Talk:Sigma Phi Epsilon

message: There are over 260 chapters.  Sorry, guys, but that just  won't scale in this article.  The national chapter website lists all the chapters and links to their websites.  That's sufficient  for our  purposes. --  Kbh3rd 07:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local chapters   

message: The History section sure looks and smells like a cut-and-paste job, and some durn similar text can be found elsewhere on the net.  If this is copyrighted material, it will have to be removed.  Someone needs to do an original version. -- Kbh3rd 04:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: "Today it is the largest college social fraternity in the United States."
That's incorrect. That distinction belongs to Sigma ALPHA Epsilon, or SAE.
*From SPE's website (sigep.org): Currently, over 14,000 undergraduates in 260 chapters are members, making SigEp the largest national fraternity.
:From SAW's website (sae.net): The current structure includes more than 8,200 undergraduates at more than 200 chapters
:Looks like Sig Ep wins hands down, unless you can think of another metric to measure size by. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TKE doesn't even have that many chapters in Canada. Currently, Phi Delta Theta has the most in Canada with only 10 chapters. (Canada has never been fertile grounds for any fraternity). The reason why TKE has so many chapters is because of their aggresive expansion policy in going into little known colleges. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 01:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Fraternity in the Nation 

message: "Building Balanced Leaders for the Worlds Communities" is the Sigma Phi Epsilon mission statement, not the motto. Sigma Phi Epsilon does not have a public motto. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not within the constraints of the current fraternity infobox. If someone knows how to change that perhaps. As it stands now, just including the mission statement as the motto is highly innaccurate, especially since most other fraternitys have both. Also, IMO, the founding principles (virtue, diligence, brotherly love) are closer to what other fraternities have as a motto than the mission statement, and that is already in the infobox-Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building Balanced Leaders... 

message: Please do not add unverifiable information on Sigma Phi Epsilonto this page to any other page—Preceding unsigned comment added by Treyt021 (talk • contribs) 
* Beyond respect, fraternity secrets are inherently unverifiable, and as such, violate wikipedia policy. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited Information

message: I'm not going to add it right now becuase their has been some contention over this issue but the motto of SigEp is "Sound Mind Sound Body". However the pledge based chapters would not call that their motto nor would alum from any chapter if they graduated before the late 90's. My thoughts are since their are vastly more balanced man chapters than Pledge and its national policly to convert pledge chapters to balanced man that it should be used as the public motto. Thoughts?--Trey 16:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: I took out this line "Ron Brown was the first African-American member of Sigma Phi Epsilon. Upon learning of Brown's membership, the National Headquarters of SigEp demanded that the chapter expel him or face closure of the chapter. The chapter declined to remove Brown and was shut down by the national organization." Thats a fact i'm pretty sure but it was put under the headline of "Additional Modern Programs". I removed it and left the note that it should be placed in the history. Then relized that it doesn't fit there either becuase its not a history of Sigep as a whole but just its founding. So i'm making the change to founding history and would like to add a general history that talks about all the other stuff pertaining to Sigep's past like ther merger and the loss of chapters and the Ron Brown tidbit. I dont'y have the time to work on it now. perhaps another kind soul would like to help? I'll be glad to provied any info. If not i'll get to it when i can.--Trey 05:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History changes? 

message: As a Brother in a Traditional Sigma Phi Epsilon chapter, I would like to clarify that the goals of all SigEp chapters are identical in that we aim to build 'Balanced Men'.  However, the processes by which this goal is achived are different.  Balanced Man Program chapters have guidelines set forth by national, while Traditional chapters have more freedom to plan a series of events and tasks that are more effective in building better men out of their specific members and enhancing their chapter's Brotherhood.  It is also noted that if a Traditional chapter loses sight of its mission to build balanced men and misuses its relative freedom, and is shut down by National, it can only come back under the Balanced Man Program.
Also, note that "Traditional" is a more accurate label for chapters that have not chosen to or been forced to adopt the Balanced Man Program.  The SigEp experience does not center around the pledging process, but around an unstratified Brotherhood.  I'm sure that current Traditonal SigEps and alumni will appreciate if you use this label instead of the misguided "Pledging Model" label.
 
Don't really agree with your assertions. I've been a member of both balanced man and Traditional and as far as flexabilty and guidelines go there is no contest Balanced man allows way more and i would say much more effective but thats an argument as old as the BMP and not suited for wikipedia. However, what is wikipedia suited is the lable that we refer to ourselves and on that matter i agree 100% that "Traditional" is a little more P.C. than "pledge based and is more descriptive so i'll support you on that matter.Trey 18:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional Chapters 

message: Hey, this has been discussed before above, but I just wanted to bring it back up- I've removed "Building Balanced Leaders for the Worlds Communites" from the infobox "motto" entry for about the billionth time ever, because it is NOT the Sig Ep motto, it is the MISSION STATEMENT. Likewise, "Sound Mind Sound Body" is the BALANCED MAN PROGRAM MOTTO, not the sig ep motto. Fraternity mottos are traditionally phrases which their letters are derived from, and many organizations have a public and private motto. Sig Ep does NOT have a public motto. Putting either of the others in the infobox is incorrect. So lets either figure out how to remove it from the infobox, or leave it as "no public motto". Either way, please stop re-adding it without discussing it first As always, open to suggestions. Thanks.-Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 02:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Public Motto 

message: I was going to do seperate fact tags but everything within the section I tagged was not sourced at all. I am also not so sure about rating this article as a B. While I think it is somewhat extensive compared to many articles it needs a lot of cleanup, some NPOV and some wikilinks, but mostly prose. Also, half of the article is the alumni list, which should get its own page and should be cleaned up of redlinks and unnotable people. If somebody agrees with me about this please change rating to start. Acidskater 01:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced tag/rating of article

message: Claiming that Sigma Phi Epsilon is the largest social fraternity in the nation is a competitive claim.  There is no third party sources available most likely to assert such a claim, thus the original poster has used the fraternities own website as the source for said claim.
:Are there any other fraternity sites making the same claim?  If so, they i believe it becomes a problem and another source should be used. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as no two fraternities are making the same claim, i dont see a problem. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also don't see a problem with it when no other organization is claiming something to the contrary.  I would have a problem if it unqualifiedly said "largest fraternity." Bajenkins (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *I intended them only as illustration that the claim is a fluff claim used by several different groups.  Obviously they didn't meeet RS for the article.--Faith (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Is citing of first party sources acceptable when making competitive claims?

message: I bring this matter here, because there's currently no discussion at the project level but is discussion at another fraternity's talk page.
Text has been added to the Sigma Alpha Epsilon article about the leak of what is purported to be their ritual manual on Wikileaks.org. A perusal of http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Category:Cults_and_religious_organizations reveals about a dozen leaks of alleged manuals for fraternities and sororities. Of these, Sig Ep stands out because a takedown notice is also on the site, where Sig Ep's legal counsel directed Wikileaks to remove the "copyrighted material…created by members of Sig Ep." While it is a primary source, it is also an admission that the material on the website is owned by Sig Ep—and, it stands to reason, authentic.
My preference would be to not include the leaks on any fraternity articles. Discussion at the SAE page is at an impasse with no compelling arguments to remove the information. If the addition stands on that article, it will likely get added to the other leaked fraternities, as has already been suggested there.
Accordingly, I invite editors of this article interested in this issue to join the discussion at Talk:Sigma Alpha Epsilon#Wikileaks publication of ritual book—or, for matters specific to the Sig Ep leak, to begin discussion here. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous editor posted the link to Sig Ep's ritual manual today. However, because of the aforementioned takedown notice, the link must be removed from this article. Links to copyright-infringing text are links never to be added to articles. —C.Fred (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikileaks of fraternities' (alleged) ritual manuals 

message: Why is this presented reverse chronologically? Shouldn't we list the earliest first and the latest last? Ranze (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that makes more sense. It probably should be trimmed-down a bit, as well, while we're at it. Any incident which doesn't have reliable sources suggesting lasting, fraternity-wide impact probably doesn't reach due weight. At a glance the "huge brawl" from 2000, supported only by a story in the college's paper, probably isn't particularly significant. Grayfell (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy order

message: Symbol should read Balanced Man, not "Skull and Crossbones within a Black Heart." The current description is an incomplete one of  the founder's badge. 2601:5CD:8100:7075:472:A28:260B:A8A3 (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kosack (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017 

message: TUO doesn't seem to be notable (WP:GNG), so I suggest merger here. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the group was active for 14 years and a member of the NIC, the question is whether it would have been notable enough to be suitable for Wikipedia on the day that they merged (even though Wikipedia didn't exist on that day). If so, once notable, always notable.Naraht (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Note, almost all of their fraternity magazines are at https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Theta+Upsilon+Omega%22&sort=-date&page=2 . More than two chapters were added to the fraternity.Naraht (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Theta Upsilon Omega]] 

message: Would like to add a very good example of a SigEp college fraternity house.
thumb|University of Alabama SigEp house Redbrickbear (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Redbrickbear: Has the uploader of that image to Commons provided evidence that the image is under a free license? The website where it is sourced from does not have a clear statement of such license. —C.Fred (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

text: @Redbrickbear: And have they emailed that release to Wikimedia Commons? Remember, it would need to be a chapter officer, not just a member, since the copyright on the website is claimed by the chapter. —C.Fred (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @C.Fred: I'm almost sure they have NOT emailed a release to Wikimedia Commons. I was just updating the page and was a member there who knows the guy who took the pic. —Redbrickbear (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Redbrickbear: They need to do that before we can use the pic. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Note: Until status on the image is clarified I'm switching this to answered for now to help with the backlog. Once the status on the image changes please change the |answered=yes back to |answered=no. Thank you.  ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2018 

message: Change reference to Sigma Chi in picture depicting U.S. troops in Iraq to reference to Sigma Phi Epsilon. 128.177.142.6 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really sure the photo adds much tbh. Also due to formatting it shows up below the #Local Chapter Misconduct section Cannolis (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023