Talk:Sigma Pi Phi

message: This page was created as part of what appears to be a coordinated attack on another entry and organization, Alpha Phi Alpha, by NinjaNubian aka Mykungfu.  There may also be some copyright issues, as the organization's history book is generally not presented publicly.  Below is my suggestion for cleaning up this page; it even discusses from a NPOV what Mykungfu describes as "controversy." --Robotam 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Alpha Phi Alpha claims a historical position as the first intercollegiate Greek-letter fraternity in the United States established for men of African descent. However, some claim there is dispute as to whether Alpha Phi Alpha was the first black fraternity. 
Some have claimed Sigma Pi Phi, founded in 1904, to be the first fraternity, although others argue this is a misnomer. Sigma was founded as an organization for professionals and college graduates and not as an organization of black college students.   Historian Charles H. Wesley, a member of both Alpha Phi Alpha and Sigma Pi Phi, authored The History of Alpha Phi Alpha, A Development in College Life and The History of Sigma Pi Phi and asserts that Alpha Phi Alpha was the first Greek-letter organization among black college men. 
Sigma Pi Phi and Alpha Phi Alpha have historically had a congenial relationship. One of Sigma's founders,  Henry McKee Minton, was a member of both, as were many pioneers of business and civil rights, such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
--Robotam 19:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First African-American Fraternity? 

message: === robotam ===
Came around september 6.  his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC.  I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history
Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  coordinated attack 

message: Came around september 6.  his second edit was sept 12th, his third was on the 13th it basically seems as if his whole existance was to sign this RFC.  I believe him to be a sockpuppet
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robotam&limit=500&action=history
Mykungfu 09:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  robotam 

message: I re-inserted the dispute tag.  The factual basis of the article is clearly in dispute, as the editor has yet to find support for these claims on the other pages that he has argued them on (and there claimed them AS issues in dispute). In regards to the cleanup tag, some of the cites refer as proof to a section of "Skip's Historical Moments" that clearly was a letter expressing one person's opinion (and was the subject of dispute even within the citation), on the dispute of whether Sigma is a fraternity, and the claim that they ever had undergraduate chapters. Thanks!-Robotam 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Re: Cleanup 

message: what do both parties feel needs to be cleaned up and what proof is required?
Mykungfu, the answer to your question is pretty well laid out above, in addition to various minor grammatical edits. I would suggest restoring the tags that you so hastily removed; you might even find some people sympathetic to your POV, in addition to some better cites rather than trying to shield the page from scrutiny.  However, it is very unlikely that you are going to find anything reliable that shows (a) that Alpha Kappa Nu was either successful in or even wanted to be a fraternity or (b) Sigma Pi Phi, which had a small number of undergraduate members ever had or intended to have undergraduate chapters. Skip Mason, whom you cite, says the opposite. The rational reasons that the other information you have given is greatly flawed have been discussed at length on other pages as well.  Thanks for your inquiry!-Robotam 18:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So as to prevent future issues 

message: I'm wondering what makes the contributions of Skip Mason any different from a personal website, opinion article or editorial..
Reading this, I wonder if it really is less objective and more subjective 
"As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit.  Permit me to share some a few statements (and of course my personal commentary in between) from their books:  
"     
http://www.skipmason.com/hm/hm08.htm
on some of his website pages  he states "DISCLAIMER: This page is not affiliated with the National Organization. I am not the Historian of the fraternity, just a brother who is and has always been thirsty for more knowledge on this organization. The information provided has been thoroughly researched and documented and is brought to you with all the fraternal love and spirit I possess. Sources are available upon request. 
"
http://www.skipmason.com/about.htm
Self-published sources (online and paper)
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources 
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-== Skip Mason ==
I'm wondering what makes the contributions of Skip Mason any different from a personal website, opinion article or editorial..
Reading this, I wonder if it really is less objective and more subjective 
published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability  
published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources  
based from  -  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alpha_Phi_Alpha#Skip_Mason
64.131.205.160 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skip Mason 

message: Mykungfu, is there a reason you don't want the article to be listed as a stub?  Why don't you want neutral editors to provide input? Everybody can't be in a vendetta against you;, in fact, you would find that if you would edit in good faith, everyone here is ready and willing to work with you.  However, false accusations, racial slurs and vandalism cannot be the way to build consensus.  We get it--you don't like Alpha Phi Alpha, for whatever reason. But all of the editors here (including those that you assume are members of Alpha because they didn't allow you to vandalize that article) have been dealing with you in good faith, evident by the fact that so many are working to save an article that you clearly created (originally) to denigrate another article.  My edits are not and have never been "vandalism;" if you really looked at the works YOU cited for this piece, you would see where my edits came from.(signed by)-Robotam 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mykungfu, you can't have it both ways.  Mason is published, but notwithstanding that, you cited him, not me. I edited the article by reading the other works you cited, besides Mason.  You then anonymously started the "wholesale reverts" back to the incorrect and biased text you preferred, doing so without "taking it to the talk section" as you acknowledge is the way you should have dealt with it.  Note that I made no changes that are not backed up by your credible sources.  I, along with the others here, am editing for neutral POV, which you for some reason don't like.   I'm interested in knowing what text, placed here by anyone besides yourself, do you claim as "non-neutral pov," and why you feel you have to post anonymously in order to bolster your own POV. -Robotam 15:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon Mykungfu 

message: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account. Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it.
---
Please note, that according to Wiki Policy, "Editors who have been banned from editing particular pages, or banned or blocked from Wikipedia in general, and who continue to edit anyway, either directly or through a sock-puppet, may be reverted without the reverts counting towards the limit established by this policy."
I hope this helps clarify your rights and responsibilities as a Wiki editor. Thanks!-Robotam 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumventing policy

message: Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject. In general, higher education textbooks are frequently revised and try to be authoritative. Textbooks aimed at secondary-school students, however, do not try to be authoritative and are subject to political approval.  64.12.116.199 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  skip mason Beware false authority 

message: "congenial relationship with college fraternities" the reference given doesn't state.  Where is this implied?
"citation needed" added. -Robotam 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  tag is a way of labelling something that needs a citation, in the hope that a future editor will be able to provide one. It's now deprecated in favor of , although the effect is the same. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: fair enough.. is there a time period we have to wait?  205.188.116.134 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no set guideline but it's good policy to leave it in for a few months to see if someone picks it up with a citation. The tag makes it clear to any reader that the item is in question. I'm going to change it to  just to make it clear. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  duly noted. thanks-Robotam 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congenial Relationship? 

message: I'm skeptical on Aaron's name. The only "sources" I could find were quotes from people who claimed to have seen the secret Boule book, none of which passes the sniff test for me in terms of reliability. Any objection to me taking the Hammer out? | Mr. Darcy talk 02:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection. Is Hank Aaron actually a member of Omega Psi Phi?-Robotam 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like he is: . | Mr. Darcy talk 18:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following up, I've removed the reference to Aaron and the picture. If someone can provide a valid cite for him, we can put it back in. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hank Aaron

message: Athletic Stars   
Sigma Pi Phi hasn't limited membership to professionals, but to all those who are accomplished no matter what field. Arther Ashe a famed African American tennis star, as well as Hank Aaron MLB Homerun Record holder is amongst it's members.  GrandWizard 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was removed because Ashe is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and there is no evidence that Aaron is actually a member. See earlier discussion of Aaron on this talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at preceeding comments, can you put down citation needed?  Also Martin Luther King is also mentioned previously in the article, but he was kept in another section as well.  Any reason?  GrandWizard 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence anywhere that Aaron was a member of Sigma Pi Phi; that's why he came out. If someone can source it properly, it'll go back in. I haven't gotten to the civil rights section yet. Let's not treat this like a legal proceeding - the point is to clean up the article and make sure everything is sourced properly. I took out the Athletes section because it contained no new, verified information. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not utilize citation is what i was asking? From looking at previous records, there did exist a website that stated his affiliation with the group.  If another athlete is found amongst the group of members, will the athleteic stars be reinserted? GrandWizard 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say one section of Famous Members would be more consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. We could subdivide if the lists get really long. As for Aaron, I would oppose inclusion even with the  tag, because it looks bogus to me. I can't find anything online that supports it other than the alleged boule listing. Hank Aaron's a pretty famous guy, so I think if it was true, Sigma Pi Phi would be shouting it from the mountaintops if he was a member. Like I said, if you or anyone else can find a cite somewhere, I will help put it in with the proper footnote. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They appear to be a secret organization. They don't seem to really publicize anything and already have many famous members such as Arthur Ashe, MLK, and others.  It's not necessary to shout and scream membership roster.  Look at the Freemasons (George Washington, most presidents of the USA), Harvard, not everyone advertises their roster.  GrandWizard 04:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this information may be hard to verify, but those are the rules on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy in question. I have no philosophical objection to the content, and as I said, if someone can verify his membership, we'll get it right back in there. In the interim, though, I would be opposed to its inclusion. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of those first two qualify as reliable sources; one is a mailing list, and the other is just some random person's Web site. Those are not strong references, because the sites in question are themselves questionable. The second and third links mention a boule or boulé, but neither mentions Sigma Pi Phi. The third link (NCCU.edu) mentions a "Kappa boulé" without elaborating, unfortunately. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this the only entity known as "Kappa Boule?" I'm just asking; I really have no idea, but it doesn't sound like a unique name. The combined citations from NCCU and Morris Brown would, however, suffice to demonstrate that Aaron is a member of Sigma Pi Phi. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've created a Famous Members section, and included Aaron with the NCCU document as its citation. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking over why were so many sections removed. 

message: Congressional Record reference
GrandWizard 06:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only read this reference so far, but it says nothing about Hank Aaron or most of those other folks being Sigma Pi Phi members. The only people it lists as members are W.E.B. Dubois, MLK, and Congressman Watt (I assume this is Mel Watt. I'll add Watt to the article, but that's all off of this reference. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add to references 

message: Good luck on trying to find any more info than what's already in this article. SPP is indeed a secret society. That's the way they've always preferred it.  
Adisalee 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless MrDarcy disagrees, this is pretty much it, without getting into original research (see my comments at the top).-Robotam 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Robotam's right. I didn't have any luck finding additional information on the organization, although one of its former presidents passed away last week (story). There may be printed sources we haven't found; if any of you has access to a college library, it might be worth asking a librarian if s/he knows of any possible sources for SPF's history (e.g., a book on the history of African-American fraternal organizations). | Mr. Darcy talk 17:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secret Society 

message: Why is the name Fraternity removed from Sigma Pi Phi by a user here,  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sigma_Pi_Phi&diff=81036327&oldid=80471740,  when it is in fact a fraternity as is described in various places as well as it's official website http://www.sigma-pi-phi.net/  .  205.188.116.134 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the name Fraternity 

message: The history is available for sale on sites such as eBay and probably available at certain libraries. If someone buys/checks out the book, they can publish the material on Wikipedia? Real96 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Publishing that material would probably be a copyright violation. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not to clarify, but "publishing" as in rewording the material for Wikipedia. Real96 00:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can probably use it a reference, as long as it's not considered confidential, and if it passes WP:RS. If it's written or published by Sigma Pi Phi, it might be too biased for most usage as a reference, except basic, non-controversial details. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book

message: Further information of this organization from a third person's point of view can be found in Lawrence Otis Gram's book Our Kind of People. Excerpts can be seen here. Real96 20:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Sigma Pi Phi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617133445/http://www.naacp.org/about/history/timeline/ to http://www.naacp.org/about/history/timeline/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_11_59/ai_n6158341
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A well-meaning but anonymous editor had switched out the accented "E" in the name Boulé with the flat, or long-vowel symbol.  This was incorrect, and I reverted it.  See the national website for numerous examples of correct usage.
:Correct: Boulé   ⇐ This uses the "Acute accent"
:Incorrect: Boulē   ⇐ This uses the "Macron accent"
For ease in typing, sometimes writers will use Boule' instead.  Not great, but one sees this usage. Jax MN (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent mark