Talk:National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations/Archive 1

Untitled
'''

Isnt the whole idea of a "Latino" only organization racist? Jmlk17 08:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if such a group actually limits its membership to Latinos. In no instance do these fraternities state that they are exclusively for Latinos, though they are obviously interested in promoting a "Latino" identity. In any event, I think few "Latinos" can agree on a solid definition of Latino in the first place. Are Filipinos, Brazilians, European Spaniards and Portuguese, or people with partial or distant "Latin ancestry" Latinos? Who knows, but I'm sure they would be included. 24.28.188.162
 * All I know is that if a fraternity was to promote a "White" or "Causasian" identity, it would be labeled racist and probably banned. Jmlk17 12:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles
Almost all of the article pages are poorly written and have absolutely no sources. Furthermore, they are almost all blatant advertisements. They need to either be deleted (not a good option), or cleaned up and completely overhauled. Jmlk17 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:LamdaThetaPhiShield.jpg
Image:LamdaThetaPhiShield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lambda Theta Nu Crest.jpg
Image:Lambda Theta Nu Crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on notes for Former organizations section
I deleted a comment by Greektruthmovement. Sigma Lambda Beta's withdrawal from NALFO was due to several reasons, not only the reason proposed by the user. Moreover, the reasons for each organization's leaving NALFO are not presented. There is no reason to show favoritism (or bias) for some organizations by exposing reasons for two and not for others.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reasons for Omega Delta Phi and Sigma Lambda Beta were given showing an unbiased and evidence based approach to the information. It should be noted Coquidragon deleted the section pertaining to Sigma Lambda Beta and left the section dealing with Omega Delta Phi. As I do not know the reason for the other organizations I did not list them. Contribution is what Wikipedia is about. Not biased edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greektruthmovement (talk • contribs) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your short memory doesn't serve you well, as your forgot that everything started when I deleted ODPhi's comment. Then you put it back. Then, since I was trying to prevent just what happened (an edit war), I deleted just the references to SLB and SLG, as they were clearly untrue. How can ODPHi, and I quote, joined SLB and SLB in the withdrawal, when ODPHi withdraw more than a year earlier? It wasn't true, so I deleted it. You, it seemed, took it personal, and started then editing SLB's page, which by the way, with the clarification that I put in place, there is no need. There was not one reason for SLB's withdrawal from NALFO, they were many, out of which "rushing" as you call it was just the tip of the iceberg. Also, if you are just going to copy and paste, do it correctly, as SLB was NOT a founding member of NALFO as your first two deleted notes stated. So, as you stated two untrue notes, they were two notes that I deleted. Wikipedia is all about sources, not just about contributions, but contributions backed by sources. You got sources? Quote them. Otherwise, let it be. By the way, since you mention it, I don't agree with the withdrawal reasons appearing for either organization, as it does show bias, by not stating the purposes for the rest of the organizations. And as it stands, your reasons are not completely true, so more reasons to take them out.


 * Also, about wikipedia edits, if you change something, state your reasons in the explanation box, and you never leave an anonymous comment. Always sign your comments.--Coquidragon (talk)

Yes my source can be found at http://www.eliluminador.com/2010/03/06/lbcast-episode-7-ibod-meeting-re-cap/ about 13 minutes in. So you as a member of the organization knows the truth. Your welcome and good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greektruthmovement (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, you make your changes without reading the history or leaving an explanation for your change. Once again, you leave your comment without signing. Did you realize that this time it wasn't I who delete the notes, but an editor of wikipedia, who challenged your source? I went ahead and deleted your notes again as, once again, I've heard the lbcast and it seems you have very selective hearing. Did you not hear that the decision was made due to "increasing regulatory nature of Nalfo", did you not hear the caveat "one of the issues" when the not intake of freshmen was mentioned? Did you not hear the "regulating what we do", the "GPA requirements", "Membership criteria", "other policies they could impose in the future"? The withdrawal was due to inreconciliable strategies. That's it. Your "rushing" is just one, the tip of the iceberg, a sympton of a larger illness (speaking metaphorically of course). STOP making the change, at least to the SLB, as I do not know ODPhi's reasoning, although I think it is similars to SLB. You shouldn't even put the comment under ODPhi.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * References are for external references, if you have additional information, footnotes might be appropriate, if the footnotes are properly referenced.Naraht (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for leaving
There are reasons for some of the orgs leaving NALFO that may be in everybody's mouth, but that doesn't make them true. There is need for true references. The sources given for ARL, SLS, BLD and SDA (the minutes of past meetings) are true references as you can read the votes on their expulsions, but there is nothing in any of the minutes for the leaving of NAK, ODPhi, SLB or SLG. The closest thing could be the voting history, but that is not a real reference, as nowhere it states they left due to those reasons. True references need to be presented. For the time being, I'll leave the reason for SLB's as explain in the secondary source given, but delete NAK, ODPhi and SLG.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to be more explicit as to which dates to look for the references of ARL, SLS, BLD and SDA. I'll take some time.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand when I have referenced the Audio of the President of Sigma Lambda Beta stating the ban on first semester freshman was the reason. he alludes to other reasons but he mentions nothing. Greektruthmovement (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Did you not hear that the decision was made due to "increasing regulatory nature of Nalfo", did you not hear the caveat "one of the issues" when the not intake of freshmen was mentioned? Did you not hear the "regulating what we do", the "GPA requirements", "Membership criteria", "other policies they could impose in the future"? The withdrawal was due to inreconciliable strategies. I have deleted your edits because they were unreferenced. You can cite internet pages, but I have read the minutes for all NALFO meetings, and there is nothing in there to support your claims on NAK, ODPhi, SLB or SLG. By the way, citing the first caution message on NPOV, you are writing on a competitor; I was actually surprised to see you actually commented in a HATE blog what your are trying to put in Wikipedia:http://greekstand.com/blog/2010/10/the-infamous-hate-blog/comment-page-1/#comments. The 21st and 22nd comments are yours I believe. I don't know what you expected people to hear as it is a recording of a SLB podcast, but it does show intention. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is no HATE blog and unless you can cite documents where it is stated the reason for the orgs leaving NALFO, you should refrain from doing so.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you actually read the minutes for NALFO's Fall 2009 meeting, SLB's motion for NALFO to be a non regulatory trade organization got shut down. If you want to cite a reason, that would be the more appropriate reason to cite.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As it is an anonymous blog anyone can write on there and use any name they like. Now, that I have included all reasons can we please come to a compromise. All reasons mentioned by the President of Sigma Lambda Beta are mentioned. Thank You Greektruthmovement (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let's get to a compromise. My problem is this: doing a literal translation from a Spanish expression, it sounds like you are putting the wagon in from of the ox. Let me explain myself. The president of Sigma Lambda Beta started saying NALFO shouldn't be regulating what SLB does, using as examples, intake process, GPA, membership criteria, etc. The increasing regulatory nature of NALFO (which you listed third) is not A reason, but THE reason, out of which the other three are but examples. Reading the minutes from the last NALFO meeting where SLB was present (Fall 2009), NALFO shut down a motion for it to be non regulatory. Then, there were motions from SLB on issues being regulated such as intake and membership criteria, but they were either shut down or amended (the regulatory body position of NALFO showing up). By the next meeting, Spring 2010, SLB was out.
 * What do you think of the wording being: Due to NALFO's increasing regulatory nature (i.e. Intake, GPA and Membership criteria, etc.)? This way the emphasis is on the regulatory nature, and not on the regulations. By stating the regulations, the emphasis changes from the rule to the example. That is what I disagree with. What do you think?--Coquidragon (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess that will be OK although, I find it somewhat misleading I will agree it is a legitimate compromise Greektruthmovement (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it is done! Also, thank you for taking first steps towards a compromise and making me do so as well. We should have resolved this a long time ago. --Coquidragon (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

YAY, compromise. Now I can stop reverting things. Naraht (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Rushing terminology
While in some cases "Rushing" is restricted to First Semester Freshman, I think it more commonly is *not* restricted in that way. However, just as there are terms that are used differently in the NPHC (such as pledging), there may be some which are used differently in the Hispanic Greek Community. If this is so, then it should be explained.Naraht (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

SLB/SLG withdrawal
Both organizations mentioned the regulatory nature of NALFO (SLB in the Audio). The only regulatory policy NALFO has is per insurance, semester of intake, and minimum GPA requirement. Basic standards were set to become effective the spring of 2010 when both organizations withdrew the only thing NALFO regulated was its standards that were set to increase the semester both organizations withdrew. The "regulatory nature" that is suggested is a general increase in their minimum standards of intake. I am simply clarifying that.As it is currently read it is easy to draw the inference that the actions were in reverse. Elche75 (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Have been one who fought this battle and agrees with you it I will warn you this is likely to end in an edit war. It should be considered leaving it how it was. It took me and Coquidragon months to finally settle the issue. Just saying. Greektruthmovement (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * SLG withdraw, as per its membership letter cited in the reference, for its growing multicultural membership. That is the only reason given in the letter. Anything else is speculation.
 * As per SLB, the current wording was agreed after many edits as a midpoint between two interpretations of the given citation. SLB did not withdraw because of NALFO standards. If you listened to the whole section in the audio, it withdraw due to NALFO moving from a Trade Organization, such as NIC, towards a more regulatory body. The standards that you mention are but examples of NALFO applying its growing regulatory power. In the audio, the President of SLB mentioned "other policies they could impose in the future". The reason was not the policies imposed but the idea of imposing policies that could affect SLB negatively, be it standards or anything else. The inference that Elche75 mentions could be wrongly made, is the right one to make.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

SLG’s press release states a “need for autonomy” as well as a multicultural membership. This connects directly to regulation. At the time regulations passed 4 years previous to the withdrawal was about to start being enforced. Elche75 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The inference you can draw from the way it is stated currently is that NALFO was in lowering their standards when in fact they were raising their standards. NALFO had always had minimum standards and always acted as a regulatory body. The issue of regulation did not come into play until the minimum standards were raised. I do not see anything wrong with the fact of SLB leaving do to not wanting to raise standards as an organization that it is their choice. However as it is written it seems purposely misleading. Although your opinion is valued, I respectfully disagree as to the inference that can be drawn from the current language. The change offers a simple clarification, and puts into context the situation at withdrawal. It does not debase SLB or SLG in anyway but simply adds context. Elche75 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On SLG, the connection between SLG's "need for autonomy" and regulation is a leap that doesn't follow directly from the text. Autonomy could be from NALFO's focus, from NALFO's projects, or autonomy to pursue projects for its increasing multicultural membership. The mention of NALFO's standards is unfounded.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On SLB, how can you infer from the phrase "NALFO's increasing regulatory nature" that NALFO was lowering its standards? That does not follow. Besides, once again, SLB did not leave due to NALFO raising its standars, but due to NALFO's policies affecting SLB negatively. Listen to the audio, read the note. Listen to the "other policies they could impose in the future" comment by the SLB President. The wording by Elche75 is not only incorrect, but also gives the wrong impression.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is it adds context that's not present in the source. At the best, this is synthesis, drawing conclusions beyond that present in the presented source. At the worst, it's outright misrepresenting the source. In my opinion, the wording for SLB's withdrawal could be toyed with, but to change the reasons for SLG's withdrawal requires a source other than the one in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of SLG it is not a stretch to link autonomy from regulations. In the case of SLB the National president is quoted as "… the increasingly regulatory nature of NALFO namely one of the issues.. the restriction of not allowing of 1st semester freshman...". He specifically names intake of 1st semester freshman as the premier issue. To specifically show only the first of the sentence shows an obvious bias. What I am simply doing putting into context what was going on within NALFO at the time of SLB and SLG’s departure. Regulations passed in 2006 raising the minimum standards for intake and GPA was set to go into effect in 2010. SLB and SLG left right before this. Since SLB and SLG both work under the same Executive Director it is not a stretch to believe they left for similar but most likely the same reasons. Coquidragon I am not trying to start an edit war here as I seen you have before. What can we do to resolve this? The wording currently used is very misleading. Elche75 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. On SLG, unless another reference is given, wording shouldn't change as current wording is a direct quote from the statement. On SLB, let's read some more of the audio: "… the increasingly regulatory nature of NALFO namely ONE OF THE ISSUES... the restriction of not allowing of 1st semester freshman to pledge and SOME of those different THINGS have really been areas where THEY ARE REGULATING WHAT WE DO and IS VERY RESTRICTIVE and OUR ORGANIZATION REALLY SHOULD HAVE THE SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO DECIDE how or if we want to do intake of 1st semester freshmen OR OTHER POLICIES THAT THEY COULD POTENTIALLY IMPOSE IN THE FUTURE..." If you jump to minute 14:44, in addition to the 1st semester restriction "...they had proposals on increasing GPA, changing membership criteria... that were voted down by our (SLB) undergraduates," and in minute 15:20 "is just one example". The audio later mentions other benefits of leaving NALFO. Like I have said in the past, my problem is that the issue of 1st semester freshmen intake restriction was one issue, might be the main issue, but one of the issues SLB had with NALFO; it was the detonator, the drop that spilled an already filled glass. There were other NALFO regulations that were voted down by SLB undergrads, such as GPA requirements and membership criteria (there are others issues that I know as a member of SLB, but are not in the audio so they don't count for this). Additionally, the audio, although public, is oriented mainly at SLB brothers. It is not the official statement from SLB as to their NALFO withdrawal. The official statement is reference #7, which states:
 * "We have been closely examining our membership in NALFO and have had concerns on how NALFO's direction and policies have affected our brotherhood. NALFO currently acts as a governing body, with many policies that negatively impact our fraternity. Additionally, all of our external partners take not only financial resources, but also the time, talent, and energy of our brothers. Based on these factors, we do not feel that our relationship with NALFO is mutually beneficial at the time."

This should be the main reference, not the audio. The reasons given are: a. Concerns on how NALFO's direction and policies have affected SLB; b. NALFO currently acting as a governing body (which negatively impact SLB); c. Financial resources, time, talent, and energy of the brothers taken by NALFO business as an external partner. Quoting last sentence "Based on these factors, we (SLB) do not feel that our relationship with NALFO is mutually beneficial at the time." SLB left due to several reasons and standards or 1st semester freshmen intake is only one reason, which falls only under one of the three reasons given (b), which at the same time doesn't mention it explicitly and includes others implicitly. What do you think of one of these?
 * PROPOSAL 1 - SLB left due to inreconciliable strategies, to the impact NALFO policies' had in SLB, and for a better allocation of resources.
 * PROPOSAL 2 - SLB left due to a mutually unbeneficially relationship with NALFO at the time.--Coquidragon (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Founding members list?
What is being used as a reference for the founding members of NALFO? Is it one of the minutes on the NALFO web page, and if so, which one from 1998 or 1999? I can't find anything on the NALFO website which indicates which groups were founding groups. :( Naraht (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The two meetings on 97 and the first two meetings on 98 established the bases for NALFO. NALFO's name was chosen on 6/98. The first list of voting members is found in the 9/98 minutes, where there are 9 voting orgs and several non voting orgs. Those 9 orgs are the one listed as founders here in wikipedia. The minutes for the next meeting on 1/99 has a absent org list. From those two lists, the only org with uncertain status was GPhiO. They could be founders, but were not present at 9/98, yet had voting privileges at 1/99. The rest of the orgs belonging to NALFO today were either voted in or added much later according to the minutes. Should we add GPhiO to the founders' list?
 * Many other orgs were present at the first four meetings (97 & 98), but are not accounted for in the minutes until some of them were voted in later meetings.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me put this succinctly. Yuck. Any suggestion on where I can find a single document that would count as a reference for that?Naraht (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Shields/Crest and Copyrights
If only 3 of 19 shields/crests can be used due to copyrights, and if nobody has a problem, I'll go ahead and delete the column to have uniformity among all NALFO members. Still, I liked the idea of having them there.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't the copyright that was the issue the administrator just felt there was too many copyrighted images on the page even though it is technically ok to use them because they are logos. It’s arguable but you know how some administrators can be about stuff some are fair and some just like deleting things. He seems to get a lot of complaints though. I was going to take it off too because of the same reason you stated. Monarca7 (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the problem, can we get another administrator to sign off on them?--Coquidragon (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy says you should use fair use material minimally. Delta is suppose to seek consensus with editor involved but from reading his page he rarely does, and he decided that means 1 or 2 images. When I asked why the images were removed another editor sited WP:NFLISTS. They both seem to be involved in several other disputes about removing content without discussing first or after. I don't know Wikipedia enough to know how to proceed. Monarca7 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Member organizations table
In the table under Member organizations, the column labeled University lists all the universities where the founding chapters were located. All of the university names are written in italics except one. Is there a reason for this? If not, I would like to change all the names to regular type. Freddiem (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Regular type.Naraht (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations. 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/20110727110107/http://www.nalfo.org/index.php/About-Us/Documents.html to http://www.nalfo.org/index.php/About-Us/Documents.html
 * Added tag to http://www.nalfo.org/images/stories/slbleavesnalfo.doc

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) 18:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)