Talk:Sigma Alpha Epsilon

message: you sure SAE has 300 chapters? because then TKE should be revised as not having the most active chapters... my last look from my greek stats says 229 128.2.24.126 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: This is a link to the flag: http://www.fahnenversand.de/fotw/images/u/us_sae.gif I have no idea on how to post it here, so I ask one of you to please add it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.142.220 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding the flag

message: There needs to be a new section for famous Alumni.
:Perhaps.  Either way, why not add a "Members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon" category to each of them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.69 (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Split

message: I have requested this article for comment. R. Dismer Bassett is a name that is being consistently added to the famous alumni section by suspected sock puppets. R. Dismer Bassett is a non-notable and does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia's notability requirments. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: R. Dismer Bassett

message: I removed the "To the SAE undergrad..." and "True Gentleman" sections, I feel they violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Dspserpico 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed POV sections 

message: I am restoring the NPOV tag and Advertisement Tag because it is necessary. Since it was removed since I last put it up, I will now justify why I put it up in the hopes that anybody who removes it will justify its removal.
The language on the History section seems to be boilerplate language produced by the Fraternity. While this might be a good guide to the frat's history, it is also deceptive to pretend it is neutral language that doesn't read like an advertisement. It's like reading a Wikipedia page about Wal-mart prepared by Wal-Mart, or reading a Wikipedia page about a Congressman that was prepared by his/her staffers.
Now, the "True Gentleman" section. That perhaps would belong in a section of quotes about the Fraternity or by its founders or whoever the fellow is that said the quote. Its placement in the middle of the article only goes to show that this article was not prepared with the idea of making the entry befit an encyclopedia. It also bolsters the argument that the entry reads like an advertisement.
Until this article is changed to a more neutral presentation, or until somebody convinces me (through this talk page) that the existing page is neutral and not an advertisement, I will continue to restore this tag whenever it is deleted. takethemud 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Atleast now, you've explained why you put the tag in the first place. It is very difficult for other people when other editors place any sort of tag on an article without so much as an explanation (i.e. what specific part of the article that warranted the tag in the first place). Having said that I do agree the history section is not written in a formal tone. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I am restoring NPOV & Advertisement Tag 

message: what happened to this section?
Answer: I felt that this section shined a negative light on the organization and therefore upset the neutrality of the article.  Since there is a discussion on positive bias in the article, the same should go for negative bias as well.
:That doesn't make any sense. "The same should go for negative bias as well"? If that's the case, then the negative bias should be in the article. Wikipedia is suppose to be neither for or against. Take a look at Pi Kappa Phi. The problem chapters should be reinstated considering that they were cited.
IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem Chapters 

message: The article California Epsilon should be merged here. Individual chapters should never have their own website. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. The same thing happened with chapters of Beta Theta Pi. All chapter articles which were created subsequently got deleted were merged to the main Beta Theta Pi page. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed this article for deletion in according with the above said and WP:NOT.Samwisep86 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[California Epsilon]]

message: Where did the information Carson Palmer is a member of SAE come from? I've looked in the fraternity's national membership directory and he doesn't come up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJohnke (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't been able to find it either. Jmlk17 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find it either, except for in a Wiki BLP on him, which states that he was in a "Sigma Alpha" fraternity.  Should the reference to him here be removed?  Newguy34 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, but how does that fit in with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carson Palmer 

message: Removed reference to the motto, which was necessary due to the fact that the meaning of said motto is a fraternity secret. Please try to not reveal any more fraternity secrets in future postings.
fraternity mottos are not generally secret, however, the underlying meanings may be the_undertow talk 08:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  The literal meaning is quite different than the secret meaning, but it should still not be published in either regard. Jmlk17 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phi Alpha 

message: The best way to handle this issue is to post many different meanings for phi alpha.
I keep seeing one member post a reference to some of ΣAE's founders being associated with Phi Gamma Delta prior to forming ΣAE. I didn't remember seeing or hearing anything about that during the pledge education process, but thought it might have been possible I missed something.
After researching in the most recent printing of The Phoenix, and William Levere's "Paragraph History of Sigma Alpha Epsilon" I cannot find anything that would lead anyone to believe any of the founders were associated with Phi Gamma Delta prior to founding ΣAE.
Here is a direct quote from The Phoenix: "It is believed that none of the ΣAE founders was a member of defunct Kappa Alpha or or any other fraternity prior to their organizing ΣAE, although a number of them had been invited to join other groups, and DeVotie, the top scholar in his class, had been invited to join all of the Alabama fraternities."
I am, of course, willing to change my mind if there is significant citation to the contrary.
JJohnke 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if they were offered bids, the offering of bids back then and now went about much differently.  They didn't attend rush events or anything like that.  If they did have any sort of affiliation, it was brief, and never amounted to anything.  If The Phoenix (I'm a Pike, not an SAE, so I assume that is either your pledge manual or active member history book) says the quote above, then I personally am satisfied. Jmlk17 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Good luck.  It's always sorta neat to find out some weird, wacky, or interesting history about your house that you never knew before.  Best. Jmlk17 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Phi Gamma Delta 

message: :Image:Saecoat.png 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 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Saecoat.png

message: Their needs to be some info on the paddy murphy story.  I will do it my self, but I dont know if I will have time to get to it very soon so if any one has the free time to put together a good blurb about it go for it. ΦA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdooglede (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  paddy murphy. 

message: are ALL of those people listed really notable? as in notable on the world level, or even the us level? probably not.
also noticed that there dosnt seem to be any criticism at all of SAE, & yet what about this:
http://www.hanknuwer.com/blog/?p=1258  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.107.74 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  crap! 

message: If this turns out to be true, I'm not even sure it achieves noteworthy status for the article, but I wanted to throw this out there since I cannot find anyone else discussing it.  In the movie 'The Hangover', there is a scene with a bunch of formulas flying across the screen, and out of nowhere the greek letters for Phi and Alpha are displayed right next to each other in identical size, square in the middle of the screen.  My buddy and I that saw this both just turned and looked at each other in disbelief, but after several days of not finding anything I figured I would post it here.  If anyone can confirm or deny this, I would greatly appreciate it.  My only remaining hypothesis is that someone at whatever company was responsible for the sfx of the movie is an SAE and snuck it in there. Scyclical (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 'The Hangover' Reference? 

message: It would seem to me that history is history and facts are facts: If a fraternity was noted for a heinous infraction, or was in the news, the fact something occurred that would seem negative doesnt mean it should be excluded.  It seems fraternity men are bound and determined to keep anything that may seem to others as negative out of wikipedia.  Should we also go to Hitlers page and remove any reference to anti-semitism just because it sounds bad or makes it "Con".  Facts are facts, and as long as opinion is kept out, it should be permissible. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC
*Its also annoying that people assume just because something is deleted from a Greek page its because members are trying to protect their image... Anyways Discussion on this issue at the bottom of the page hereWikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities the question is not if it is good or bad or keeping something out I'm all for keeping notable but bad stuff in Greek pages makes them seem more non pov, but is this man  notable in the context of SAE. his actions have nothing to do with SAE so he should not be mentioned in the article as a separate header. To use your Hitler reference that would be like putting Hitler's actions in the page for some Austrian or french town just because Hitler drove through at one point in his twenty's. He has through his actions today became somewhat infamous but does that make him a notable alum? And if SAE strips him of his alum status and they might have already we have no proof of his membership or status except for his own webpage then should he still stay? please discuss here or (preferably to keep things in one place) there before adding him back for now.Trey (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: James von Brunn -  Just Because It Sounds Bad, Doesnt Make it Pro or Con

message: The links isn't going through as of today; Wikileaks isn't serving any requests, redirecting users to a fundraising page. Since it sounds like they intend to return to operations, I have left the link in place. At what point is it appropriate to remove the link as dead? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikileaks suspension of operation

message: I think the article should mention the story of George Desdunes, its making significant international headlines (was front-page news on BBC news website, as well as front-page article on Yahoo news and multiple articles on Google News, has been picked up my all major news outlets and TV stations).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13954111
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cornell-hazing-victims-family-files-25-million-lawsuit/story?id=13948311
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/28/new.york.fraternity.sued/
First thing I did when reading the article was to come to Wikipedia to read more about SAE, and was surprised there was no mention of this current / relevant event. Would be good to have a balanced, non-sensationalized report about the death here, just listing the facts. 
It looks like SAE has had problems with this issue (drinking / death at hazings) for some time, from the ABC news article ".. at least five other deaths have occurred at SAE chapters since 1997", so I think it has a place in this page.
Is it because SAE members would just remove it again (from what I can see, Fraternity pages on Wikipedia are pretty active and there seems to be a general purge of information that could make them look bad, I assume by members / ex members of the fraternities). GothicAwakening (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a trend to not mention incidents when they relate to a single chapter and not the fraternity as a whole. If ABC (and other sources) are making the statement that there is a pattern of these deaths across the fraternity, then it may be appropriate to mention them in the context of the pattern, rather than with a focus on the most recent one. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Desdunes death by hazing 

message: The article did not mention that seven members entered the Union army, or that the founder(Noble Leslie DeVotie) was the first casualty of the war between the states. I am trying to site http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/sae/history.html but I am not sure how. I feel the page is slightly biased by not acknowledging the small percentage who entered the entered the Union Army.
"
"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.105.192 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: >> Deadliest U.S. Fraternity Grapples With ‘Historic’ Pledging Ban(Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  KLinks 

message: >> Fraternity Chief Feared for Son as Hazings Spurred JPMorgan SnubLihaas (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included it as a source. The JPMorgan things seems noteworthy, and the article give a lot more background on the elimination of the pledge process, too. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: *  --JHP (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Does the incident and related media coverage rise to the level of inclusion in the article? If so, should it be included under History, or be given its own heading? - Brother Bulldog (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (For those not aware, and for posterity, this is a news story covering the closure.) Yes, I think the media coverage is significant. As I type this, the oldest story covering this on Google News is about 5 hours old, but I think we can safely say that this reflects on the organization as a whole. I would think the history section would be the place, but we can wait and see how much enduring coverage it gets. If it's persistent, it should get its own section. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that section. It seems undue. But happy to discuss it on this talkpage if you'd like to add something about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's pretty due now, since the chapter has been shut down Inicholson (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's receiving widespread national and international coverage. I think it's clear that this is way over the threshold of WP:DUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed — it is important enough to mention, but in hindsight this will be probably be of comparable weight to a number of other race-related incidents mentioned in the current version of the article, which ought to be pared down to a single sentence each more or less and go in chronological order (which I've done). Probably this should be merged into a single section with the hazing incidents and other problems, which could be organized chronologically or thematically. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with paring them down. I'm not sure about merging them, though. I guess it could work, but sources tend to combine drinking and hazing. I don't think sources are nearly as clear about including racism in that list. WP:CSECTION (which is just an essay, not a policy) makes a good case for avoiding lumping all negative content into one section. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. If the legal and hazing issues aren't strongly connected with racism, and vice-versa, they aren't really part of the same narrative. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Organize these incidents into some chronological order?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.190.145.152 (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am concerned that this is becoming an attack page. How is the "fan viewpoint" tag relevant for example? To the contrary, the article fails to show all the philanthropic work and fundraising done by this fraternity. The racial incidents have undue weight in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Please don't add the word "racist" without direct quotes, especially not in a title/heading.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident was racist, what's incorrect about the term? Inicholson (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Racial" is neutral/encyclopedic. "Racist" is a legal term and has no place on Wikipedia, unless there is a direct quote from someone using that word to describe the incident--and it should only be used to quote that person's words. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, I'm changing it to "Racially Derogatory Chanting Incident" Inicholson (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to have a separate heading. It all goes under "Discriminatory incidents." That's what it was; nothing more. Readers can find out more by reading the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident in question is very significant and has resulted in significant damage to the fraternity.  The entire chapter(I think that's the word) was shut down and there is undeniable proof of the racism. What else do you think subheadings are for? Inicholson (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a discriminatory incident, and the article does say how the administration responded. Readers can read. There is no need to smear the entire fraternity by adding another catchy title because of one immature incident in one chapter. Leave it as it is. Or go write a blog. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding your useless title again. It is/was a discriminatory incident. We already have a title for that. That's enough. There is no need to add more/another title. The onus is on the person adding content to explain why that addition is indispensable. It isn't, in this case. So please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Subheadings are used to organize significant information, and this incident was very significant as it resulted in the fraternity dissolving the chapter.  Why are you opposed to this information being structured more effectively rather than in one list with limited formatting?Inicholson (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is nothing more than a discriminatory incident. It won't make or break the fraternity. It's an "incident", not a defining moment. And your titles are not neutral; you did not suggest, "University of Oklahoma incident". You are trying to have a tabloidy title. There is no need to. It is fine as it is. The onus would be on you to convince us otherwise, but I don't see how that could happen.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested dispute resolution, since we disagree about the significance of the event.  I will note that you never suggested a section title that you felt appropriate, I might have accepted "University of Oklahoma Incident", but I feel that it isn't clear enough.  I'll also note that you aren't assuming good faith, which is one of the requirements for editing. Inicholson (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't think we need a separate title. Others are welcome to offer suggestions. I am not sure if you are in good faith, but I am and I don't like your accusations and harassment.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I've said: I do think it needs a subheading, because structured information can be more effectively used.  Flat lists are not a good way to store information. Inicholson (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a list. It's a set of paragraphs, which is completely standard. It was just a discriminatory incident, so it goes in that section. If you don't think it was discriminatory, please tell us why. We could rename the whole section "Immature incidents" if you prefer. But we don't need yet another title in an already small section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So your complaint is that the section is too small?  That could be fixed by adding more information about discriminatory incidents perpetrated by members of SAE, we could really flesh out the section and add some depth.  I'm confused though, because you seem to be alternating between thinking that the section doesn't need a subheading at all, and thinking that a subheading would be OK as long as it's neutral.  Which one is it? Inicholson (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, adding more weight/content would be undue, especially as there is no section on philanthropy yet, and the history section needs more in-line references. That's where our focus should be. Not on tabloidy descriptions of immature incidents. Again, this is NOT an attack page. This is a neutral encyclopedic page. Perhaps it would make more sense to add those incidents chronologically in the history section actually.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or moved to the "Suspensions and chapter closing" section, which already has a few lines about the incident. This whole "Discriminatory incidents" section is problematic because there is freedom of association in the United States, so organizations are by definition allowed to "discriminate."Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that moving all of the "Discriminatory incidents" to "Suspensions and chapter closings" is a good idea from a readability perspective.  Are you volunteering to do that? Inicholson (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to do that in the next few days. (I will be offline for a day or two.) In the meantime, let's leave it as it is please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any COI that you should acknowledge?  You seem to be particularly defensive of this page and minimizing any negative press that SAE might receive. Inicholson (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is your second unfounded accusation directed at me. Completely inappropriate. Sorry, I won't be online again until tomorrow night. I will look at appropriate changes then.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you learn the difference between a question and an accusation, especially since you indicated that you didn't think I was operating in good faith earlier today; I think that we should take more than a day to cool down.  I'll refrain from editing the section in question as well.  Why don't you hit me on my talk page on Thursday and we can hash it out. Inicholson (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article's coverage of this incident expands beyond a single paragraph, as I believe it should, then I believe it should get a subheading so readers can find it easily. Given the amount of press this incident is receiving, it would not be undue weight to expand coverage of this incident in the article. According to WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The reliable press coverage of this incident is dwarfing all coverage of the fraternity's philanthropic activities, so it really doesn't matter that "there is no section on philanthropy yet". Also, I believe User:Zigzig20s is misunderstanding the concept of "undue weight". WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints, not facts. As long as the discussion of the University of Oklahoma incident is about undisputed facts, WP:UNDUE does not apply. --JHP (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OU Chapter Suspension 

message: ::Please don't add the word "racist" without direct quotes, especially not in a title/heading.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident was racist, what's incorrect about the term? Inicholson (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Racial" is neutral/encyclopedic. "Racist" is a legal term and has no place on Wikipedia, unless there is a direct quote from someone using that word to describe the incident--and it should only be used to quote that person's words. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, I'm changing it to "Racially Derogatory Chanting Incident" Inicholson (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to have a separate heading. It all goes under "Discriminatory incidents." That's what it was; nothing more. Readers can find out more by reading the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The incident in question is very significant and has resulted in significant damage to the fraternity.  The entire chapter(I think that's the word) was shut down and there is undeniable proof of the racism. What else do you think subheadings are for? Inicholson (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a discriminatory incident, and the article does say how the administration responded. Readers can read. There is no need to smear the entire fraternity by adding another catchy title because of one immature incident in one chapter. Leave it as it is. Or go write a blog. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop adding your useless title again. It is/was a discriminatory incident. We already have a title for that. That's enough. There is no need to add more/another title. The onus is on the person adding content to explain why that addition is indispensable. It isn't, in this case. So please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Subheadings are used to organize significant information, and this incident was very significant as it resulted in the fraternity dissolving the chapter.  Why are you opposed to this information being structured more effectively rather than in one list with limited formatting?Inicholson (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is nothing more than a discriminatory incident. It won't make or break the fraternity. It's an "incident", not a defining moment. And your titles are not neutral; you did not suggest, "University of Oklahoma incident". You are trying to have a tabloidy title. There is no need to. It is fine as it is. The onus would be on you to convince us otherwise, but I don't see how that could happen.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've requested dispute resolution, since we disagree about the significance of the event.  I will note that you never suggested a section title that you felt appropriate, I might have accepted "University of Oklahoma Incident", but I feel that it isn't clear enough.  I'll also note that you aren't assuming good faith, which is one of the requirements for editing. Inicholson (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I don't think we need a separate title. Others are welcome to offer suggestions. I am not sure if you are in good faith, but I am and I don't like your accusations and harassment.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I've said: I do think it needs a subheading, because structured information can be more effectively used.  Flat lists are not a good way to store information. Inicholson (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a list. It's a set of paragraphs, which is completely standard. It was just a discriminatory incident, so it goes in that section. If you don't think it was discriminatory, please tell us why. We could rename the whole section "Immature incidents" if you prefer. But we don't need yet another title in an already small section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So your complaint is that the section is too small?  That could be fixed by adding more information about discriminatory incidents perpetrated by members of SAE, we could really flesh out the section and add some depth.  I'm confused though, because you seem to be alternating between thinking that the section doesn't need a subheading at all, and thinking that a subheading would be OK as long as it's neutral.  Which one is it? Inicholson (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, adding more weight/content would be undue, especially as there is no section on philanthropy yet, and the history section needs more in-line references. That's where our focus should be. Not on tabloidy descriptions of immature incidents. Again, this is NOT an attack page. This is a neutral encyclopedic page. Perhaps it would make more sense to add those incidents chronologically in the history section actually.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Or moved to the "Suspensions and chapter closing" section, which already has a few lines about the incident. This whole "Discriminatory incidents" section is problematic because there is freedom of association in the United States, so organizations are by definition allowed to "discriminate."Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that moving all of the "Discriminatory incidents" to "Suspensions and chapter closings" is a good idea from a readability perspective.  Are you volunteering to do that? Inicholson (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to do that in the next few days. (I will be offline for a day or two.) In the meantime, let's leave it as it is please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any COI that you should acknowledge?  You seem to be particularly defensive of this page and minimizing any negative press that SAE might receive. Inicholson (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is your second unfounded accusation directed at me. Completely inappropriate. Sorry, I won't be online again until tomorrow night. I will look at appropriate changes then.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you learn the difference between a question and an accusation, especially since you indicated that you didn't think I was operating in good faith earlier today; I think that we should take more than a day to cool down.  I'll refrain from editing the section in question as well.  Why don't you hit me on my talk page on Thursday and we can hash it out. Inicholson (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article's coverage of this incident expands beyond a single paragraph, as I believe it should, then I believe it should get a subheading so readers can find it easily. Given the amount of press this incident is receiving, it would not be undue weight to expand coverage of this incident in the article. According to WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The reliable press coverage of this incident is dwarfing all coverage of the fraternity's philanthropic activities, so it really doesn't matter that "there is no section on philanthropy yet". Also, I believe User:Zigzig20s is misunderstanding the concept of "undue weight". WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints, not facts. As long as the discussion of the University of Oklahoma incident is about undisputed facts, WP:UNDUE does not apply. --JHP (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Subheading for OU event

message: :I wonder how many more chapters of this fraternity will be closed in the future? I can't believe that this is simply one-time incident. I will look into other chapter incidents and report back accordingly. My prediction: This is bigger than it looks.--108.16.207.46 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  UPDATE: Just doing a quick Google search, I found two other SAE anti-African American "incidents" and one anti-Semitic incident. These references are on the first two pages of my Google search, and most of the other search items were regarding the University of Oklahoma incident.  Unbelievable.  It appears that this fraternity is full of racists.  I'll report back later.  But my initial reading here is that they ought to shut this entire damn fraternity down. --108.16.207.46 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant here.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I cared what you thought about me, I'd be upset. Just so you know, I'm not. Read into this what you want. You are now DISMISSED. --108.16.207.46 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions of the relevant articles, not personal opinions about the subjects of the articles. That said, reliable sources are finding that this fraternity has a history of racist incidents that go beyond just the University of Oklahoma. --JHP (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of African American Diversity

message: This article should have a section about all the philanthropic work and fundraising done by the fraternity. I have found some info about their work with Children's Miracle Network Hospitals, for example here, here, here, etc. Is anyone able to find more?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This fraternity should do philanthropic work for the United Negro College Fund.  The phrase "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" especially applies to the wonderful brothers of this organization. --108.16.207.46 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And who asked for your input? --108.16.207.46 (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please bear in mind that the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for general discussion about the topic of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philanthropy 

message: Moderated discussion is in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the issue of whether a separate heading is in order for the recent OU incident, and possibly for other issues.  Please take any discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard while dispute resolution is in progress.  Two editors are taking part in dispute resolution at this time; any other editors are welcome to join also.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderated Discussion at [[WP:DRN]] 

message: Almost everything under part 7 - discrimination- would work under part 6 - controversy. Anyone want to combine the two parts, or at least make part 7 a subsection of part 6?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffeinated42 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine Parts 6 and 7 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071214135944/http://www.sae.net:80/index.asp?r=fraternity&sr=facts&ssr=facts to http://www.sae.net/index.asp?r=fraternity&sr=facts&ssr=facts
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320103038/http://files.sae.net:86/PDFs/Phoenix_150.pdf to http://files.sae.net:86/PDFs/Phoenix_150.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For discussion as to whether or not Business Insider represents a valid referenced source for the meaning of the Motto.Naraht (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto meaning and Business insider