Talk:Alpha Phi Omega/2008

WP:GAN?

I'm trying to decide when to go for GA again for this article. I think it mostly meets the criteria, since it has been largely reorganized and has a good amount of reference citations. Although I am still concerned over the fact that most of the citations are from APO sources, and not independent ones, a concern which was brought up during the reassessment when it was ultimately delisted. Any thoughts? Dr. Cash (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain why that should be an issue. Take a look at Alpha Phi Alpha. The vast majority of the references either originate from the National office, or from chapter websites. All of the books cited are written by APA brothers. The same goes for Alpha Kappa Alpha. Both of these orgs have made feature article status largely on citing themselves and their chapters. I say skip GA and go for FA, since that seems to be acceptable for those articles. This isn't a slam on them, rather a statement of if it's acceptable for those articles, it should be for this one too. Justinm1978 (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between Majority (51+ percent) and All (100 percent), its 49 percent. The Alpha Phi Alpha article has about 42 percent of citations from independent sources. Alpha Kappa Alpha has about 25 percent from independent sources. You may not get to 25 percent; however, editors may be insulted if you nominate and haven't seriously addressed the main reason for de-listing from GA, and then attempt to regain GA or jump to FA status based upon the rhetoric stated above. Just make sure your ducks are standing beak to tail, and Good Luck!!--Ccson (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

userbox deletion

I've proposed a deletion of an APO userbox (not the one advertised here, a different one under WikiProject Scouting). Please discuss there. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

List of all-male chapters

I wonder if this list is appropriate in this article at present or not, or what form it should take? With the new policy in force after the 2006 convention, the all-male chapters will either have to go co-ed, or disband. So ultimately, there will be no all-male chapters left in APO (except for the unique case of the all-male school, Wabash College, but they're not on the list in this article). So, as far as the maintenance of this article is concerned, we have a few options:

• Remove the list of all male chapters, since they're being phased out. Not exactly accurate, though, since not all chapters have completed the transition yet.
• Keep the list, but rephrase it more to the effect of, "prior to the 2006 convention, the last remaining all male chapters were...", and keep the list as it was before the 2006 convention voted to order all chapters to be co-ed. This would be mostly serving in the interests of preserving history, since it could be considered notable that several chapters were the last to transition to co-ed status. Likewise, we may want to try to find information to add to the history on some of the first chapters to transition back in the early 1970s (Kappa, Zeta, Alpha Chi, etc).
• No change in the status quo; i.e. we keep maintaining the list as-is, gradually removing chapters from the list as they either transition, or disband, until it gets down to zero. It's going to be hard to cite this, because it's unlikely that we'll find 'press releases' or news stories in the mainstream news media; the only evidence will be from internal board reports or word-of-mouth from the region directors and/or section chairs.

I'm leaning towards the second option above, since it preserves the history and contributes to telling the story of APO's transition from an all-male fraternity to a co-ed one, and doesn't just erase the last remaining all-male chapters from history entirely.

In somewhat related news, I have heard from reliable, yet unpublished sources in Region V that the Sigma Xi chapter at Maine will be disbanding at its section conference, and starting a new service organization. Also, the Chi Pi chapter at Duquesne announced at the section 65/66 conference this past weekend that its intention is to transition prior to the deadline, but also asked chapters to respect its right to privacy so that the don't get bombarded with too many offers of assistance from every chapter nearby, which could get a bit overwhelming. Their statements at the conference were well-received with understanding by the students and the staff present, however. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)`

Information as of April 21st, 2008

Number of active chapters 363. School (Region/Section)

Petition Groups: 12 Alabama State University (IV/69) Emporia State University (VIII/34) Ivy Tech Community College (VI/31) Regent University (III/83) Salisbury University (III/85) San Diego State University (X/2) St. Augustine's College (III/80) St. Anselm College (I/94) Tarrant County College -Southeast (VII/41) University of Illinois at Springfield (VI/47) University of Maryland - Baltimore County (III/86) University of the Redlands (X/2)

Interest Groups: 17 California State University, Fullerton (X/2) Centenary College (I/99) Defiance College (V/56) Harold Washington College (VI/51) Midwestern State University (VII/41) Montclair State University (I/99) North Western Michigan College (VI/53) Parkland College (VI/50) Pennsylvania State University Altoona College (II/90) Tulane Univ of Louisiana (VII/45) University of Miami (VI/71) University of Nevada, Las Vegas (X/2) University of Texas at Tyler (VII/41) University of the District of Columbia (III/85) Wayland Baptist University (VII/40) Western Connecticut State University (I/96) Winona State University (IX/23)Naraht (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes as of 4 June

Petitioning Groups (13) +California State University, Fullerton (X/2) -San Diego State University (X/2) (chartered) +Tulane University of Louisiana(VII/45)

Interest Groups (16) -Tulane University of Louisiana (VII/45) to PG +Brookhaven College (VII/41) -California State University, Fullerton (X/2) to PG -Centenary College (I/99) +Elizabeth City State University (III/80) +Pennsylvania State University Beaver (V/65) -University of Miami (IV/71)

New user label

For those that don't use userboxes, and as part of the Keep it Simple project, I've created an APO user label.

You can get

L:ΑΦΩ

by adding {{WP:KIS/Alpha Phi Omega}} to your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogobera (talk • contribs) 

1998 Bylaws?

The following exists in the current article.

This "gentleman's agreement" was formalized in the by-laws at the 1998 Convention: 

and was changed by a IP address user to "formalized in a resolution at the 1998 Convention."

This actually sounds more likely. It isn't actually *in* the bylaws anywhere...Naraht (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The only reason I took it out was because it was blended in with a bunch of other edits that didn't feel right, and I was too lazy to differentiate :) Justinm1978 (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on wording?Naraht (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilink for Dr. Ureta

If a page hasn't been created for Dr. Ureta by Tuesday morning (June 24th), I'll get rid of the link myself. Adding the middle initial seems OK, but it should be consistent across this article and the APO-Phil president's template.Naraht (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization of Words in Purpose

Can we move discussion about which way that should be to the talk page? I'm seeing it both ways on the national website. It has all of the capitalization in the pledge manual and the Fact Sheet (http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/APO_YSO_Info_Sheet.pdf). On the National bylaws page (http://www.apo.org/site/site_files/APO_National_Bylaws_2-07.pdf), when it is Article II in the bylaws, it has the same capitalization as the pledge manual, however in the Articles of Incorporation, most of the same phrasing is in lower case except for Scout, Oath, Law, Boy Scouts and America. I guess the ultimate source should be Article II of the bylaws which is where it is legally set for the purposes of the Fraternity, which means the extra capitalization. Ideas?Naraht (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As the bylaws are the (much) more frequently updated document, I would say that it most accurately reflects the Fraternity's view on the subject. Let's stick with that Henrymrx (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the bylaws are updated every two years just like the Pledge Manual is updated every two years.Naraht (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant that as opposed to the Articles of Incorporation. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Henrymrx (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OKNaraht (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I would concur with using the bylaws as how this should be capitalized.

Justinm1978 (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

They should be not capitalized because they are ordinary words used in a sentence. The only need to capitalize them would be if they were a direct and attributed quote from a document that spelled them that way. Rmhermen (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is, I believe, exactly the situation here. The words in question are in quotation marks and followed immediately with a reference to a document which spells them in that way. Philhower (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we change the reference to the National Bylaws then as a more direct example?Naraht (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)