| Revision as of 04:32, 6 August 2024 editRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers111,438 edits OneClickArchived "Association with this fraternity" to Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu/Archive 1← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:49, 15 December 2024 edit undoRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers111,438 edits added wp |
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
{{WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Higher Education}} |
|
{{WikiProject Higher Education}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish culture}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
==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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::According to 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. ] 15:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It does not appear to me that ], ] or ] state that a book must specifically publish/include its own sources as well to be considered valid. ] 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. ] even states "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." ] 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 ] as a reliable source. I do not heavily edit Misplaced Pages 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.] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. —''']''' (]) 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 {{tl|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 ] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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. —''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 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. —''']''' (]) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I can't find anywhere in any of the previously mentioned Misplaced Pages 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 ], ] or ]. ] (]) 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: ]. —''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 15:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Nevada 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. ] (]) 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[REDACTED] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==RFC== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This issue is very plain and simple, but verifies a whole lot. Are the following reliable source: |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
The first source is disputed because it is a reprint of information from Greek101.com, which is ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages policy that states that appendices of books cannot be used as sources? I was not able to find it. ] (]) 17:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<nowiki>*sigh*</nowiki> 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. ] (]) 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[REDACTED] 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What is the page number? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*It's my hope that the RFC will catch us some insight. ] (]) 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. |
|
|
] 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. ] has been the only user to dispute either of these sources and has not quoted any[REDACTED] guidelines or policies to show that they unreliable. I am making a bold edit and putting in the names with BOTH sources. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: ], 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. --] (]) 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. —''']''' (]) 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. ] (]) 08:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
===Uninvolved=== |
|
|
*] |
|
|
:''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. ] (]) 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/ |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
