Talk:Theta Phi Alpha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quincy College/University[edit]

The Centennial History indicates that only three chapters of Pi Lambda Sigma came into Theta Phi Alpha with Boston U, Cincinnati and Creighton (the first two merging). However the 1957 Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities snippet https://books.google.com/books?id=LAbOAAAAMAAJ&q=%221952+and+psi+at%22&dq=%221952+and+psi+at%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3TWgVY2FDNLaoASHgYvoCg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA indicates that Quincy College chapter of Pi Lambda Sigma became Psi chapter of Theta Phi Alpha.Naraht (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the story in the Centenial historyabout the merger at the 1952 convention says three schools, the page specifically on Pi Lambda Sigma includes Quincy.Naraht (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So the Centennial History article reversed of the University of Cincinnati and Boston University greek chapter names. All four of these Pi Lambda Sigma chapters became seperate Theta Phi Alpha chapters according to the Theta Phi Alpha website and the Centennial History article. Unless I'm missing something, it seems like both of the sources are saying the same thing, with the exception of the Centennial History article mixing up the greek namesMsnicolem (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually two became separate chapters, two merged...Naraht (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Lambda Sigma[edit]

I think the information in the Centennial History and the secondary source for a good chunk of it in Baird's should be more than enough to put together an article (maybe stub/maybe class C). https://sororityhistories.wordpress.com/tag/pi-lambda-sigma/ is also a possibility for confirming info. Since Pi Lambda Sigma is an existing article, maybe Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority), the primary question is whether to move Pi Lambda Sigma to Pi Lambda Sigma (honorary) and make the main page a disambiguation page...Naraht (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Delta Phi Epsilon which is both a social sorority and professional honor sorority, they have "Delta Phi Epsilon" as a disambiguation page. I'm not sure if you need approval or anything like that to "move" a page, but I do believe it would be reasonable to move it. Msnicolem (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough on it to form an article? I look at the examples of Phi Kappa and Theta Kappa Phi, neither of which have standalone articles; instead, they're covered in the article on the merged fraternity, Phi Kappa Theta. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the page in the Centennial directory http://www.enivation.com/ThetaPhiAlpha/Centennial_History/index.html#67 and information in the "Fraternities that are no more" sections of some of the recent Baird's, I think we have a comparable amount of information to Alpha Delta Theta. (Using the entries in Category:Defunct fraternities and sororities as a guide.) Naraht (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delta Phi Epsilon is a model, Delta Sigma Epsilon is a wierd model, Kappa Phi Lambda which is an example with an existing fraternity (with no dab) and a defunct sorority with (sorority). I think the *first* thing is to determine if it should be a separate page (and creating it as part of the Theta Phi Alpha page and then splitting out later is perfectly acceptable), and if we have a separate article for Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority) *then* consider if the other should be moved to something with an honorary and make the main page a dab page. Naraht (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Draft:Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority)[edit]

I'm going to start Draft:Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority) based on the Centennial page. Worst case scenario is it gets merged into Theta Phi Alpha. :)Naraht (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:, @Msnicolem:: Draft is ready for review at Draft:Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority), let me know what you think. Still some issue on who the founders are. I picked the longest list from the Centennial, there is a second list in the Centennial and one in Baird's in the Fraternities that are no more section.Naraht (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting Info on Omega Upsilon[edit]

I wanted to just dump all of the links for Omega Upsilon http://oldnews.aadl.org/taxonomy/term/67364 here until there is enough for a stub article.Msnicolem (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same Omega Upsilon? I thought that it only existed from 1909 to 1912? (and removed the ref tags, pushes it out of the same section of the talk page.)Naraht (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I don't think there is any information regarding Omega Upsilon that I have been able to find as of yet. Msnicolem (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial History Book[edit]

This has so much information on the sorority that I wanted to write down areas we could improve the article based on this source that has yet to be accomplished.

  • Our History
    • 1912-1937
    • 1937- 1962
    • 1962- 1987
    • 1987- 2012
  • Photo Gallery (These might have copyright issues, so it may not be possible to pull these photos)
  • Traditions (Include this with motto and creed and retitle section traditions)
  • Our Presidents (can only use information if there was like a separate page for any of the past presidents. Information not enough to place by the list)
  • Our Chapters/ Alumnae Association (gives history on each chapter, may not want to put in)
  • Governing Structure (Gives definition of chapter government, what a colony and alumnae association is - may want to include information)

Msnicolem (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For Rituals, I wouldn't just include the information from the page about the rituals, but also the changes in the 1960s relating to the changes as part of opening up membership to non-catholic students. (which would be talked about similarly in history) Naraht (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've made Draft:Pi Lambda Sigma (sorority), which has been rejected, but discussions are open on WP:FRAT since it is a borderline case. If it doesn't become its own article, much of it will come into this article. If possible, secondary sources confirming the information pulled from the History book should also be used.Naraht (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

complete re-write needed[edit]

A pretty much wholesale rewrite is needed to bring this close to being an encyclopedia article rather than serving as a free webhost for the sorority. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sorority has a web site. Have we vetted the text to make sure it isn't copied from there? —C.Fred (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Centennial History at http://www.enivation.com/ThetaPhiAlpha/Centennial_History has been a major source, though definitely not enough to make this a "one source" article. I doubt there is enough "connected" to make it a copyvio in any single place. But if there is enough connected to make this a copyvio problem, then it likely comes from the History book and not from elsewhere.
  • msnicolem (talk · contribs) has been enthusiastically adding things, but I have been trying to watch, though some sections probably should be snipped entirely. The Appointed National Officers seems out of place, and the biographies seem a bit much, though I think she is trying to trying to create draft articles for the founders. Kappa Alpha Psi has articles for each of the founders, OTOH, Alpha Phi Alpha only has two of the seven with biographies. It is the ongoing question as to whether being a founder of a National Greek Letter Organization in and of itself represents notability.
  • I'm not sure what to do with the Siena Award. It is a notable part of Theta Phi Alpha, but that is a long table and I'm not sure if there is any comparable page by itself.Naraht (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know whether or not there is specific copyright violation going on or even reason to believe there might be, I just see a page that i would expect to be at Theta_Phi_Alpha.com instead of in an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the founder bios and the appointed national officers, what jumps out as being different than one of the other NPC organizations (Say Delta Delta Delta or Chi Omega) or even the FA Alpha Kappa Alpha?
So I've been trying to beef up a lot of the content in the article and I have been basing the design almost entirely on Alpha Kappa Alpha including the founder bios which are currently still in drafts as I'm looking for more sources. Before I began editing the page, some of the article was word for word off the national website, something of which I have been trying to fix. If you could point out specific sections that should be reworded, I would be happy to relook at them to fit standards. However, this page looks very similar in style to other greek organization articles with the exception of a weak national history section, something of which I'm currently trying to collect information on Msnicolem (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, a good chunk of the significant history of the sorority that belongs on the article is on the complicated transformation from a Catholic sorority to a non-denominational one. There are at *least* four points in the history of the sorority in that regards that belong in the article and the only question in my mind is whether to intermingle it with the remainder of the history or whether to pull it out into a separate section within the history.Naraht (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Founders[edit]

So I edited the founders section to cut out some of the flowery language. Please let me know what you think. I want to make sure this article is within the quality standards. Msnicolem (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be getting better. If specific comments are made, then we'll look at them. But we are probably still a distance from trying for WP:Good Article in which you deliberately go out and *get* someone to evaluate it. :) Naraht (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for right now I just want to get rid of the warnings. Is there some sort of evaluation to get rid of the banners on the article? Msnicolem (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made some change throughout (sorry to step on your toes as you were editing, Msnicolem...), and you may have to re-do the last ones, regarding the national offices. I removed a couple of the banners that didn't seem relevant anymore. I'll leave the banner at the top for others, and one final review. Looks good to me. Jax MN (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol it's no problem it happens! I will fix it in the next couple of days. It was mostly just moving and combining the sections to make more sense Msnicolem (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put back your three column solution for the officers/trustees/? that got tromped on.Naraht (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History Arcs[edit]

Actually after giving it thought, the following are (I believe) the major arcs of Theta Phi Alpha's history...

  • Founding and initial expansion
  • Expansion while badly wanting membership in the NPC (ending in 1930s-1951)
  • Transformation from Catholic to non-denominational Sorority (1950s-1968)
  • Low chapter numbers leading to possiblity of merger and/or being dropped by NPC and recovery (1960s-mid 1980s)
  • Expansion since.

Naraht (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the next area that needs to be worked on. If that can be gotten to a page or so, then everything else will swing into balance. The problem isn't too much of something specific, but too little history.Naraht (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I take that back. I still think "Other Appointed National Officers" needs to go.Naraht (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when you look at that section it doesn't really add too much to the page. I'm good with just removing that part Msnicolem (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.Naraht (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols[edit]

Do we need to include a seperate section for symbols if all of the symbols are included in the InfoBox Fraternity template at the start of the article?Msnicolem (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Coat of Arms isn't. The rules on whether or not to include things that are already in the infobox is vague. I'd keep it for now.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time, other fraternities on campus openly discriminated against Catholic women and would not welcome them into their organizations."[edit]

IMO, this sentence should either be referenced or deleted. (and yes, I know that it has been in the article since it was added in 2005 to "Theta phi alpha".Naraht (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theta_phi_alpha&type=revision&diff=11785147&oldid=11785120 Naraht (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. While I do not doubt that such discrimination might have occurred, it would be very helpful for the article to show a reference. 173.11.49.141 (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think I have the national website memorized lol and I believe that is word from word off the website Msnicolem (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out there. We can probably put it into quotes if it is in the history on the website, but I want to get it exact (since it was changed in the article from sororities to fraternities). Note a google search for Openly on thetaphialpha.org only gives two hits neither of which is this. The phrase also isn't in the Centennial. Pledge Manual maybe???Naraht (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the exact theta phi document that states this but if you google the term a lot of exact results pop up for sorority such as http://fratcomm.blogspot.com/2011/08/happy-100th-anniversary-to-theta-phi.html, and http://everything.explained.at/Theta_Phi_Alpha/. Let me know if that helpsMsnicolem (talk) 00:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. *Both* of them look too much like the Wikipedia page (especially the explained) and were created well after the phrase showed up on Wikipedia. The first one is from 2011, the second is clearly a copy and was done after 2005. So we don't have anywhere that it exists prior to Wikipedia. If we are going to have a reference for it, we need something done before 2005, which means *if* it exists, it came from Theta Phi Alpha itself.Naraht (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Phi Alpha's website history page phrasing[edit]

The sentences that have been used on the history page of the National Theta Phi Alpha website from at least as far back as 2001 to today is

Several women students were originally very interested in joining, partly because Catholics were not always welcome in the other Greek-letter sororities on campus. By founding this new sorority, Catholic women had sorority life opened to them.

This phrasing doesn't seem as confrontational, though arguably *may* describe the same situation as the original phrasing. Could we work from this for a replacement?Naraht (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I responded to this sooner. I'm good with changing it to the language on the national website. Msnicolem (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrasing a little might be necessary, but I'd much rather deal with potential copyright issues than that old sentence...Naraht (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Resource - Compass V1 N1[edit]

The very first issue of the Compass June 1921 is available at https://celectcdn.s3.amazonaws.com/files/0034/0188/Compass_-_1921_June.pdf . Lots of very interesting information. Also, since this was published in 1921 (before 1923), I believe that pictures can be used from it without permission.

Section on membership requirements...[edit]

One of the arcs of Theta Phi Alpha history will be the change from being a Catholic Fraternity to being a non-sectarian one. One piece of information from a third party source that I think would be very useful. Published in 1955 https://archive.org/stream/fraternitieswith008910mbp#page/n93/mode/2up

Among the 31 members and one associate in the Women's National Panhellenic Conference, only one, Theta Phi Alpha (a Roman Catholic Sorority), now has a written restrictive provision.

isn't "Women's fraternity" an oxymoron[edit]

I thought it was just called a sorority — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1E2E:1801:4C19:DEC6:8EF6:3E3 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several organizations, which may be generically referred to as sororities, call themselves women's fraternities. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theta_Phi_Alpha&oldid=1211948007"