Talk:List of Phi Kappa Psi members/Archive 1

Copyedit by the GOCE
User:NielsenGW was kind enough to copyedit this article and did a great job. In the process of cleaning up my mess, a few small points became inaccurate, which were just fixed. One is to change the reference to Heisman Trophy winners from the plural back to the singular. Also, the Phi Beta Kappa reference no longer made sense where it was so I removed it. Finally the word "necessarily" was added to the #2 listed non-typical way of being initiated. NYCRuss  ☎  17:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notifications
Wikipedia has rules and guidelines about conflicts of interest. As per the section about declaring an interest, it is probably in the best interests of Phi Psis to notify the Wikipedia community of their affiliation before editing, or before commenting on this talk page. Fraternity members should also take WP:OWN very seriously. Below this paragraph, please declare your affiliation, with chapter and year of initiation not necessary, unless directly relevant to a section. NYCRuss  ☎  14:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a member of Phi Kappa Psi and the Order of the S.C. NYCRuss   ☎  14:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Source this list, especially the statistics section

 * Please source this list. It is a good list, and no doubt contains accurate and verifiable information. Don't leave people guessing where all this data came from.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just started editing on Wikipedia. I'm an active alumnus of Phi Kappa Psi, with reasonable access to archival information.  We have various types of directories, but these are usually not easily accessible by the general public.  This is to protect personal information of individual members, not to conceal our membership.  Our last published history ends in 1952.  The membership on this article page can be verified from HQ.  Is a scanned document acceptable?  NYCRuss   ☎  17:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Books seems to have old copies of Phi Psi Grand Catalogues, so I'm using that as a source for anyone on the list initiated before 1910. NYCRuss   ☎  17:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The list has been cleaned up and recategorized (influenced by the List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers.) Rather than produce a citation for a statement like "Over 100 Phi Psis have served as members of the United States Congress, including 17 Senators," I've added entries to the list that add up to claims.  The list is currently at 98 members of Congress.  Should be over 100 within a week.  Already surpassed the claims of 17 Senators and 12 governors.  Ambiguous statements, that are not easily quantifiable, like, "Many leaders of major Fortune 500 corporations..." were removed.  Statements like, "Current and recent presidents of the..." that reference institutions, but not the names of members, were removed.  NYCRuss   ☎  18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! NYCRuss   ☎  21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref Tag>> Name Attribute for Grand Catalogue Editions
When citing a Grand Catalogue, please use the following naming convention: gcYYYYpGGG where YYYY is the year in which the Grand Catalogue ends, and GGG is the page number.

For example, if a citation is from page 35 of the 1910 edition, the attribute will be name=gc1910p35 NYCRuss   ☎  01:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard
We've switched to using the ,    and    templates, so the above is no longer relevant. NYCRuss  ☎  20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Membership requirements, descendants of Letterman and Moore
Shouldn't it be noted that descendants of Letterman and Moore can also become (and have become) honorary members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.144.45 (talk • contribs) 9:51 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * Good catch. As soon as can find a source from a public document, I'll add it in.  NYCRuss   ☎  21:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing entries not established as notable
During the review process to make this list featured, we had to keep entries limited to those with Wikipedia articles. To uphold that standard, several entries were removed with | this edit.

I believe that if those entries are to be restored, then articles that meet Wikipedia's guidelines need to be created first. Do we need to create a formal discussion for this? NYCRuss  ☎  20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)