Talk:Alpha Phi Omega
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Alpha Phi Omega was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)`
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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
by adding {{user label Alpha Phi Omega}} to your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogobera (talk • contribs)
[edit] 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)
