Talk:Chi Tau

Creation of this page, and moving former page content to Chi Tau (local) namespace
This original, older, larger and national Chi Tau organization was established in 1920, with almost a dozen chapters. It is highly unlikely to have any connection to the rogue local chapter called Chi Tau, founded in 1939, as the national group's remaining chapters were disbanded or went local in 1929. This leaves a ten year gap before formation of the Chico organization. As this larger group has precedence over the Chico local I moved the Chico local to a page that reflects its independent establishment. Wikilinks have been updated. Jax MN (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternate founding date???
indicates a founding of 1919, rather than 1920 at Trinity. Naraht (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=6RlOAAAAMAAJ&q=%22chi+tau%22+rosebuds&dq=%22chi+tau%22+rosebuds

indicates 1921 (headache).Naraht (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://archive.org/details/chanticleerseria1924duke/page/264?q=%22Chi+tau%22+%22Trinity%22


 * After reviewing all of these, because Baird's lists a specific date rather than a year, I think that is the most solid source. Let's go with the 1920 date. Thanks amigo. Jax MN (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Expanding on this thought, I would defer to Baird's dates as reliant on the best sources and judge them to be the most consistently accurate. Writing 15 years after the demise of Chi Tau national, Sig Ep published a retrospective article on the chapter at Wake Forest. I infer that while the writer had access to more central-to-the-point information about the Wake Forest chapter's own origination, it would have been more reliant on heresay or rumor for dates and other notes on the demise of Chi Tau national. Hence, outside of the specifics of Wake Forest, I find the broader claims about Chi Tau in the article to be less valuable than what information we found in Baird's. Jax MN (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.Naraht (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Longer lasting chapter
The following talks about the situation at Wake Forest, where the Delta chapter stayed as a local with the same pin until at least 1939! https://archive.org/details/howler1939wake/page/124?q=%22Chi+tau%22+%22Trinity%22 Naraht (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We now know of the outcome of seven of its nine chapters. I couldn't find copies of the yearbooks for Columbia or the University of California for the period of 1924 to 1930, which would be the most likely source of information on what became of those chapters or members.  Therefore I was unable to trace what came of those two chapters. Jax MN (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

History from the Wake Forest Chapter's chartering into Sigma Phi Epsilon
See https://archive.org/details/sigmaphiepsilonj375sigm/page/168
 * Great article. I note that it says their Alpha chapter fizzled out in 1924. Thinking about the dissension reported by Baird's, it appears to me that without a solid Alpha chapter to act as a lodestar, or beacon that kept the fraternity unified, those forces pulling it apart must have included a desire during the Roaring 20's to align with a more venerable national, one with a more potent legacy. Chi Tau just seems to have started too late; maybe the Great Depression wasn't even needed to put the last nail in the coffin. During the late 1920s, peer chapters on these traditional, big-Greek schools which competed with early Chi Tau chapters must have been engaging in building projects to the dismay of struggling Chi Tau, from their 'national' perspective.


 * As a fraternal adviser, it is clear to me that fraternities, like all institutions, need to have an endgame strategy to understand how to wrap up their affairs should the occasion require it. Could a mature group of Chi Tau leaders have boldly embarked on merger talks in the mid-20s that would have had all their chapters merge into a bigger national? It would have kept 'Chi Tau' as a memory far better than what happened here, where a couple of Wikipedia editors stumbled upon a dusty bit of history of an organization that fizzled out into oblivion a hundred years ago. I think it would have been far better to have gone the way of the Rainbow Fraternity, merging into Delta Tau Delta, or Phi Sigma Epsilon, merging into Phi Sigma Kappa. Both became cherished and remembered parts of their larger surviving fraternities.Jax MN (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but nothing about what you've just written belong in the article.Naraht (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's why I noted it here on the Talk page, and not on the article itself. Did any 'editorial' content like this creep in to the main article? If so, not my intent. Thanks!  Jax MN (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some it does, I've noticed that other of your created articles tend to have information that is more textbook oriented than encyclopedia in that regards.Naraht (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm. I'll monitor this.  Some Wikipedia articles are so... bland.  Painfully dry.  Within bounds, I prefer slightly more vigor in prose even here, as it offers more clarity than what is often the case in the driest and therefore less useful of texts. I'm not talking about overt drama, nor peacock words.  Just clarity that suits the lesson taught by the subject. Here, we could offer simply that Chi Tau failed. But offering that this was abrupt hints that there is a further story here, which for some would be an interesting place to embark on additional research.  Jax MN (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Date format
Any particular reason for the 31 December 2010 date format? I tend to see December 31, 2010 more often.Naraht (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That style has been suggested to me as preferable for references here on Wiki. I don't particularly care either way, and was just trying to be consistent with others. If you have a strong preference, please adjust.Jax MN (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not refering to references, referring to the actual article.Naraht (talk) 19:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I will change them in the main articles when I see them. I think the distinction is between US usage (month first) and European (date first).  As I said, I don't really mind, as I think the European method may be more clear.  I am more settled on other grammar issues, for example, I use Oxford commas, and still prefer two spaces after most periods.  Heh. Jax MN (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You only put one space after the "Heh". On Fraternities that are American, I'd expect US Usage, no clue on the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Chi Tau Pin
Do we have any images of the pin that would be good enough to be here?Naraht (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The best I can find are here, or here. The image in my hard copy of Baird's is way too dark to resolve a good scan. The PAC-SAC image may be somewhat elongated in translation but I like its contrast. The Bohemian's is the correct proportion, I think. Jax MN (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Another good one, from the NC Chapel Hill yearbook. Jax MN (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Added the crest and infobox. Someone who is a better artist than me may want to clean up the image further, removing the grey around the pin. Jax MN (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure pin goes in into the infobox, I think that should be crest. If we can find that...Naraht (talk) 12:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any other logo or crest. A couple of the yearbook entries had filler artwork where a crest might be, but these do not appear to be official. At this stage, dormant for eight decades, this pin may be the best we've got.Jax MN (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * https://archive.org/details/chanticleerseria1924duke/page/264?q=%22Chi+tau%22+%22Trinity%22 The thing in the center on the left hand side. I've seen it elsewhere, but that's probably the largest image (even though it may be tough to clip)Naraht (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it - had previously thought it was filler. If an editor can extract and enhance, this may be a better choice than the pin, however, the pin is the identifier most commonly used in yearbooks for the chapters we have found. As a dormant group we don't have much to work from. Jax MN (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying drop the pin, we'll put it elsewhere in the article. I asked over at the Graphical Workshop for help on this.Naraht (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)