User talk:72.166.23.254

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These edits are done by RJT011000

[edit] re: Omega Delta Phi

The tone and peacock aspects that immediately jump out are:

  • The article reads like the group is puffing itself up (hence the peacock). Most of the tone and peacock things are one in the asme.
  • "began as the brainchild" - this should be "Omega Deta Phi was initially founded by ...." or something along those lines.
  • "seven Men of Vision" - you can cite this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a NPOV statement.
  • having a presence on YouTube isn't notable, and the inclusion of "unofficial" videos is crossing into individual chapters using it as a recruitment tool.
  • all of the sources are either directly from the organization (both collegiate and alumni) or youtube. The ones that are not from those two sources are from sites that the bio is submitted by the organization itself (the nclr.org ref, for example).

All in all, it boils down this: Wikipedia is not a rush flyer, and the article should be about a brief history of the org, some information on it's operating structure and some neutral, third-party references. Justinm1978 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RJT011000: re: Omega Delta Phi

I can understand the following stated items:

  • The article reads like the group is puffing itself up (hence the peacock). Most of the tone and peacock things are one in the asme.
  • "began as the brainchild" - this should be "Omega Deta Phi was initially founded by ...." or something along those lines.
  • "seven Men of Vision" - you can cite this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not a NPOV statement.
  • having a presence on YouTube isn't notable, and the inclusion of "unofficial" videos is crossing into individual chapters using it as a recruitment tool.

However, reviewing wikis for other fraternities and sororities, I see many references to the organization's own website i.e. Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Phi Omega. While I can agree with removing the you tube reference, what justifies removal of the organizational sources (both collegiate and alumni)?:

  • all of the sources are either directly from the organization (both collegiate and alumni) or you tube. The ones that are not from those two sources are from sites that the bio is submitted by the organization itself (the nclr.org ref, for example).
The issue of citing is that there are no third-party reliable sources (newspaper articles, books, etc.) to corroborate what the organization's website is saying. It's ok to use the org's webpages as reference, but not as the sole reference for all entries, and not as a blanket "point to the root of the webpage". It's also not exactly a reliable source if you cite the alumni pages corroborating the collegiate ones :)
If you look at the Alpha Phi Alpha article, there are a list of sources a mile long and they do not all originate with APhiA. With the Alpha Phi Omega article, they do use a lot of fraternity sources, but they are to very specific documents that have been published and are available for distribution. Also, there is a healthy (although we are working on more) amount of non-APO references.
This article has promise, but you'll really need to start looking around for newspaper articles, books, etc that have an outside party with zero relation to the group backing up what they say. They're out there, you just have to find them :) Good luck! Justinm1978 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)