Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bob Dylan's Status

Also I've ordered the Alumni by last name and deleted Bob Dylan's name from the alumni roster, as far as I can tell Bob Dylan pledged Sammy's but was never initiated

07:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)GreatGreg, Sigma Sigma Chapter

I would like to see more of our Alumni listed on this page. We also need to link many more of our active chapters to it. I have added some key Canadian alumni to the page but I know of no comprehensive list. Most of my information came from Bill at HQ. Also, Bob Dylan did NOT undergo formal initiation, however he did complete 7 weeks of the 8 week Candid-Ed pledge process. I do not object to his association with the fraternity but he is not an alumnus. Chibrother, Chi McGill.

I don't think its such a good idea to keep adding Bob Dylan since he was only a pledge for 7 and a half weeks and did not get initiated.... -Dave

I agree it'd be one thing if Bob Dylan was initiated but he wasn't GreatGreg 02:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the cited source, Dylan didn't even pledge but was just a tenant at the house. I've put a {{dubious}} tag on it; in the absence of a better source saying he pledged, his name should come off the list. —C.Fred (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with history section/copyvio

The whole intro (taken from the purple book) seems out of context in this article unless you are a Sammy.

What is this copywrite issue crap? All other frats (ie: Aepi) have similar pages, did someone complain?

Permission to use this information has been granted by Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity. This is the official version of Sigma Alpha Mu's history and that is the reason why it appears verbatim on our National homepage. The authors of this article are simply spreading the approved (and most accurate) historical background about Sigma Alpha Mu. Please restore access to this article in its previous state. There is no copywrite issue whatsoever especially since both wikipedia and the Fraternity are not-for-profit. Blocking this article hurts both wikipedia as a source for accurate information and Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity by lowering our profile.

In order to be useable on wikipedia material must be fully public domain or licensed under the GFDL, or wikipedia must be explicitly authorised to use the material. Please see WP:CP for instructions on how to license the material under the GFDL or how to send permission to use the material to wikipedia. Kcordina ^Talk 12:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a temporary article which is basically the same article minus the history section despite the fact that we have permission to use it because for some reason Kcordina doesn't think it's enough that it was indicated on our talk page that we have permission even though it's step two on the copywrite problems page. It seems that the only way to get the history section back is for someone with a sam.org e-mail address to send a message to permissions@wikimedia.org to indicate that it's okay for the history to appear verbatim in the Sigma Alpha Mu article, if anyone knows someone with a sam.org address you might want to ask them to do this. Thanks. GreatGreg 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked Mat Witenstein MatW@sam.org to do so. Lets hope he does. This whole copywrite crap is just ridiculous. - IsraeliSAMMY

Miscellaneous

I've formated the chapter roll to list chapters by the order they were frist started, i.e. single leter chapers, Sigma chapters, Mu chapters, Beta chapters, Gamma Chapters, ect. GreatGreg

Unsourced

Nice looking article here. However, I'm not seeing any sources cited. Please bring this article in line with wp:v.Alan.ca 09:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD history

An AfD was proposed on 2006-12-12 which closed as keep on 2006-12-17, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Alpha Mu. Alan.ca 14:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

On the Recent Changes

This is directed to alan.ca: Alan, although I thought I might suggest that you attempt to confirm the information people have been putting on here, instead of simply deleting it. I feel as though the attempt to delete was in bad faith, as, after reading your comments in the discussion, you seemed unwilling to listen to the other posters, as well as the inordinate amount of time you spend picking apart this article. Furthermore, after reviewing the "history" portion of article, I noticed that someone had cited an article on Peter Monk, which, after a quick investigation, confirms that he was a member, which was cited. Why would you delete this?

Please be a bit more constructive in your criticism. And, for future reference, the term is "fraternity", not "frat".

As for the rest of those who edit this article, I have removed the famous alumni section. I’ll get the sources cited on each of the guys, and put it back up. - hps05

Hps05, there had to be over 20 names on that list of famous alumni. If one of them had a source that was not clearly associating them as a member, I apologize for the oversight, but understand, if this article was not so out of bounds, that would not have happened. If, Peter Munk, was the only person listed, it would have been a lot easier to verify. I wish you the best of luck in sourcing that list and appreciate that you removed it pending verification. Thank you. Alan.ca 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've got a couple of sources on some of the Canadian judiciary members, I'll put them up tonight. I do agree with Hps - lets try to fix this, as opposed to just deleting things. I've didn't really spend that much time looking (about 5 minutes on google), and found a few references. Beloch 21:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources revisited

As a reminder, if information relating to a living person is going to be placed in an article, a reliable source must be cited (see WP:BIO). This includes a source to back up membership in a fraternity. Right now, all but two of the alumni are uncited. Either a source to verify them needs located, or that information needs removed from the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to get a consensus on whether or not NNBD, is a reliable source and can be cited in this article. In the AfD discussion Alan.ca did not think so. I think it does meet the criteria of being a reliable source and it would go a ways in getting some of the listed alumni cited. -GreatGreg 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on Talk:NNDB, prevailing sentiment is that it is not reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Formating

There should be a uniform abbreviation for Sigma Alpha Mu. I would prefer to use the abbreviation ΣAM as opposed to SAM or Sammy's. GreatGreg 23:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I pulled up the official website. SAM is used on the main page in article titles, while ΣΑΜ is used in article texts. My other concern was how Lynx renders ΣΑΜ; I pulled up the article as a test and it displayed as SAM. I've got no problems with using the Greek letters, so long as true Greek letters are used for all three. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Service

I have changed the artists who performed at the playboy mansion twice, added Three six Mafia and removed akon and black violin. I know there is no source to site this, however I am in the Gamma Nu Chapter and I was there when Three Six mafia performed instead of akon, he had to fly back to Africa that evening due to a family emergency. The Sammysideout site is no longer updated, in fact the webmaster stopped updating it about a day before the event, and It will not be updated again until next year.

• EDIT* In addition, I have photos from the event that show Three Six, Dolla, and Clyde Carson (I forgot to add Clyde) performing, they are located on Gamma Nu's Website http://www.sdsusammys.com > Pictures > Playboy Mansion

Also why was the like to the gamma nu website deleted? failed verification?

Thanks

146.244.189.223 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Bryant

The problem is, the only reliable source--the Sammysideout site as a primary source--doesn't corroborate it. I couldn't find the pictures or a link at the GN website, so that's why I noted that the reference failed verification--the assertions made weren't supported by the link. The reference is still there, though: the [5] before the [failed verification].

Additionally, "I was there" isn't a valid source. Was a reporter from the campus paper there? His article--there's some bias against student newspapers, but it's at least a published source, and it will pass muster for the roster change. —C.Fred (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the entire Gamman Nu section of communty service. While it is a good example of one chapter's preformance, it is unverifiable. Focus in this section of the article should be instead placed on the community service Sigma Alpha Mu has done a whole, such as Bounce for Beats which many chapters participate in, and fundraising for Alzheimer’s. Perhaps this example of can be placed back in, if it can be verifed and put into greater context of the section. GreatGreg 17:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright So I got proof :)

1. REDIRECT [[1]]

Wired Image had two photographers at the event, the link up top is to photos of 36 performing.

also Epoch Entertainment had a photographer there

Link below contains photos of the event including photos of Clyde Carson and Dolla Performing.

1. REDIRECT [[2]]

Also now if you go to #REDIRECT sammysideout.org you will notice it has been updated and it says Thank you to 36 Mafia. 72.199.220.82 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Freedman, Chief Justice of Manitoba

I see that Samuel Freedman is listed among the fraternity's notable members. Can anyone tell me when he joined, or how long he was a member? I would like to add the information to his Wikipedia page. Alternatively, I would encourage you to do so. Thank you. --MBueckert 18:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Fra Freedman was initiated in 1927 at the University of Manitoba (Sigma Xi chapter). --PittSammy 16:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your source, so we can attribute it? —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To include it in an article, we need to know the source of the information. That's why I asked what your source is. —C.Fred (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, sorry, I don't have an online source I can point to for it. PittSammy 17:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources are always better :). Jmlk17 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Association with this fraternity

I have reviewed this issue with the keepers of this article on numerous occasions. It is not appropriate to associate living people with this fraternity without an independent, reliable source. WP:RS Please review the policies on biographies of living persons where you will note it is essential that facts be held to a high standard when associating them with living people. WP:LIVING There is an opportunity to have a good article here on a historical and cultural fraternity, but let's keep the member list out please. Alan.ca (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You removed several names that had sources cited however. Why not leave names with valid sources?PittSammy (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'm going to get the babies back and throw out just the bathwater. —C.Fred (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. It's now a much shorter list, so it's no longer in subsections. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate your positive attitude in this regard, we cannot accept the frat newsletter as a WP:RS reliable source. Alan.ca (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, WP:RS is trumped by WP:V, where the key is just that it's verifiable. On the other hand, the fraternity self-publishes its newsletter, and "Material from self-published … sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as … it does not involve claims about third parties." So, you're right, the information is not verified. —C.Fred (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Truly I don't know why anyone would want to maintain such a list anyway. It's one thing to list founding members or people who played a pivotal role in the organization, but simply trying to attach to the achievements of others reeks of bad taste. Thank you for your understanding, I appreciate your open minded approach to this issue.Alan.ca (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

These lists are pretty much the norm on Wikipedia. It's not just about fraternities or sororities but also professional organizations and even cities have lists of people who are associated with them. It's true that you'd be hard press to find the majority of famous members of fraternities claiming that their association with their particular organization was the main influencing factor in their success, nevertheless "famous alumni" are pretty much an inherent aspect of how a fraternity presents itself to non-members and members alike. Almost every single fraternity and sorority have sections in their membership manual about notable members. I don't think it's bad taste. Attachments with notable members have been around since the early decades of the North American fraternity movement. Looking at 100+ year old copies of various fraternity manuals and magazines, famous alumni were used as one of the main selling points and prestige. Concerning Wikipedia, what needs to be done is verification and whether or not the person is notable according to Wikipedia standards. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability is exactly the point. The fact that the lists exist in other articles doesn't excuse them here. Personally, I think the lists do add to the article: it adds to the article to know which members have become notable politicians, athletes, etc. On the flip side, there can also be WP:BLP issues. Suppose a fraternity has an unsavory reputation. (I can think of one, but because it's rumor and hearsay, I'm not naming the fraternity.) Anybody listed as a notable alumnus stands to inherit that reputation by association. As a result, it's critical to make sure that their membership is verifiable—and Wikipedia's verification standards are to go to a third-party publication and not a self-published source. That does, alas, rule out recruiting material, membership manuals, and other self-published items. (I wouldn't even count the booklet of all the Greek organizations that I got from the university back in my pledge days as independent, since I'm sure they printed the fraternities' pages without vetting them.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to use the fraternity news letter as a source for Marshall Rothstein. Besides the issue I gave a reference to in the list that was deleted, in this issue http://www.sam.org/pdf/Octagonian_Spring_2007.pdf on page 7 Rothstein poses in a picture with other members of the fraternity behind the fraternity flag. While WP:V does not permit the use of self-published sources for third parties, in this case I'd argue that Rothstein should not be considered a third party as he is a member of the fraternity and is willing to have his picture appear in the fraternity news letter.GreatGreg

(talk) 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The addition of Bernie Madoff to the alumni list is inaccurate, despite NYTimes reports. There are reports that he may have pledged and lived with some members, but he was not initiated. No documentation of his membership exists. I have researched this as the Director of Alumni Development at Sigma Alpha Mu Foundation. AndyHustonSAM (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that lack of documentation is not the same as documentation to the contrary. If the NY Times claims he was initiated, then sources would need to be found to demonstrate that he wasn't. Plus, the sources should be verifiable, and I'm not sure how readily membership rolls for the years in question would be available to those outside the fraternity. I'm not saying the Times is absolutely right, but since the Times is a reliable publication, the article is verification that Madoff is a member unless verifiable evidence that contradicts it is found. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Using the Sanua book as citation for living notable members

Many of the names removed are actually cited in the first reference on pages 499-500. I have re-added those names cited in this book along with the reference link.PittSammy (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide the text from those pages as I have no means of accessing this document. Further, it appears to be nothing more than someone's thesis paper. I'm not sure this qualifies as a reliable source. Thoughts? Alan.ca (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The link in the citation must work differently for people connecting from an educational institution network, as I was able to view the full text at the link provided. This is a Ph.D. thesis published by an Ivy League university. I think that should be accepted as a valid source, especially since WP:V says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available..." If that isn't acceptable however, the author (who is now an associate professor in the Judaic Studies Program and the Department of History at Florida Atlantic University) has also published the same material in a book (parts of which are available to be viewed through Google Books, ISBN 0814328571). The reference in the book is pages 343-346. PittSammy (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to google books the list of alumni is not based on any verifiable source. In fact, the book doesn't even indicate where it acquired the information for this list. As we are talking about mostly living people here, I think we are going to need to find something more authoritative if we are to include it here. Alan.ca 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that wp:v, wp:rs or wp:blp state that a book must specifically publish/include its own sources as well to be considered valid. wp:v states that the assertion must be from a "reliable, published source". I believe that either Sanua reference should be acceptable as the dissertation was published by Columbia University (presumably after a defense), and the book by a university press. wp:v even states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." PittSammy 20:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First off I seperated the debate about the Sanua article into its own section on the talk page and adjusted the paragraph spacing accordingly, if anyone objects please remove it. From what I can tell the Sanua article is both independent with no connection to the fraternity, and meets WP:RS as a reliable source. I do not heavily edit Wikipedia but from my understanding this is a book that that meets all the criteria to be used as source for living people. I'd like to edit these names back in but first can we get a consensus of citing the Sanua article in notable members section.GreatGreg 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I think when we cite a book or research where an author has expertise and qualifications it's quite reasonable. In many cases a point of view or thesis is communicated. However, in the case of a list of names, how would anyone find a rebuttal document for a list of names? It's not as though the thesis of this paper is arguing the inclusion of these names. In my review of the paper it appears as though this list was added as a trivial section. How can we be certain the level of care that went into developing this list when the author has written practically nothing about it. My main concern is that we are associating living people with an organization. As the biography of living persons guidelines indicate we need to take extra care when writing about living individuals. In this respect, I am uncomfortable with this Sanua article as a primary and sole source for this information. One would think if these associations are so well known there would be other literature/articles supporting it. It seems if these associations are valid, they are well over 20 years old. Surely, in the world databases of papers and articles someone would find a better source than this one. Alan.ca (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I would also like to point out that the bibliography for this book cites the Sigma Alpha Mu archives as a source of information. So once again, Sigma Alpha Mu is not a valid source for information about the living individuals and their association with this Fraternity. Page 409-410 of this source are full of SAM references. Alan.ca (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a slippery slope I don't want to go down. The Sauna book, as a scholarly publication, is a valid secondary source. SAM cannot be cited directly, since they're a primary source, but the fact that Sauna cites them in her book does not invalidate her writing. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • This is a source that is valid. Even if it weren't, that is no reason to delete the information. You can always tag information with {{fact}}, that way someone who has a more reliable source can put it in there. That is to also say that you can add more sources to verify a fact if you believe the source given isn't a good source. As for the WP:BLP stuff, it says not to use a source that is derogatory to the person. This source is not derogatory about any of the men listed, it just lists that they are in this fraternity. If you don't like this source (which you shouldn't being that if fits all the guidelines), then find one you can list right next to it. Acidskater (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• The book doesn't say where the information is from. The book doesn't describe the list as original research. The book cites SAM as a general source. Where else would the author get this information if not from SAM? Alan.ca (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. The author is not SAM. The author has written an academic publication and subsequent book, so she qualifies as a reliable secondary source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from C.Fred, but think about the concept. I'm not disputing the scholars work, we can agree the book is not about associating individuals with a particular fraternity. The list is added as an appendix without any comment. Then we find on the next page that more than one of the few references given for the book in its entirety is Sigma Alpha Mu. How can we assume SAM was not the source, when it would be the most logical source of the list given? Is a list that SAM provided any different if they are the source and it's published somewhere else citing SAM as that source? The book therefore is not a secondary source, but just a reprint of the primary source which we have already dismissed as valid. If the information is out there, I'm sure you guys will come up with something. Alan.ca (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. The list being an appendix to the book does make a difference to me: while the body of the work is presumably more vetted, the appendices will be other additions that may or may not be. That said, if the same list comes up in other place(s), then I think the frequency of its appearance suggests the list is valid. (It certainly would mean it's more likely that those appearing on the list would have a chance to vet it and agree/disagree with it.) I'm not going to restore the list right now, but if corroborating information shores it up, then it should go back in. —C.Fred (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere in any of the previously mentioned Wikipedia policies where it states that appendices are not valid for sources. I think the important point is that both Columbia University and Wayne State University Press would absolutely have taken at least reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of this information so as not to damage their reputation - even information in an appendix. I still don't see how this source isn't valid under WP:V, WP:RS or WP:BLP. PittSammy (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since variations on this issue are starting to occur across multiple fraternities' articles, I have started project-wide discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities#Verifiability of notable members. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea C. Fred, but I think it's more of a biographical issue than a fraternity issue. It might serve better to get their opinion on the matter. Alan.ca (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevada source

This source is not the university of Nevada. If you read the page it clearly states it is material from greek101.com. As greek101.com does not qualify as a reliable primary source, this reprint of the material does not give it any more validity. Alan.ca (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this isn't a reliable source. The University of Nevada is simply republishing material from greek101.com, which follows wikipedia policy. I truthfully think this is getting a little out of hand for just naming alumni, especially when two sources have been given for all the people added. I am taking this to RFC because I have seen the talk about this on this page and on the the Fraternity/Sorority wikiproject. While I am assuming good faith in that you only want the best sources, I feel like you will knock down dozens of other sources. I think you need to take a quick look at WP:BURO to understand how I am looking at your actions. I only want to improve wikipedia, which, for me right now, means adding some names to this article so people can get an understanding of who would join this fraternity. Acidskater (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC

This issue is very plain and simple, but verifies a whole lot. Are the following reliable source:

• University of Nevada list of famous greeks (list taken from Greek101.com
• A book, originally a thesis paper, printed through the Columbia University

The first source is disputed because it is a reprint of information from Greek101.com, which is Alan.ca considers an unreliable source. The second source is disputed for a two reasons: 1. Sigma Alpha Mu is a reference listed in the book. 2. The list comes from the Appendix of the book. Please list what you think about these sources and whether or not they should be considered reliable. Acidskater (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Additionally for the book reference, the appendix is quite simple in nature. The author has written absolutely nothing but the list in the appendix, it is not part of her thesis and the source of the information is unclear. Alan.ca (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI, the list of notable members DOES appear in the thesis. Also, could you please provide a link to the Wikipedia policy that states that appendices of books cannot be used as sources? I was not able to find it. PittSammy (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* I am saying the appendix is not part of the argument of proving the authors thesis statement nor is it part of the thesis statement itself. In other words, the paper is not about the appendix. In fact, it is completely unclear how the appendix relates at all. It seems it was added in as an FYI for interested parties. Alan.ca (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that matters. It is an appendix in a book, published through a University. It doesn't have to relate to the book to make it a reliable source. If there was an "About the Author" in a book and someone used that as a reference in an article about the author it would be 100% fine. I am seriously hoping for some new looks on this issue. As we dive deeper and deeper into this issue it just makes me want to pull my hair out because I see no logic in not allowing a reference which was PUBLISHED BY A UNIVERSITY, something recommended in wikipedia guidelines. The only reason they say a scholarly source wouldn't be a good source, is if it is outdated. A list of members of a fraternity wouldn't become outdated, the only change would be additions to the list. Alan.ca, I seriously want you to quote and link me to some policy or guideline page which would prove, without any question of a doubt, that this reference is not usable. I think this has gone on long enough and has shown, to an amazing point, that this is an extremely reliable reference which had only been denounced by you. Acidskater (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Actually Alan, I think I see what you're missing now. The list in the book does in fact relate to the topic of the book/thesis. If you read the "About this book" (available on Google Books), it clearly states that the book outlines how the fraternity experience (and in this case the Jewish fraternity experience) had a significant impact on the lives of its members and their success. Does it make more sense reading it in that context? PittSammy (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the page number? Alan.ca (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the front flap. If you look at the Google Books sample, it is the second scanned page. I can post a quotation here if it's not available to you. PittSammy (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your perspective better by reading that promo blurb about the book. However, I would like to see some reference to the individuals in the book. Something to imply that she interviewed or researched the people that appendix is claiming are associated with the fraternity. I'm really looking to see that she had done some independent research into the people whom you would like the author to serve as a reference for in regards to association with SAM. Does this make sense? Alan.ca (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is that books are not reliable sources unless they specifically state what their sources are? I don't think that's reasonable. None of the Wikipedia policies listed in this discussion mention any requirement of that sort. It simply says that the material must have been published by a reliable source (who is therefore standing behind what they've printed). In this case Columbia University and the Wayne State University Press have published this information (and therefore put their reputation on the line by saying it is accurate). Either one is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. PittSammy (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's my hope that the RFC will catch us some insight. Alan.ca (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wow (or should I say, *sigh*) - a year on and "someone" is still picking at this article. I know this really is not the place to mention that, but its beginning to bother me. Anyway, I've reviewed the links above - it seems to me that between the two its hard to dispute. I'm looking forward to seeing how this one shakes out.

Hps05 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been about two weeks since this RFC was posted and the consensus (even though it is the same people as before) shows that both references are fine. Alan.ca has been the only user to dispute either of these sources and has not quoted any wikipedia guidelines or policies to show that they unreliable. I am making a bold edit and putting in the names with BOTH sources. Acidskater (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, we sought the RFC to get broader community input. We have received no broader input from the RFC, the fact that it has been two weeks doesn't change the argument. Alan.ca (talk) 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alan.ca, you nominated this article for deletion in the past and it seems like you're the only one who has a problem with the references. In top of all that, it seems as though you don't edit any other fraternity or sorority article and you only pick on this one. It makes me think that you have something personal against this particular organization. Just an observation. --71.106.156.115 (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• On the other hand, two weeks is long enough for interested editors to speak up. I'd say that nothing in the RFC is changing established consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• The argument was whether or not the community agrees this reference meets the standard. Personally, I believe it does not. It is unfortunate that we were unable to get an outside perspective from some editors not involved in this dispute. I don't believe the issue has been resolved, both opposing sides still believe their perspective is correct. However, at this point, it does seem that the interest group covering this article believes the content should be included and I cannot see us reaching a definitive conclusion. I will let this go for now, but I hope the group maintaining this article will in turn resist the temptation to add future content based on less reliable sources. I thank all parties for the civil debate. Alan.ca (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Aspects of reliability

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy

I believe the first sources does not meet this requirement (no references to where they got their information). I do not doubt that the second source provides references. Aatomic1 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Alumni

I've found a list of Alumni from a source that is not published by ΣAM - I think this is the source we've been looking for. Maybe we can finally put this argument to bed! Lets see what you all think:

http://www.israel-times.com/finance/2006/10/sigma-alpha-mu-a-powerful-fraternity-1431/

Hps05 (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

And now that we seem to be going with that reference (and hopefully stopped beating that horse), what do you guys think of:

(1) putting in some sort of history section - a lot of the other fratenities have them (and I think it could add to this article) and

(2) splitting the alumni into categories?

Just a thought.

Hps05 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)