continues the argument on jdhmdtraum's side without missing a beat. The edit from 66.168.81.139 is from Charter Communications KNGPT-TN-66-168-80, which happens to be the same company and city where the original edit that started this entire things is from. Naraht 17:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The edit of 66... is me, sorry I forgot to sign in. I would argue that Naraht and Justin have said the exact same thing with almost same semtax???? Jrhmdtraum 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
About as funny as my being in DC and Tenn Jrhmdtraum 18:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected, in lieu of blocking nearly everyone involved. This is not an endorsement of the current version. Work out your differences on the talk page, and don't edit war. -- Haemo 19:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I know that one year it did not get out of committee. But it was still voted down. Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC) The point is it was discussed at somewhere between the majority and most and voted down at all. Some it did not get out of committee because of the bitterness of the debate. If you or your wife were there in '98 (which I think was one of the real bitter debates, you will remember. Jrhmdtraum 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, had to correct something I wrote. Henrymrx 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Haemo. I was at or was involved with chapter discussions re proposals at 78, 80 84 86, 88, 90, 92, 96, 2002, 2004 and their was heavy discussion re it. Some might not have made it out of committee (which legislatively is the same as not being passed). The reasoning for all was the heavy thoughts of the all - male and their threat to succeed. At least 10 of 16 conventions and I am pretty sure it was proposed for the remainder. It did make the floor in the late 90s and as Henry will attest (I think) there was much bitter debate.
Justin, you seem to have the Board justification, post it.
I have written to several past and present members of the board for verification (or not). I cannot find the legal advisor's email address. Does anyone know it? Jrhmdtraum
As I noted, I have no problems with "better editing" if you wish. What I do have problems with the the pollyanna approach that the bitter debates never happened. Jrhmdtraum 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC) It would also be interesting to have one of you history buffs research the colored issue. Earle was my mentor and we discussed the coed issue repeately with his thoughts that 'like the colored issue before, the fraternity would grow out of this problem'. He did turn out to be correct. Jrhmdtraum 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about: At the 1976 National Convention, women were allowed in the fraternity in all new chapters with the agreement that current chapters, that wished, could stay all-male. This vote is widely thought to have saved the fraternity. This "gentleman's agreement" was made to keep these chapters from seceding. This topic was brought up at multiple future conventions with bitter debate and all propositions again defeated. Finally, in 2006, the Board of Directors used their emergency powers to override the gentleman's agreement of 1976 to force all chapters to go coed. This was done as not only was it "correct" but there was also fear of violating Title IX. Jrhmdtraum 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
By the Fraternity, one means the National Organization. While not in the majority (at least in 76) I for one think we would be better off wtihout HBCU,etc. Prejudice in any form should never be tolerated! (ref Joe Scanlon) Jrhmdtraum 10:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Also from personal communication Roger Sherwood: John,
I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternity Jrhmdtraum 19:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Justin, See below. The "gentleman's agreement was voted on by National Convention and thus part of bylaws and was thus was overruled by the Board. Jrhmdtraum 13:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all can everyone please stop adding comments in the middle of sections without indenting them? It makes the threads hard to follow. Let me clarify. I'm not just saying that there was no floor discussion about this in 1992, 1994 and 2000. I am saying there was no proposal whatsoever, not even in committee. It is possible that something got proposed in New Business after I left the Convention in 1992, but that would have been immediately ruled out of order due to the 90 days notice rule. Such an incident would probably not even make the minutes. Henrymrx 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok:
1)
I just received the following from Roger Sherwood by email (is that personal communication ok)
." What we did in 1976 was to change the bylaws to make it possible for chapters to admit women as members. What may be referred to as the agreement was that the amendment did not require chapters to admit women, so those who wanted to remain all male could do so without violating the bylaws. We very carefully pointed that out, and those who wanted to remain all male did so until the forces of change caught up with them. Per Roger Sherwood 9/12/07.
2)
Per the T&T:
Winter 97 Board minutes: “appointed a committee to weigh the costs and benefits of allowing all-male chapters at co-ed institutions to remain all-male and, based on the committee findings, submit the relevant legislation to the 1998 National Convention. T&T Spring 97
July 98 Board meeting: Determined to encourage all chapters to make membership ..available to all students regardless of gender on their campuses. T&T Fall ‘98
Convention minutes 1998: The fraternity continues to encourage all Chapters and petitioning groups to open their membership to all students. All Chapters..have the right to choose their own members using …policies that are consistent with the Fraternity’s governing documents, the rules of the host institutions that they serve and the traditions of that Chapter. Single-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational. T&T Winter/spring 1999
Note that the "Gentleman's Agreement" was solidified at this convention. It is my memory that it was in '76, but I gave you Roger Sherwood's account above. Jrhmdtraum 02:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
' 'Boy Justin, you are hard headed. Look at the T&T that I referanced above. In the printed minutes of the '98 convention, it states xtSingle-gender Chapters chartered before the 1976 National Convention may remain single-gender unless they become inactive or coeducational. All Petitioning Groups seeking to charter or re-charter will be and remain co-educational. T&T Winter/spring 1999. That is the gentleman's agreement. [[ Jrhmdtraum 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
July 2005 Board: …The actions of the 1976 and 1998 National Conventions have attempted to clarify the Fraternity’s open membership policy…The National Board is charged with…enforcing the membership policies of the Fraternity as well as ensuring compliance with applicable laws…UPON ADVICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, all chapters must practice open membership without regard of gender…T$T fall 2005
July 2006 Board: Board of Directors proposed a Diversity Resolution to the 2006 National Convention. 2006 Convention adopts and will have transition committee make recommendations
From pledge manual: In 1972, the United States Congress passed the Title IX Federal Higher Education Act, which denies federal funding support to institutions that allow organizations with restricted membership. Many campuses felt that service organizations like the all-male Alpha Phi Omega and all-female Gamma Sigma Sigma were in violation of Title IX; Chapters located on these colleges and universities were in danger of losing their recognition if they did not become coeducational….
Note the "per legal advice" and title IX confirmation of my statements.
3) In regards to "saving the fraternity": Our most recent 25 years. 75th Anniversary Countdown by Wilfred M. Krenek, 75th Anniversary Chair. The Fraternity was going through turmoil…declining membership. However a major decision by the voting delegates to the 1976 National Convention was going to radically change that. Full membership for women “become” (sic) a reality, which began a growth cycle for the Fraternity. T&T Fall 2000
In 1976…women became full members in the Fraternity. In the next 10 year period, the number of pledges increased by 86% and active members by 32% with the number of Chapters decreased by 14% T&T Winter ’95. A message from the National President, Wilfred Krenek.
From Pledge manual: Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter. In 1977, membership was up by 21%, and by 1978, 40% of the Chapters in the United States registered women as official members.
Thus most agree that membership was rapidly declining and had the Fraternity NOT been opened, it would have died. 4)
Further, for your information from the pledge manual: Joseph Scanlon, then National Executive Director, wrote an editorial in a 1970 Torch & Trefoil, entitled "Why Discriminate Because of Sex?" In this editorial, Brother Scanlon wrote, "Forty-five years ago Alpha Phi Omega dared to differ with the times. It set out to prove an organization committed to Service, opposed to membership discrimination because of race, creed, color, economic status or national origin, could exist on college campuses. … From the beginning, the Fraternity insisted that membership must be inclusive and it is, but not totally so. Women are excluded from active membership. This exclusion based on sex is justly questioned. … Con[vention] '70 delegates have the power to change all this." But, the amendment to the National Bylaws that would open membership to women did not pass at the 1970 National Convention. And at the 1972 National Convention, even affiliate membership for women was defeated, despite the recommendation by the National Board of Directors that women be allowed full member-ship. Women were allowed to be associate members if they were advisors to a Chapter, but they were not allowed to undergo the membership rituals, and undergraduate students were not allowed to be advisors. It was not until 1974 that affiliate membership for women was approved by the National Convention. Chapters were granted the right to admit women as full members at the 1976 National Convention; the choice whether or not to admit women was left to the discretion of each individual Chapter Jrhmdtraum 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Justine and Naracht: I quote Roger Sherwood who was executive director; "I agree that the change was much slower than many of us would have liked. However, I am convinced the move to becoming co-ed insured the survival of the fraternity" I don't know how much more of an "expert opinion" you want. The history shows that membership was drastically dropping. It SAVED THE FRATERNITY.[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
ps Justin: If your wife is a brother as it sounds -- then maybe you should thank some of us old farts that fought to allow her to be a brother so that you could meet so that marriage.... Jrhmdtraum 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Prior to 1974, affiliate membership was NOT allowed, in fact it was voted down in 1972[[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In 1972, less than half voted for women. Affiliate membership was voted down. Jrhmdtraum 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
That is my whole point for the additions Naraht. You younger guys see women membership as a "done" deal. It was not and the fights in the 70s were HUGE. If you made the '98 convention, you saw some of it for total coed. I think that this history needs to be told [[[User:Jrhmdtraum|Jrhmdtraum]] 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, on a slightly different note, does anyone have any verifiable information on when Chartering groups had to be co-ed? I think it was about 1986, since I've heard that the rechartering of Zeta Phi in 1986 included only men?
Naraht
02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, some quick guidelines for this discussion to help it stay clear. If you are responding to someone, please indent your paragraphs by using the colon (:)character at the beginning of each paragraph. 1 colon per level of indentation. Please just append your response to the end of the section with the proper number of indentations so that the discussion doesn't get jumbled. And try to remember to sign your comments with four tildas (~).
Below is the current text of the section, with my thoughts inserted in bold, and changes in italics.
Ok, I hope that is readable. I hope that serves as a strong starting point for us. While I find Jhrmdtraum's information about the role Zeta played in the 1907s valuable, unless we can get more verifiable information other than his own word on the matter (which I do take in good faith), AND unless we can find out what role other chapters may have played in those, and similar, events, it would be egregious on our part to present a distorted/unbalanced picture which makes it seem like Zeta was the only chapter promoting the change to coed status.
In LF&S Bornyesterday 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, couple of comments.
Been out of the country. Hope my addition is refed ok and acceptable ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrhmdtraum ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I should have the remainder of the Themes up within the next couple of days. Both the 75th anniversary CD and the National History book have most of them post WWII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in Opinions on what I've done with the Conventions, putting them into Sortable Tables (well, I've got the Dates properly sorting, I just have to figure out how to *not* have 10th occur between 1st and 2nd). I've actually gone farther on the APO-Phil table because it take *more* research. Between the APO-USA National History Book and the 75th Anniversary CD, I have the actual dates (not just the year) for everything from 3rd convention on. I wish I knew what the date of the actual meeting for the 2nd National Convention, but I don't have access to the November 1928 Lightbearer. Naraht 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the image of the APO crest was deleted by a copyright nazi, claiming that there was no copyright information on it. This should be addressed. While it is definitely copyrighted, I don't think the national office would have a problem with using the crest on the wikipedia page,... It should also be noted that it was speedily deleted by ElinorD without posting any type of comment to the talk page or nominating it for deletion, which I find to be a rather bold and unacceptable move considering that the image has been on the page for a long time. Usually, wikipedia etiquette calls for information editors on the talk page prior to deleting an image, particularly one that has been posted on a page for a long time - this gives ample time to find the correct copyright tag or permissions. Dr. Cash 03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
http://www.gmanews. tv/video/ 11505
Hazing of APO Mu Delta Chapter or TIP QC, apparently one of their sis who is a researcher of GMA News approached her brods and asked if she can have an interview with their brods about thier initiation rites. (GMA is doing documentaries about fraternity hazing as an offshoot of the recent death by a neophite of the sigma rho fraternity in U.P.) In the course of the interview, their asked permission to take video shots with the agreement that nothing will be aired on TV. apparently it was shown last saturday in Jessica Sojo Reports and then again the following day in GMA's early evening news 24 Oras.
TIP QC have expelled 23 residents of APO in connection to the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.105.230 ( talk) 16:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like this section is getting very long, and it's primarily just two lists, one of APO-USA conventions and the other of APO-RP conventions. I think it would be better to move both lists to a separate page (or two separate pages), and focus on a brief description of how the national conventions relate to the respective national organizations of APO, as well as how they relate to ICAPO. Dr. Cash 06:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Some context defining what a national convention is should be on the main APO page, so a paragraph or two should be there, with the link to the list. The paragraph describing conventions can be identical in both the main article and the list article, but the list article, of course, would have the full list. Dr. Cash 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The national convention lists have now been moved. Dr. Cash 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I've finally located Zeta chapter's website. It appears that the issue was the correct website address is not on apo.org since it wasn't entered in a case-sensitive manner. So the correct address to access their chapter website is http://www.stanford.edu/group/APhiO/. The site appears to be active and currently maintained as well, which is good in terms of reliability.
Checking out the 'about us' section, they have a few details that they are claiming regarding their chapter which are rather interesting:
Hope this clarifies a few things mentioned earlier. Dr. Cash 07:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I have been contemplating some restructuring and organizational changes to this article for awhile. Mainly, much of the content in the article is really history, yet there is no specific 'history' section. The 'background' section really is not appropriate, as basic background information should be covered in the lead. Plus, info there about the founding is historical, and the info on the T&T should be moved to a new section entitled 'publications'. The organizational info in the 'organization' section either deals specifically with the history of the ICAPO or APO-RP, or with the specific organizational structure of APO-USA (not covering the organizational structure of APO-RP at all).
The 'membership requirements' section should be changed to simply, 'membership', and most of the gender info should be moved to a history section, since it's largely history. Although I understand that there were concerns previously about putting this lower in the article to somewhat "hide" it from anonymous editors who might want to vandalize it -- most of that has really calmed down with the decision of the 2006 convention, and that's really not a reason to not put it where it belongs.
I think the article should also have a new section covering 'national programs', similar to the Alpha Phi Alpha article. Some things to cover here are some of the more notable national programs, like APO LEADS, National Service Week, and Spring Youth Service Day, which aren't even mentioned in the article at all. Also, if we can find a good, independent media source for some of these programs, it would help to counter some one of the criticisms of self-referencing brought up in the article's GA delisting (NSW might be the easiest to find here, since it's been around the longest).
What do others think about these suggestions? Dr. Cash 06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest a new section called "National Programs" with subsection for APO LEADS, National Service Week, National Spring Service Day and.... any others? Sure, there are other programs but they may not have much interest for the general public.
Also, I'm going to go ahead and agree that it's time to split off the Filipino stuff. I would rather not, but those of us who maintain this article simply don't have the expertise necessary to expand the article the way it needs and also keep the international scope. Henrymrx 20:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I have placed the contents of the "Story of Inclusion of Women" in Alpha Phi Omega on the the 75th anniversary CD on a sandbox page User:Naraht/WomenInclusion. I see two possibilities here. First, that the article be combed for facts to be added to the Alpha Phi Omega page or second, that it become the basis after being rephrased for a separate Alpha Phi Omega Gender article. Note, this isn't entirely cleaned up since I had to take cut it from the source file and the quotes are goofy. Ideas? Naraht 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
At this point in the article our two significant changes in membership are dealt with *completely* differently. The admission of women is now up in history and is four or five times the size of the admission of non-scouting men, which is still down in membership. I would like to see the two in the same place *and* I would like to see the two equalled in size by moving a significant amount of the information about the admission of women into its own article along with what is in the sandbox page User:Naraht/WomenInclusion. Naraht 10:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The following list of Filipino Colleges and Universities was added to the article. I've moved it here.
- University Belt Association (UBA) 1. Alpha - Far Eastern University (FEU) 2. Beta - National Universtity (NU) 3. Delta - Mapua Institute of the Technology (MIT) 4. Epsilon - University of the East (UE) 5. Iota - Philippine Maritime Institute (PMI) 6. Kappa - Guzman Institute of Technology 7. Mu - Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU) 8. Pi - University of Santo Tomas (UST) 9. Sigma - Adamson University (AdU) 10. Tau - University of Manila 11. Upsilon - Philippine College of Criminology 12. Psi - Centro Escolar University (CEU) 13. Omega - Feati University 14. Alpha Delta - San Sebastian College 15. Alpha Epsilon - Technological Univ. of the Phils (TUP) 16. Alpha Eta - Philippine School of Buss. Admin. (PSBA) 17. Alpha Theta - Lyceum of the Philippines 18. Alpha Lambda - Technological Institute of the Phils. (TIP) 19. Beta Sigma - San Beda College 20. Beta Tau - Arellano University 21. Gamma Epsilon - De La Salle University (DLSU) 22. Gamma Iota - Philippines Christian University(PCU) 23. Delta Beta - Gen Emilio Aguinaldo College (EAC) 24. Epsilon Beta - Perpetual Help College 25. Eta Kappa - Colegio de San Juan de Letran (CSJL) 26. Iota Eta - University of the Philippines, Manila (UP-Manila) 27. Iota Psi - Arellano Law School 28. Kappa Alpha - Pamantasang Lungsod Ng Maynila (PLM)
I'm fairly certain that this is not by any means a complete list of chapters in the Phillipines. Can someone tell me the relevance of this list then? Henrymrx ( talk) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking for better numbers for APO-Phil chapters. I'm not really sure where the number 250 came from, but the change to 326 didn't have any references. From the sources for lists of chapters that I've found on the net, one goes up to Lambda Phi, another to Lambda Beta and a third to Lambda Iota. Given that they overlap, I trust that APO-Phil Lambda Phi does exist (it gives a school name for that and the previous), so I think this shows that APO-Phil does have any least the 264 charters that Lambda Phi indicates. I don't know if we have *any* sources on the number of chapters that are active. For the purposes of APO-Phil activity, I believe that the only logical way to count is those charters were either the Fraternity chapter or the Sorority chapters is active. Note I also updated the charters for APO-USA to 735, the most recent is Alpha Zeta Omicron. Naraht ( talk) 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I recently came across two articles mentioning an ‘Alpha Phi Omega Forensic Society’, which was a debate team at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, back in the 1930s. The stories seem to be related to a new movie coming out on Christmas, “The Great Debaters,” directed by & starring Denzel Washington, and produced by Oprah Winfrey. So I suspect we might see more hits in the APO news feeds based on this,…
I don’t think the forensic society has anything to do with the fraternity, however. There is a charter at Wiley College, though: Kappa Pi, chartered on 5/18/1952, about two decades after the forensic society. The chapter is currently inactive. Dr. Cash ( talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)