Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Undoing edits for 104.60.196.157

This IP user has done nothing but mark chapters of Hispanic/Latino Fraternities as inactive. It is the reason that we (reasonably) marked Tau Phi Sigma as completely inactive. (And I've found at least two chapters of Tau Phi Sigma that had rush weeks in Fall of 2022). Currently left to do (would appreciate help)

Naraht (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Differentiating the local tapped organizations.

It appears that there are slightly different types of local organizations that we might want to differentiate in the infobox to determine which ones we are *never* going to see websites for. There are some where no one should know who are members other than those who are already members, there are ones where membership is not revealed until after leaving school and there are those where it is public while they are in school. I *think* only the last one is in any way likely to have a website, so is there something in the infobox that could be looked at/set to avoid the maintenance category? (This is sort of half here, half in the infobox, but if we come to a decision...)Naraht (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions:
  • Type: Secret society
  • Status: Defunct
  • Type: Senior society (rarely have websites)
  • Type: Confraterity (rarely have websites)
Rublamb (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Status: Currently defunct or merged or anything other than Active.
  • Type: (and this is where I'm going to want to see the parameter list for August. I think we have some offshoots that are combinations of this, but the thing where we may some of the "Skull and Bones" types that are actually listed as "Honor Society", we'll have to change them to something similar to that. All of the "Tomb groups" at Yale should have the same type and we should probably use that as a guide.Naraht (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I worked on the secret societies / senior societies when we moved those to our domain. At Yale, not all tomb groups are secret societies as some are senior societies or even traditional GLO. I am not saying I fixed all of them, but think I hit most when adding infoboxes and sources. Rublamb (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Secret Societies at Yale

(hit an ec here, but was working on this) Type values for the entries in Category:Secret societies at Yale

Naraht (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll deal with the infoboxes on the last two. Today I have been adding infoboxes and switching from org boxes. Rublamb (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Official website

I've seen that for some "scattered" fraternities, where less than half a dozen chapters have websites and there really is no national website, that a chapter website has been designated with the template:official website. I don't think that is appropriate and want to remove it. I'm fine with keeping a chapter website in the infobox and in external links, but it really doesn't feel appropriate to use the official website template (example: Gamma Epsilon Tau).Naraht (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should not use the official website template for a chapter website--and by our new guidelines we would never use this template in the infobox. However, I would only use a chapter website in external links, not the infobox. The exception would be if there was only active chapter remaining. Rublamb (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
So in the case above, nothing in the infobox and url template in the EL. Sounds good. Naraht (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Archived Official website

Similarly, I don't think that a link to archive.org of a previous website should be counted as official, though OK in EL. (Changing Sigma Alpha Delta based on that, though I will see if I can find.) Naraht (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that archived websites should not be linked in the infobox Rublamb (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
For this discussion... Sometimes websites lapse, or are infected with a trojan downloader, but the organization appears to be continuing. I've seen this occur dozens of times, even for mid-size nationals. What I've done previously is to note the URL of the website, but <!--comment--> it out, so that a bad website doesn't infect anyone else. But I leave the bread crumb trail so that a fraternity volunteer can note the problem and fix it. The fact of my edit will spark someone to check that an edit has been made, and they'll read the comment. I also sometimes will note the problem in the To Do list, or on the Talk page. Jax MN (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
When this happens, I use Wayback to get a clean copy of the website and add useful details to the article (with the archived website becoming a source). That way, we don't miss useful content and save a cleancopy of the website. There are many smaller professonal orgs that currently lack a national website, mostly because they have gone with a decentrolized organizational structures. It is also an issue with smaller Latino and Asian groups that have dropped the national website as chapters go inactive. Rublamb (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

History of HS Sororities

I have been working on Psi Iota Xi (which started in the 19th century as a high school sorority and later became a community-based sorority) and found something of interest. In July 1907, the National Pan-Hellenic Conference passed a new rule that said no one could join one of their organizations who had previously been a member of a high school sorority. This may help explain why many of the high school sororities died in the early 20th century. Rublamb (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Closest thing to this I've seen recently is some discussion of the relationship of the High School related groups to some of the Philippines Fraternity. For example, going from being a member of Scouts Royale Brotherhood (which was started by Alpha Phi Omega brothers and still *somewhat* related) would be unlikely to be accepted in Tau Gamma Phi.Naraht (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
This was a really interesting catch. Rublamb, I alerted Fran about this, in case she wishes to offer a blog post about it for her website. NPC leadership, back then, over a Century ago, appear to have been far more protective of their turf. Now, such manipulation could be seen as either unduly so, or simply as a quaint example of different times. But nevertheless it would be of interest to many. Jax MN (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

How far away from College Fraternities...

I'm wondering just how far from College Fraternities this project will go. Given some of the recent additions of American Fraternal Orders, I'm wondering people's opinions on whether this project (and the infobox fraternity template should cover the adult fraternal orders like Loyal Order of Moose, Lions Clubs International, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks and for that matter Freemasonry. Naraht (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The active members of this Project have done (IMO) excellent work in standardizing our presentation of Greek Letter Organization and related pages. You've added value to Wikipedia. Not to bloviate, but that "adding value" bit is the point of our work. My sense is that we should include any organization that has Greek letters in its name, either currently or historically. Clearly the bulk of these will be collegiate-related, yet we add clarity to the subject matter by including the non-collegiate groups in our policing and cleanup. Thus we aid casual readers and researchers in quickly clarifying the nature of each group name. --Who, what, when, where, why, and how.
The Freemasonry group (I don't know if they are a defined Project) are nevertheless quite active. Not as much so the Elks and Moose. By extending our work to these, more from the lens of upkeep versus wholesale and full time management, we add clarity and value. We also are competent and valued partners with the College and University Project. I think supporters of both these types of pages welcome our occasional efforts, as our stuff spills over into their areas of interest. Jax MN (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Somewhere there is probably a definition of the WP's scope but I don't think it is "collegiate only". Probably the biggest overreach was my decision to add collegiate secret/senior societies because WP: Secret Societies was defunct. But I think we all agree that these groups share common characteristics with GLOs: selective membership, rituals, and lifelong membership. We also have a fair number of literary and debating societies which have historic connections to GLO, but are probably not truly fraternal and could be cut.
General non-collegiate fraternal organizations appear to have been included in the WP from the early days or, at least, from before my time. Granted, none of the active WP members are a strong interest in these groups but I have added infoboxes as I work through items on our watchlist. I also have removed the WP tag from community-based groups that don't call themselves fraternal and have open membership and seem to lack ritual and lifetime membership. IMO Rotary, Lions Club, Kiwanis, and Ruritan are clubs/organizations, not fraternities. Elks and Masons seem truly fraternal. Groups like Woodmen of the World are more problematic; formerly a fraternal organization but now an insurance company.
Keeping something under the WP umbrella (on our watchlist and with the talkpage WP tag) and letting it have a Infobox fraternity are not necessarily the same thing. But something to consider as we set policies. That is, if it used to be a fraternity but is now a club or association (we have community-based and collegiate examples of this), should it have an organization infobox instead? If the org changes type, do we automatically drop it from our watchlist? And, since there is a WP:Freemasonry, do we drop all of variations of black and white masons and shriners from our list? Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I would not be against a decision to define WP F&S as only covering groups related to educational institutions in some way, leaving groups not associated or never associated with schools to WP Organizations and WP Freemasonry. My justification would be:
1) Most of the non-collegiate GLOs are smaller and have few secondary sources, meaning they are less notable and not a statistically significant segment of our watchlist
2) The masonic groups are covered by WP Freemasonry which is active and has greater expertise on this subject
3) It would reduce confusion between community-based groups that were "fraternal" meaning men only, but not a fraternity or GLO as such.
4) It would reduce confusion as to whether or not a community-based club belongs under the WP F&S umbrella
5) It would focus the efforts of WP F&S volunteers and more closely align us with WP UNI to recruit new volunteers.
I realize there are downsides to this (one being a US bias), but mostly see positives. Thoughts? Rublamb (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
One of the benefits of our - at least - tracking the existence of these non-collegiate groups is that it helps casual readers differentiate between us and them, as we frame their article's language with similar terms and styles. By using the F&S infobox we funnel the descriptive words into a few consistent places, and make searching easier.
Writers and producers will look for name ambiguity when creating fictional fraternities. Our comprehensive list is a good tool to help them avoid trademark problems. For the same reason I like to keep track of dormant societies.
Several non-collegiate groups were once collegiate. Difficult to set a demarcation line between the two sets.
Editors will gravitate toward working on articles that interest them. I often work on Freemasonry articles, as I have experience and expertise there. You (Rublamb) are a superb researcher, and have done deeper dives into finding sources for the confraternities and international groups. Naraht appears to have more patience (and experience) than I do regarding the Philippine groups - among his other many talents. Primefac appears to have great skill in working with templates and metacode, and we have many keen editors who keep an eye on their favorites. It kind of works out.
Jax MN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jax MN: I've also worked on the Black Mason articles, from time to time, so you are not alone in finding these groups interesting. I suspect my recent addition/conversion to Infobox fraternity for non-collegiate groups has stimulated this conversation. I have mixed feelings about which Infobox is best for some of these groups. However, I have decided to go with Infobox fraternity because that will allow us to pull these groups into reports generated by petscan. That way, the review and discussion of appropriateness can be ongoing. Same with the debating groups. There are so many more articles with Infobox organization that I doubt anyone in that group will care if a few articles move to our side. And, as you say, the available content fits our template better. As to the small GLO non-collegiates, some articles will go away during our cleanup project as we take a critical look at notability and sources--but capturing them on the list of articles should address your concerns. BTW, I now feel like the confraternity hall monitor, but that is another topic. Rublamb (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Misconduct - include or not?

I think it is reasonable and 'encyclopedic' to include a Local chapter or individual misconduct section for the social fraternities and sororities - at least where this comes up. But this begs the question, at what point do we remove these items? We've discussed this before, but the record of this is buried in the archives. This came up when I noted a recent change to the Kappa Kappa Gamma article. Here are my suggestions:

  1. The subheader should normally be named "Local chapter or individual misconduct", as the previously used term "Controversaries" isn't accurate. There isn't anything controversial about hazing or sexual abuse: both are bad. But the generic term "controversaries" can indicate that the problem is systemic (it's not) and thus nationally sanctioned.
  2. Items without a citation should be removed.
  3. I think we'd agree that some detractors among the editors focus on adding negative content or highlighting every incidence of hazing, underage drinking or disciplinary proceedings, no matter the degree. They ignore standards of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. Other editors will weigh these, keeping some of this material and removing others, simply because small stuff doesn't belong in a summary encyclopedic presentation about a national fraternity. We can and do include more of these items as reference items against particular chapters on chapter lists.
  4. Greek chapters change membership completely over about three years. After ten years (three or more generations removed from bad actors) I think it reasonable that most hazing and underage drinking citations ought to be removed. The exceptions being where someone has died or where local, state or national legislation has been passed because of that incident. If a chapter is permanently closed, the citation for this should be added to the chapter list, not kept on the main article. Also, we should keep mention of items which have generated their own Wikipedia articles, like in the case of the fraudulent rape hoax story out of Virginia.

Jax MN (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This really goes back to the suggestion a while back to create guidelines for the ideal article and its sections.
I generally agree with trimming misconduct to major or current cases. However, I have been known to leave or add a fairly insignificant or old hazing incident because its sources are the only non-fraternity sources for the article. (I just did this today). Sometimes the greater good is to retain notability.
The best name for the section is as you suggest, but we need the flexibility to adapt for content about controversies or scandals that are not related to misconduct by members. For example, a coverage when a chapter goes coed OR kidnapping attempts or other crimes against fraternity members (St. Anthony Hall) OR the UNC fraternity brothers who saved the American flag from Gaza protestors and were given six figures in donations through GoFundMe. The controversy/scandal with the latter is the two sides of the protest and their choice to spend some of the money on an all-campus party. Giving these types of events the label of misconduct is biased language but it could correctly be called a scandal or controversy. Rublamb (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the scandal/misconduct/controversy section should stay, but in most cases they need to be written in more of a summary style. As an example, the Delta Tau Delta section could be:
"Over the years, multiple chapters of the fraternity have been involved in notable hazing incidents (add dates and sources). In many cases, those local chapters were suspended by their university or lost their charter."
"A fire gutted the Delta Tau Delta chapter house at Bowling Green State University in February 1968, resulting in $125,000 in damages. The fire started while the brothers were sleeping; some jumped from the third floor to escape. Several brothers were hospitalized, but all managed to escape to safety"
"In the 1970s and 1980s various Delta Tau Delta chapters held Mekong Delta-themed parties, referring to the Mekong River Delta in Southwestern Vietnam where towns were devastated during the Vietnam War. For years, Vietnam veterans spoke out against this event, saying it made light of the war and those who served in it. In 2020, these parties were again brought into the news during the reelection campaign of Congressman Harley Rouda who had participated in these parties while he was a member of Delta Tau Delta at the University of Kentucky." Enos733 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I heavily trimmed this section in Delta Tau Delta a while back... With this example, it seems wrong to place a chapter house fire under a section header of member misconduct. That is another example where that label is judgemental, implying that they did something wrong. Rublamb (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Along with our Notability rules and any formatting guide, this item may rate our keeping any final guidance as a permalink, since it pops up so often. Looking for discussion, consensus, and then a concise statement of the rule. Jax MN (talk) 20:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Persistent smell...

This one doesn't pass the sniff test. Do any of you have IP check rights to see if this is a WP:SOCK? I assume it is. The user account, "Makatatriskelion", registered only four hours ago, has been removing embarrassing information from the Tau Gamma Phi article (Philippines, Triskelions), and adding puffery. Their latest claim is that the organization has 302,785 chapters. CHAPTERS... I find that number difficult to accept, especially for a group that has no website of its own. As I said, bad smell. Jax MN (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there other accounts that have done similar things at this article? Otherwise, it just looks like an SPA, i.e. someone who came across the article and felt they needed to "fix" it. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
About every six months we see a flurry of activity for this, and similarly for a couple others among the Philippine fraternities. References are slim if they exist at all. Most of the edits were performed by Anon accounts, if memory serves. Jax MN (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities/Archive_15&oldid=1246199331"