Misplaced Pages

Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:33, 6 August 2024 editRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers111,437 edits OneClickArchived "Using the Sanua book as citation for living notable members" 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 reviewers111,437 edits added wp 
(4 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}}
}} }}
== 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)

Latest revision as of 19:49, 15 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sigma Alpha Mu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 10 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFraternities and Sororities High‑importance
WikiProject iconSigma Alpha Mu is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHigher education
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
WikiProject iconJewish culture
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish cultureTemplate:WikiProject Jewish cultureJewish culture
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Categories:
Talk:Sigma Alpha Mu: Difference between revisions Add topic