Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 University of Cincinnati Hazing 2 CC Poindexter 3 Picture of Founding House 4 Rushing Black Fraternities 5 Posted on My Talk Page 6 More PD images for Alpha Phi Alpha 7 Social or Service classification 8 Alpha List of Brothers 9 Charles Diggs 10 Geographic coordinates 11 Linking articles 11.1 Feedback 11.2 Suggested changes have been added to the draft 11.3 Finished (for now) 12 Image Deletion 13 History sentence 14 Monkey phi monkey 15 merging of Black college Greek movement 16 Possible help in expansion of article

University of Cincinnati Hazing

I know for a fact that fraternity hazes it's members during the pledging process. If anybody of significance reads this, I would suggest investigating them. Paddling, underage alcohol, and strippers are among the known events which have happened.

This is not the place for conjecture. If your assertation has merit, please submit third-party sources (newspaper, university, etc.) and they can be worked into the article. If you are looking to lodge a complaint, this is definitely not the correct location for that. Justinm1978 19:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There only seems to be an incident of suspension, and reinstatement. [1] . This may be a better article, but it is unrelated http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2006/04/30/67727.htm .

There was a a round logo that was used all over the 2006 convention it was like a stamp with a sphinx on it. I really like it because the words fit the fraternity so well. " A Century of Leadership and Service"

My questions where did it come from and where did it go?

CC Poindexter

It seems that the dispute over CC Poindexter as founder should be mentioned at the article. E.g., "CC Poindexter is considered by some historians to have been among the founders..." --Kevin Murray 21:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of Founding House

On Firefox browsers, the founding house appears to be overlapping over one of the founder's pictures. That's why I decided to place the image to the left rather than have it overlapping. Real96 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't just move it to the left, you moved it into the middle of a paragraph above, which broke up the paragraph and that made the article choppy are flow difficult to follow and read. Thanks for the attempt, however; It would be impossible to create an article that satisfies all browsers.--Ccson 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Real96 00:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rushing Black Fraternities

If possible, please clean up this section: Fraternities_and_sororities#Joining_a_black_fraternity_or_sorority. It reads poorly and its citations should be footnotes instead. I am also unsure of the universality of said processes; if they are fairly common, keep them; if not, delete them. Thank you for your help. —ScouterSig 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted on My Talk Page

Real96 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Alpha Phi Alpha page is false about Fort Des Moines the information is about the Omega Psi Phi Fraternity see the book " American Negro in the World War" here a link to the e-version

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/Scott/SCh07.htm

Dr. Joel E. Spingarn is not a member of Alpha phi Alpha

Lieut. Col.Charles Young is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

FRANK COLEMAN is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

T. M. GREGORY is a member of Omega Psi Phi. W. DOUGLAS is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

C. H. HOUSTON is a member of Omega Psi Phi. W. A. HALL is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

M. H. CURTIS is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

These men lobbying the government, and spoken with president Wilson and the war department.

Dr. Moorland is a member of Omega Psi Phi.

Please get the facts right.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agodofman (talk • contribs).

The reference regarding Fort Des Moines is provided in the article as footnote 13.

Jeese E. Moorland is clearly listed as a member of Alpha Phi Alpha's Beta chapter in the 1982 copyright version of the history book. see page 110.

I don't see the names Spingarn, Curtis et. al. in the article. Where is the editor getting these other names? Can the paragraph where the other names appear be provided?--Ccson 17:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The names are in the e-version of the article referenced by user Agodofman.--Ccson 13:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

More PD images for Alpha Phi Alpha

Found these while researching AKA. Thought they may be helpful to the article. Real96 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Social or Service classification

Since discussion is deadlocked on the NPHC Talk Page, I'm bringing this here for a vote on what the classification for Alpha Phi Alpha is: "Social (General) Fraternity" or "Service Fraternity". Please see the discussion on the NPHC Talk Page for additional "backstory" and reference. Remember that this is not a question on personal opinion or activities, but rather what the legal definition of this organization is. Please vote social or service, and feel free to add supporting opinion. Justinm1978 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• social - Organization is exempt from Title IX requirements. In order to be a true service fraternity, they would have to be a co-ed organization on the national level. No legal document has defined them as a service fraternity other than the opinions and statements of members, and while they do a good amount of community service, this does not make them a service fraternity. Justinm1978 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Justinm1978, you're going on the assumption that the classification must be in line with Title IX, and not the actions of the group. Your POV was stated on the NPHC page, but after repeated requests, no one would show me wikipeida's policy on deciding the status. How should foreign Greek fraternal groups be classified in wikipedia that are not subject to Title IX?--Ccson 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Social: the article cited by ccson states "Although the enhancement of Black men has always been the goal of the fraternity" and "And that continuing commitment perhaps will eventually change the minds of observers who believe that fraternities and sororities are only social organizations." The first sentence cited is NOT "service," and the second implies that all fraternities are social and something else. Additionally, it may indeed not be allowed legally to classify itself as a "service" fraternity. HOWEVER, this is NOT TO SAY that service is not important, as said in the second paragraph of the cited letter.

That being said, this vote really is absurd. How can we decide what Alpha Phi Alpha is? All we can do is say "classify it as ___ here because those are the only categories we have." As a member of Sigma Chi, I know that I belong to a social fraternity. This is so, even if we have a vision to be the "preeminent college leadership development organization [2], or if our fundamental purpose is the cultivation maintenance and accomplishment of the ideals of friendship, justice and learning. [3]. Our categorization system does not allow for dual-registration, so it can only be listed under one, and that should be "social." —ScouterSig 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Scoutersig, i like your thoughts, however, the purpose of the article is stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph. You've gone all the way to the end for your sentence and that's the very perception that the General President was attempting to thwart. I guess he was unsuccessfully since that article appeared almost 20 years ago and APA is summarily being classified in some circles as merely social.--Ccson 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though message boards are not reliable sources, I found this from an Alpha member on Greek Chat, seen here, specifically here. He says that the fraternity is social. But, I do see your point. Service fraternities must be co-ed, under Title IX. Miranda 19:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Naraht call the APA office to get their input on whether the fraternity was social or service. The national office told him to simply put his question in an email and they would reply. He either has not contacted them in writing or hasn't posted the reply, but he has found the time to post and respond on chat boards.--Ccson 05:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not disagreeing with the absurdity of the vote, but with three users in a project who are having a minor edit war on the project's only Featured Article, I would rather see this go to a vote and get consensus from the group rather than have someone from outside put it up for review and lose it's Featured Article status. Justinm1978 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, if you want to get an outside opinion, file a RFC. In my opinion, this is a social fraternity which does service projects. Everyone just needs to be careful of not trying to do this. Miranda 19:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Social - Alpha Phi Alpha has never claimed to be anything except a general fraternity. It's membership in the NPC requires that it be a general fraternity. No changes to the organization occured when Title IX passed.Naraht 19:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused why Naraht says APA has only claimed be a general fraternity, quite the opposite. The article referenced (footnote 16) by CCSON states in the second paragraph, By providing scholarships for needy students (male and female) and initiating various other charitable and service projects, members says the fraternity continues to demonstrate that it is primarily a communicty service organization, not a social one. I'm not sure how the fraternity's thoughts can be clearer. I agree with Miranda.--Ccson 04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

comment - Until Alpha Phi Alpha comes forth with changes to their bylaws, articles of incorporation and membership policies to be in Title IX compliance, they are a social fraternity that has a strong emphasis on community service. As far as the footnote 16 reference, honestly, members of groups say a lot of things about their group (I can find several Alphas who will attest that they are in a social frat that volunteers a lot), and an article in a magazine about how APA does a lot of service hardly constitutes a clear policy shift and fundamental change to the fraternity. Also, most, if not all, GLO's have significant national philanthropy programs and are a central focus of their fraternity/sorority, but they are still general/social. I fail to see how APA is so different from all the other social GLO's that have volunteerism and community service as part of their program. Justinm1978 05:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As you stated, different people can say different things on the same subject, but that's just individual POV. The author the article indicates that the comments were obtained from "Officials" of APA, plus, there's a quote from Henry Ponder, the then General President of APA. These are not just random pollings of people one knows personally, the comments are from the national office. We can quote people in wikipedia as long as we say they said it and can provide a copy of the source. Again, APA invited Narahat to email them for a definitive answer, you can at wdlyle@apa1906.net--Ccson 05:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

comment - Letter was written today to both the communications director and APA's executive director, no response received as of yet. Again, this is still about the classification, not about the work that they do. Nobody has said because they're classified as social that they aren't strong community activists and volunteers. Why are you so against changing this to be in line with the legal and factual definion? Why are you not so adamantly contesting the proper classification of the rest of the fraternities and sororities that were changed from service to social? What makes Alpha Phi Alpha so different than the dozens of other GLO's that volunteer a significant amount? Justinm1978 01:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

comment - Here is my letter, sent to the Executive Director and Communications Director for Alpha Phi Alpha. No response has been received as of this posting.

I am doing some research on the Greek Lettered Organizations, and was referred to this address for questions relating to Alpha Phi Alpha. I know that the members of APA do a tremendous amount of volunteer work and community service, and I am quite impressed by that and everything the fraternity has done to advance the civil rights movement. I was wondering in the grand scheme of how fraternities operate, are allowed to select their membership based on gender, and with respect to the Title IX regulations regarding collegiate organizations, what type of fraternity is Alpha Phi Alpha? Would it be a safe assumption that APA is a social/general fraternity with a very strong emphasis on community service, or would it be considered an actual "service fraternity". If the latter, how do you address concerns about Title IX and the prohibition of gender discrimination in non-social/general fraternities? I am also asking this question of all fraternities and sororities that have strong service programs so I can better understand the many aspects of the greek system, and any help you can provide me would be most appreciated.

Justinm1978 13:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you paste of a copy of the email here so all can see the manner in which you framed the question? I think you've proved it's not a service group based on title ix, so that should not have been the question. I hope it was "Are you a Service or Social fraternity, and upon what basis to you make this claim"? Are you prepared to accept the response from the national office regarding classfication whether its a "Yes" or "No'?

Justin, go work on another article for a while and come back to this discussion in a week or two. Seriously. Your point discussions on Alpha Phi Alpha being a service/social fraternity is kind of getting old and is on the borderline of being disruptive. It is already established that the fraternity is a social fraternity which performs service projects. Leave it at that for now. Miranda 01:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I respecfully disagree on the disruptive part, because I believe my questions are valid for the editor. I'm glad you agree with me that it is social, and would certainly agree that it is established as such. I've been trying to leave it at that. Would you say that consensus has been reached? Justinm1978 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, you are a very prudent editor. I left the discussion on the NPHC talk page for a few weeks because each time I proved to Narahat that his POV was either biased or not a wikipedia policy, he would invent another test. Now, Justinm1978 is rehashing the same argument regrding title ix that Narahat conceded. it's never going to end. I felt the discussion would never end because he had a POV. The final discussion taken from the NPHC page appears below where Narahat reluctantly admits APA is a service organization, but not a fraternity, then, it's a fraternity, but find me the words "service" and "fraternity" contiguously together?

“

OK, fair enough, we can describe Alpha Phi Alpha as a service organization as long as we stop refering to it as a Fraternity. Naraht 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC) APA is referred to as fraternity, group, organization interchangeably throughout the article. It's most definitely a fraternity as evidenced by its member in the NPHC and the NIC. Plus, this sentence and linked source is taken from the article; The Fraternity was again incorporated as a national organization on April 9, 1911, under the laws of Congress within the District of Columbia, under the name and title of The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.[Ccson] OK, it's a fraternity. :) I did have better luck with the North-American Interfraternity Council. I talked to the Executive Vice President of the NIC. He said that other than the groups which were grandfathered in when the NIC was formed in 1932, all groups which have been admitted since are general fraternities. Can you find the two words "Service Fraternity" together in that order in *any* document produced by Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. Corporation Headquarters? Naraht 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

”

--Ccson 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Naraht, not Narahat. And the "OK, it's a fraternity" had a smiley on it. I have no doubt that Alpha Phi Alpha is a fraternity that performs service. That describes each and every member of the NIC and the Fraternities in the NPHC. They are also a fraternity that has social events. That also describes every member of the NIC and the Fraternities in the NIC. Being a Fraternity which does service is however, different than it being a "Service Fraternity".

• The* Reference work for Fraternities since the 1870's has been Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Baird's since almost the beginning has separated Fraternities and Sororities into four categories:
  1. General Fraternities and Sororities
  2. Professional Fraternities and Sororities
  3. Honorary Fraternities (also called Honor Societies) and
  4. Recognition Fraternities and Sororities. Service Fraternities are a subsection of Recognition Fraternities and Sororities.
  The Most recent Baird's included four groups in the Service Fraternity and Sorority Subsection: Alpha Phi Omega, Gamma Sigma Sigma, Intercollegiate Knights and Spurs. Alpha Phi Alpha is in the General Fraternities section. Naraht 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, your comments pasted above show you had some doubt it was a fraternity when you reqeusted it not be listed as one. Then when the NIC informed you it was a fraternity, you had to admit it throught smiling teeth. This agains just illustrates you are trying to .prove a point by disruptive behavior, and no matter who you speak with or what manuals you consult, you're only going to give credence to the one that supports your own POV. For the last time, I hope, There is nothing that says the "type" in the infobox is or has to based on Title IX. Again, Fraternities of all types existed before Title IX and it's not prudent to think legislation should solely determine what type of organization a group purports to be.--Ccson 12:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for questioning whether or not it is a Fraternity, that was done in haste and in anger. I agree that when Alpha Phi Alpha (and indeed most other members of the NIC) was formed, the US Government didn't care whether a group called itself a Social Fraternity, a Service Fraternity or a Fruit Loops Fraternity. Now it does.

As a comparison: I believe that 150 years ago the Government (of US States) didn't care whether someone called themselves a doctor of medicine. Now if someone today calls themselves a doctor of medicine and they have neither graduated from Medical School nor passed the State Medical Boards, they can be prosecuted for fraud for making that claim. If someone's entry on Wikipedia claimed that they were a doctor *after* the state that they were in changed their law, which would determine whether their wikipedia entry said they were a doctor, their claim or the state law?Naraht 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, all the energy thrown into this discussion would be better served in modifying the fraternity/sorority infobox to reflect both type & legal status, which I have proposed on the infobox talkpage. We certainly wouldn't want this discussion to sink into the realm of trying to prove a point.-Robotam 14:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This might work. Another option is to change the Service fraternities and sororities article to show the historical context of these groups, then show how title IX only changed the legal status, but that some groups chose not to become coed, and although their purpose never changed, their legal status did change. This seems more in-line with what an encyclopedia's function should be. I think its also important to note that the Service article is not about title IX, title ix is just one component. Service Fraternities existed before Title IX and therefore this Title does not define these groups, just the legal status. If Title IX summarily defined Service Groups, then we should merge the Title IX and Service articles if they're one-and-the same.--Ccson 02:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Title IX doesn't even mention Service Fraternities or Sororities. It mentions *Social Fraternities and Sororities* as what receives an exemption. In that respect it legally defines Social Fraternities and Sororities.

Another characteristic where Alpha Phi Alpha matches with General/Social Fraternities and not Service Fraternities, membership requirements being affected by membership in other Groups. Alpha Phi Alpha, like Sigma Nu, Delta Delta Delta, Delta Sigma Theta and all other social fraternities and societies limit the ability for people to belong to more than one Social Fraternity/Sorority. If an Omega Psi Phi brother wanted to join Alpha Phi Alpha, Alpha Phi Alpha's bylaws would not allow it. Service Fraternities and Sororities have no such limitation. A single person could be a Brother of Alpha Phi Omega, a Sister of Gamma Sigma Sigma, a member of Intercollegiate Knights and also a member of the Social Fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon.Naraht 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've lost all credibility in what you say and that you'll accept the otucome if proven wrong, but I'll humor you; Where is it written that a requirement to be a service fraternity means you can't limit members from joining other service fraternities? I'm not saying that's not the case, just where did you come up with that? Is there a ruputable and verifiable source where you got this litmus test, or are you just once again putting up hoops for those who disagree with you to jump through? Hopefully you saw this online, but if not, I'm prepared to visit the nearest library to verify the infor and source.--Ccson 12:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't represent a deciding factor, but rather stands as part of preponderance of evidence. The Litmus test that does exist that you won't accept is Alpha Phi Alpha's membership in the NIC and what is in the NIC bylaws. NIC Bylaws Section 1a3. It says that "Be mutually exclusive of and in competition with other general fraternities..." This means that members of the NIC *are* general fraternities, and thus so is Alpha Phi Alpha. Are you challenging List of social fraternities and sororities with its definition of General and Social Fraternities being the same thing? Naraht 15:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

let's wait to see if Justinm1978 gets a response from the APA national office. It looks like Justinm1978 doesn't like Robotam's compromise, so while we're waiting, I'll try to think of something else. It's not that I mind APA being listed as social because our works speak for themselves. Justin response to Robotam on another tlak page was that readers would glean from the article whether the frat was social or service. I belive that readers of the APA article will glean its about service, no matter what the final classification outcome. I just think we need to have a reputable and verifiable source that states how this class is identified, and unfortunately, you and Justin have not proved that to me. Really now "service fraternity" side by side? Since you state Title IX does not address Service frats, that really can't be the deciding factor. Again, i'll ponder and see what I can come up with.

No response has been received yet to my inquiry to either the communications person or the executive director of Alpha Phi Alpha. This discussion was started on June 8, and I'm gonna say that a strong consensus was reached on this, being that 4 out of 5 editors voted for social/general. Justinm1978 13:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You can have a POV and consensus that APA is social frat, but if you haven't definitively defined "type", then this debate has not ended, even if you haven't had a response from the APA national office. Based on your summary line response "lets kick this around a bit . . .", on the Fraternity Infobox page where you reverted the comment I entered based upon the consensus by other editors, I'm putting APA back to Social or Service. I'm in agreement that we must define type on the template before you apply POVs to a single group. I think the debate needs to move to Fraternity infobox template since the decision will affect all groups. I hope you understand.--Ccson 14:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alpha List of Brothers

On the "Heads of State" section you listed Alpha's three governors. Governors of the United States Virgin Islands are not "Heads of State". The U.S. Virgin Islands is a U.S. territory. Therefore, the president of the United State is the "Head of State". A governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, or American Somoa are not Heads of State. The governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands is no more a Head of State than the governor of New York is a Head of State. A Head of State is the chief executive of a country. U.S. Virgin Islands is not a country, it is a part of the United States of America.

Also, you listed Ron Brown as an Alpha. He was not an alpha, he was a member of Sigma Phi Epsilon at Middlebury College. http://www.sigep.org/about/alumni_government.asp

Charles Diggs

Wasn't Charles Diggs mentioned as an Alpha in the video? How come his name is no longer listed on the Alpha page?

Geographic coordinates

Could someone clearly explain why Cornell's geographic coordinates were listed here? This is an article about Alpha Phi Alpha, not Cornell. This is irrelevant to this article. If you want to include the coordinates, you need to include them at every mention of a location referenced in the article. This is inconsistent with other articles concerning greek-letter organizations. --Kontar 23:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Alpha is the only GLO that has earned a Featured Article status and should set the standard for the other groups to follow; (see Phi Iota Alpha). The geographic coordinates are for the site where Alpha Phi Alpha was founded, which happens to be the same exact coordinates for Cornell University. The coordinates also are the location of a type of marker honoring the founding of Alpha Phi Alpha--and this is mentioned in the Centennial Celebration section of the article. Regarding standards, can you clearly point to where it's stated as you mentioned above "If you want to include the coordinates, you need to include them at every mention of a location referenced in the article"? Following this "guideline", one could ask why is Ithaca, New York mentioned as the location for Cornell, and argue that if any other college/univerisites are mentioned in the article, one must mention the city/state of their location, etc. etc.--Ccson 15:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your POV, but the bottom-line is that this is inconsistent with other articles concerning greek-letter organizations. This discussion is not concerning A Phi A's status as a featured article. It is the irrelevance to casual readers as to the geographic coordinates. This is only important to those who are familiar with the practice and is not in line with the rest of wikipedia's articles on greek-letter organizations. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia designed to be accessible to all, and not a fan-page. What IS relevant to casual readers is Alpha Phi Alpha's origins at Cornell, or possibly including the actual address of first meeting. A Phi A is not a place or location (like Cornell University is) for which longitude and latitude or an address would be relevant. It is a fraternity. Listing longitude and latitude, is a confusing and unnecessary exposition to those who are non-Alpha's. Please see WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Thank you. Kontar 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV as to what casual readers need to know, but an encyclopedia's main audience is not the casual tourist, its for the learned and those who want to greatly expand their knowledge of a subject. Plus there's nothing that says all GLO articles need to be in lock step with each other. Some use the info fraternity box, and some groups have created their own, but the simalarity between liked groups should remain in the info boxes WHEN the utilized but there's not on wikipedia that indicates the use or even having a box is mandatory. The secton you mention mentions nothing about omitting coordinates. This is such a minor issue and i'm really amazed at your tenacity in trying to remove the coordinates. There are so many (in fact, most) GLO articles that need a lot of attention, I don't see you putting in nearly amount of time and research if you main goal is the improvement of GLO articles. I gave you examples above of other groups which utilize the coordinates, yet you haven't attempted to change the articles, it seems you're obsessed with Alpha Phi Alpha and want to nit pick and your efforts are not consistent with like groups.--Ccson 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It is rationale like that above which keeps Wikipedia from being an academically useful resource. When something as "minor" as this cannot be compromised upon, or left to consensus, then why bother trying to tackle more substantial issues? All you get is an edit war like you have promoted. You have still not rectified the fact that A Phi A is NOT A LOCATION OR A PLACE, where geographic coordinates would be relevant and useful. IT IS A FRATERNITY. Obviously pointing out Wiki policy doesn't deter your wish to promote your position. You are correct in that I have not bothered with Phi Iota Alpha. Like most editors, we only follow those article that we have experience with or care about. The same principle of uselessness and violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL applies to that article as well. Thank you for pointing that out. What is truly amazing that you believe a casual reader cares about geographic coordinates or even knows how to use them. This is fan-page argumentation, much like who is a better team, the White Sox or the Cubs. Although you have violated another wiki policy, the 3 revert rule WP:3RR, I will not change it back, and violate wiki policy like you have done. This issue should be left to CONSENSUS. Kontar 02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A couple things, plus a possible compromise.