Talk:Sigma Rho

message: There has been conspicuous silence among the senior members of this gang. Johnyang2 06:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigma Rogues 

message: :Image:Sigma Rho1.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 Wikipedia: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 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 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sigma Rho1.jpg

message: Can someone explain the frequent deletion of this section? It has been covered extensively by the media so it's perfectly notable to be included. --Howard the Duck 09:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of "deaths" article? 

message: This article has been semi-protected for two weeks because of the edit warring over the "Deaths" section. For now, the section remains, however this is not an endorsement of the current version. Please discuss your views here. Thank you. Harryboyles 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current version is fine. I have no knowledge of the story in question, but it seems relevant for the article since references are included. I only noticed the edit war when I was scanning recent changes. It appears someone connected/sympathetic with the fraternity is trying to remove criticism.--AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version is ok. The deaths were a big deal in the Philippines. I believe the anon that deletes the info has COI as they also "edited" a rival frat's article--Lenticel (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The information is there because it received non-trivial press coverage (as proved by the sources).  You seem to have a conflict of interest with the subject matter.  I would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not censored.  Your removal of this sourced material violates the neutral point of view policy.  Please do not do it again.  EnviroboyTalkCs 03:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Make that full protect. --Howard the Duck 09:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Why does Wikipedia tolerate this blatant and outright vandalism - the "Related Violence" and "Fraternity War" paragraphs?  They have been deleted at every turn by  the Sigma Rho which never put them there in the first place. But they are restored each time by others apparently not identified with the fraternity or belonging to rival fraternity or fraternities obviously with an ax to grind. They are using "Semi-Protection" to block deletion of their repeated vandalism. And Wikipedia is being used to maintain this vandalism. Take note, Wikipedia, this is pure and simple vandalism out to discredit the image of a fraternity. Isn't this unfair? It's a ping-pong battle. To be consistent with its avowed purpose to prevent vandalism, Wikipedia please take note now and delete those paragraphs about "Related Violence" and "Fraternity War" because they do not belong to the frat's wikipedia or any frat's for that matter. They are out of place in any frat's wikipedia. It is time for Wikipedia to recognize vandalism for what it is - itself delete it without delay and stop further vandalism of the same kind.(Sigma Rho member). October 21, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katella (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, first of all, Sigma Rho does not own the article so it cannot dictate what or what cannot be included. See this Wikipedia policy: WP:OWN. Secondly, including information that can be cited from reliable sources such as newspapers is not vandalism. See this Wikipedia policy for what is vandalism: WP:VANDAL. --seav (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seav, I agree. I just restored the material today because it is sourced. If there are concerns about the sources, they should be discussed here on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Further, widespread coverage of any fraternity in the media does warrant inclusion in the article. See, for example, Delta Zeta#DePauw University controversy. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism concern

message: Since there are no other Sigma Rhos in existence, why is this article titled as it is and not just Sigma Rho? —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with the move or redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm used to seeing student orgs in UP prefixing their name with "UP" so I didn't think twice of this fraternity. But looking at the news reports, the plain "Sigma Rho" is used so I'm amenable to this change. --seav (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, the official website is largely under construction, so I can't see how they refer to themselves. I'm changing to Sigma Rho. —C.Fred (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I'll be cleaning up the article based on the suggestions in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities#Sigma_Rho:
#Removal of awards. Unless sourced to be directly due to the frat's work, I'll be removing these awards. These should be added to the member's own article if they have one.
#Removal of non-notable alumni. Unless notable, some alumni will be removed.--Lenticel (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed any alumni that do not have an article, or violates WP:NOTE and WP:POLITICIAN. Only governors, senators, the founder and house representatives were not removed.--Lenticel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article 

message: Over the last day or so, there've been multiple attempts to remove the incidents section of the article. (Some of the attempts, IMO, are the same person, even if he's using different accounts.) I've invited them to discuss their reasons for deleting on this talk page.
I'll ask the question here, more broadly. Consensus was established previously to keep the incidents and fraternity wars sections in the article, because the claims are backed up by reliable sources. Is there support among editors to reverse that decision and remove the sections, and if so, why? —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents section 

message: The preeminence that indicates a riot between Scintilla Juris and Sigma Rho a week before the incident does not substantiate the involvement of any of the two fraternities. Circumstantial points should not be taken by its face value, for they do not prove anything. (e.g. mere speculation that Mr. Calinao was targeted due to his nearness to the place of Scintilla Juris or for mistaken identity, etc.). No identification was made to support the claims that the Sigma Rho fraternity was behind this attack. Furthermore, after some researches in the internet and print materials regarding the said incident, no substantial information can be provided to implicate the said fraternity to warrant direct implication via mentioning it in this article. In addition to that, the existing sources that were cited, do not verify nor quotes the following statements, "On February 19, 1999, Niño Calinao, a senior journalism major was shot dead by suspected Sigma Rho members. Calinao was mistaken for a member of the rival fraternity Scintilla Juris, which clashed with Sigma Rho members in a riot a week before the killing."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.96.142 (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Calinao Case 

message: This is to generate consensus to remove "indicents" page. All the ones cited here were mere allegations. Also, if any of your are form the Philippines, it would be easy to note that these cases have been dismissed and the Fraternity was already cleared of these allegations. To keep them here is an injustice. -- Karlo00
:Can you put links here to reliable sources that indicate the cases have been dismissed and the Fraternity cleared of allegations? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the fact that a case was dismissed doesnt get the same media attention like the allegation. But if you google the names of the people mentioned, you will also see that they are Lawyers already. Which means that they were allowed to take the Lawyer's oath and there were no more impediments to this. -Karlo000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlo000 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with Philippine law, but can you cite those sources stating that the specific individuals who were charged were allowed to take the lawyer's oath, and perhaps something about requirements for taking that oath in the Philippines (like not having a felony)? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can gleam it from this: http://nlpdl.nlp.gov.ph:81/SC02/2003jan/bm_1099.htm. In the Philippines, those who pass the bar examinations but have a pending case are NOT allowed to take the lawyers oath or sign the roll of attorneys. Here is a case where one was not allowed to take the oath for nearly 32 years: http://www.lawphil.net/courts/bm/bm_135_1987.html Thanks. - Karlo000  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.46.116 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

text: The burden of proof is not with the people who should be presumed innocent though. There is no way to give proof that a case is dismissed as this is not reported in the media. Im sure you understand. You are asking for proof that will not exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlo000 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus to Remove Indicents 

message: There has been a surge of activity in the last few hours. Data are being deleted then added back and forth. Also, in the article, information about the fraternity is mostly without sources or with unreliable sources due to bias (mirror site). Meanwhile, sourced material are mostly news articles about incidents that are frequently deleted in the page. May be due to vandalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huartose (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy oppose Read WP:ATD. Wikpedian8888 (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  G11 obviously only refers to exclusively promotional articles. All points raised are already provided in WP:ATD. Check also this Talk page re: Calinao case. As early as 2014, one already commented that no substantial source appears to link this fraternity and another one with the incident. Wikpedian8888 (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  A deliberate misreading of cited sources goes against WP rules on WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE as seen here. This was already raised in this Talk page as early as 2014. Wikpedian8888 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion? Also, there is whitewashing

message: For a clearer article, under the INCIDENTS heading, change "rival law fraternity" in the first two paragraphs to Scintilla Juris. Meanwhile, change "another rival law fraternity" in the third paragraph to Alpha Phi Beta. Thanks. Sabremeaty (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

text: We should keep the records of all the discussions, just for ease of bringing any editors up to speed on an article. I added the frat name in the second paragraph, removed some bad and duplicate sources, and did a bit of copy editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021 

message: I'd like to move the article to Sigma Rho. In general Fraternity and Sorority are not used in article names unless it is as a dab term, for example Ceres (women's fraternity). I haven't seen anything to indicate that Fraternity is part of the name any more than it is for Alpha Phi Beta (to pick another UP Law fraternity that uses Greek Letters. As far as I can tell, that is what this article was *first* named.Naraht (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Sigma Rho 

message: Undoing this version, as it presents edits contrary to WP:UNDUE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:OVERCITE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS (blogs as WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPGOSSIP), among others, to wit:
* "Classified as a "high violence" fraternity together with other fraternities like Tau Gamma Phi, Sigma Rho was involved in a total of 32 reported violent incidents between fraternities in the UP Diliman campus from 1991 to 1994."
** This line skews the actual text of the linked JSTOR article, because Sigma Rho was not explicitly classified as such but is merely listed in the same category as Tau Gamma Phi, and incidentally with other frats such as Alpha Phi Beta, Scintilla Juris, and Upsilon Sigma Phi (suspiciously left out by the editor), in terms of the number of reported incidents. The "high violence" tag therefore refers to the number of incidents involving said frat, not that it was used to classify this frat (and Alpha Phi Beta, Scintilla Juris, and Upsilon Sigma Phi) in general.
*  "In the majority of such incidents of gang fights, which are called "rumble" in UP parlance, weapons used include clubs, explosives, and bladed weapons."
** The actual article states, "In the plurality of the incidences of actual physical assault, the weapons used were clubs (including bats and metal pipes). Other weapons used included explosives  (such as "pillboxes" which were small, stighly-wound explosives), bladed weapons (such as knives and paper cutters) and assorted instruments, particularly fists, glass bottles, and tear gas." This refers to all incidents involving at least 22 fraternities listed in the journal article. The now-reverted edit slants it to refer to this fraternity only, and is obviously not WP:NPOV.
* Lots of instances of WP:OVERCITE that appear to promote (or push) a certain narrative. Using five articles to cite a one-liner is overkill and may be indicative of giving undue weight to the matter. See WP:UNDUE. 
* A number of instances where non-WP:RELIABLE sources were used, such as unverified blogs, constituting WP:BLPSPS, WP:RSSELF, or WP:QUESTIONABLE (e.g. website of an unrelated courier company that leads to a TXT file and a seemingly gossip blog). See also WP:NOTABILITY.
* Citing information from seemingly WP:PRIMARY sources (e.g. school records/transcripts used as a primary source may be violative of WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and WP:BLPPRIMARY) which are not publicly vetted/reported by a secondary source. See WP:BLP and WP:OR. See also WP:NOTABILITY.
* Giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain POVs by posting full statements of certain parties. See WP:MINORASPECT and MOS:SCAREQUOTES.
* WP:SENSATIONAL, non-WP:IMPARTIAL puff words (e.g. "killed and gunned down," "took turns in stabbing and hacking Reyes with long knives" -- never mind that it was just alleged and unproven.) Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. See WP:YESPOV.
* Reflecting info not stated in the cited source such as "a member of Sigma Rho killed himself" when actual source merely states that such person died. See WP:SYNTHESIS. Wikpedian8888 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent non-neutral edits 

message: So is this dumb battle between the fraternities at Dillman over?  I'm far more familiar with US fraternities.  The Philippine groups seem to be a mixture of fraternity, urban gang and non-collegiate club.  These articles are fought over as one side attempts to steer the narrative and harm their rivals with bad publicity. 
While we didn't encounter nearly this level of brawling, something we learned over 100 years ago in the US was the benefit of "co-opetition" where we accept that being in a fraternity, any fraternity, is of more benefit to a man than being unaffiliated.  We set up rules for mutual boundaries to allow peaceful coexistence.  (I ref to men's groups here because the women's groups have always been far better at cooperating with each other.)  There surprisingly was room at our colleges, not for just three or four fraternities, but for a dozen, two dozen...  And without a ceaseless war between themselves, the fraternities found mutual ground.  The improved narrative emerged that said that other fraternities aren't our competition; rather, our competition are the factors that keep us apart: sitting home, watching videos or playing games.  Lack of desire for joining a community.  An unhealthy obsession over academics that snuffs out all other aspects of growth. 
Can a group of rival law students negotiate a peace deal here?
If the parties involved are ready for it, THIS might be the useful article section that ends the bickering edit war.  How have the groups learned to peacefully co-exist, and better serve their campuses?  Jax MN (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The battle