Talk:Phi Sigma Phi

message: This whole article seems to be poorly written, with no sources and several key items missing. Jmlk17 19:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been much updated since this comment, with many references and clearer language.Jax MN (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page

message: A local sorority at Hartwick College, of Oneonta, NY, has the same name. Is a disambiguation link warranted?  They are referenced here, in a page accessed 6 Nov 2018. Jax MN (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: This page, which had been reasonably stable for several years, suddenly in mid-January, 2021 had a large amount of its content cut - we use the term "blanked" by an anonymous editor at first, and then by a named Wikipedia user, "the Executive Office" but which appears to be a new account without a track record of other edits. Assuming good faith, as is our policy, I wanted to provide some guidance for those who might be new to Wikipedia editing.  It can be frustrating when an organization you manage has an external description that seems to be out of your control.  I've written from scratch or have edited many hundreds of fraternity and sorority articles, and know the frustration when my own writing is changed.
First, Wikipedia articles aren't owned by any specific person.  When written, they become Wikipedia's content, and are meant to be publicly editable.  That can be a jarring fact for new editors. Some fraternity articles have a "controversies" section that may cause perpetual annoyance to members. The Phi Sigma Phi article didn't/doesn't have this, and experienced editors do not appear to want to create such content. But neither are these articles meant to be relentlessly positive with only happy facts. Instead, articles here are summaries of what information is out there publicly, which serve to point readers to further research, further sources.  A Wikipedia article should not include Original Research - instead, it cites facts from other sources.  
One of the sections cut was a list of dormant chapters. Like all such societies, Phi Sigma Phi has dormant chapters along with those which are active. All fraternity articles list these, where known.  We do not support efforts to suppress or cut this information.
There is a Fraternities and Sororities Project here - a working group of approximately 300 users who at various times will add or update pages. We are largely "disinterested," meaning we aren't members of the vast majority of the organizations whose articles we edit. But we do care.  Many of us focus the bulk of our efforts on these societies, on colleges and universities, and on citing the involvement of fraternity alumni.  Most of us (I assume) have one or two affiliations, and most of us call a particular university or college our alma mater, but with practice we tend to edit so that our efforts are neutral in style. In fact, neutral editing, even while not neutral content (NPOV) is a core ethic of Wikipedia.  There is actually an editing rule about this, where articles are flagged if an editor appears to have too close of a connection to the particular article (COI). 
From the F&S Project perspective, we often derive details from an organization's website.  Those websites have a bias, sure, but it's fairly easy to sift out facts from fluff.  Then we add other facts from Baird's Manual, from bona fide publications or from university sources. These are not meant to be PR pieces: See this essay or the Conflict of Interest (COI) Guide. F&S Project participants likely want you to succeed, and may indeed spend time reading your history articles, or other material about you.  We devote many hours to improving Wikipedia because we hope others will follow our lead and join valuable groups like yours, or engage with the many societies we track - some 1,200 national or prominent local groups at this writing.  But there is a difference between YOUR website, over which you have complete editorial control, and Wikipedia articles, which are encyclopedic in nature and limited to facts.  
:Here's an example: You might wax poetic on your website: "The Phoenix, rising from the ashes is a fitting tribute to the brothers who overcame tremendous adversity to establish..."  --Which is totally reasonable on your website.  But on Wikipedia, we'd simply note that "One of the symbols chosen by the fraternity is the Phoenix, traditionally associated with the theme of rebirth." 
Finally, in one of the edit summary comments, an email was provided and the rationale for the edits was stated as "Digital Media Copyright Act."  While DMCA may protect you from misuse, Wikipedia has a long history of respectful usage of images and information to help identify groups, or provide graphics that are discussed within the article. This allows us to use a low-resolution copy of the society's image, as an identifier in the Infobox, and caselaw offers us solid precedent for such use. Further, a society's website isn't the only acceptable source of information, from our perspective.  
:Here's an example: When a chapter of another fraternity is no longer recognized by a school, sometimes the national keeps the chapter open and does not seize the charter.  The listing then may show the controversy, and allow for both sides.  The chapter listing on Wikipedia would typically reflect that it remains "active" where we keep the name in bold, but a reference citation would note that the university does not recognize the group. 
:In another example, from time to time an anonymous user will publish a sorority ritual.  These get edited out so fast, it sometimes occurs within a minute or two.  The F&S Project group recognizes that this kind of esoteric information is NOT meant to be publicly available, and we aid you in removing it. And we are quite diligent about removing vandalism.
Where an email address was provided as a way to confirm content, that's not how Wikipedia works:  The PSP executive office has no more control over this article than the owner of a transmission shop in Maine.  --You may care about Phi Sigma Phi vastly more, and legitimately so, which is why this all tends to work out OK.  Where some national staff wish to make corrections or expand content, but do not know how, we suggest they place a request here on the Talk page so a more experienced editor can step in.  Like if the national address changes, or a new national president is named.  You may want to add historical information.  That's great - just avoid "Peacock language".
Respectfully provided, Jax MN (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this article, by national staff 

message: There is a mismatch between the national website chapter list, and this article.  Which is correct?
PSP's national website may not have been updated in awhile.  It says the following nine chapters are active, and is missing three others:
*Lambda - EMU
*Xi - CMU
*Omega UW-Stout
*Phi Mu - Concord
*Epsilon Nu - York
*Epsilon Zeta - Fairmont
*Epsilon Omicron - Penn State Harrisburg  <--Now inactive?
*Epsilon Sigma - Penn State <--Now inactive?
*Kappa - Stevens Pt.
The Penn State student org website no longer lists PSP as active; therefore it appears the Wikipedia list is more up to date.  Reviewing this, it appears these changes should be made to the national website:
Apparently, Epsilon Omicron and Epsilon Sigma are no longer active, and should be dropped from the national website.  But Epsilon Beta at Wright State (1996) should be added, along with Epsilon Lambda at WM-Dearborn (2009), and Epsilon Chi at WVU (2018).
Or have there been further changes? Jax MN (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter list corrections?