Talk:Sigma Chi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Sigma Chi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

How to edit Sigmachi.org links so to stay permanent

Take a link like this : http://web.sigmachi.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_2KH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.fireAptrixPortletAction/.c/6_0_15I/.ce/7_0_2L2/.p/5_0_1UI/.d/2?PC_7_0_2L2_aptrixPortletAction=UpdateAptrixPortletContext&WCM_Context=http://ilwwcm.sigmachi.org/ilwwcm/connect/Home/Sigma+Chi/About+Sigma+Chi/History/The+Seven+Founders/

remove this part: _s.7_0_A/7_0_2KH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.fireAptrixPortletAction/.c/6_0_15I/.ce/7_0_2L2/.p/5_0_1UI/.d/2?PC_7_0_2L2_aptrixPortletAction=UpdateAptrixPortletContext&

Replace with: Members/?New_ or About+Sigma+Chi/?New_ or Foundation/?New_ or etc.

Example: http://web.sigmachi.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/Members/?New_WCM_Context=http://ilwwcm.sigmachi.org/ilwwcm/connect/Home/Sigma+Chi/About+Sigma+Chi/History/The+Seven+Founders/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericjbolt (talk • contribs) 08:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Holmes

Perhaps a section should be added about how the rape of Elizabeth Holmes by members of this frat directly led to all the crimes she committed later in life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Crest being used

We are currently using the wrong crest on the Sigma Chi wiki page. The correct one can be found on Sigmachi.org > Partners and Vendors > Logos ... I currently do not have photoshop. Thus I cannot manipulate the Crest to fit in a 200px aspect ratio. Help would be appreciated. Also, the logos on sigmachi.org should supersede the logos on wikipedia ... badge, horizons, norman shield, etc. (Ericjbolt (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

number of brothers

The article says there are "202,600 active brothers in 223 chapters", simple math would give an average of about 900 active brothers per chapter. This seems very high, but it includes all living members, active and alumnus.

How about the immensely huge (gigantic, enormous, etc.) list of notable Sigs? That's getting to the point where we should remove some. I mean, hey, I'm just as proud as the next guy of any fraternity of my brothers, but that list is so long as to stumble over itself. Any ideas/guidelines for who to keep/remove, if at all? Scoutersig 15:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: limit to those who have been awarded the "Significant Sig" Award, or/and perhaps the Order of Constantine? Drsowell 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing anyone. There isn't anyone qualified to decided who is more notable. What we can do to make it more manageable is to break it out by career field or some other subheading, possible by decade. Dauerad (talk) 13:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The number of chapters has been increased by 3 chapters since February 2008 (Ericjbolt (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

As of May, 2011 300,000+ have been inducted into Sigma Chi since inception. Update the number again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.128.179 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Literature Section

I added this section several days ago and i'm happy that so many people have started to include other stuff. Just a couple of points of clarification.

The Standard as we know it was not written by Issac M. Jordan. During an 1884 speech to the 15th Grand Chapter Jordan talked about the various traits that all good Sigma Chi's should possess. These 7 points were incorporated into the current standard. Therefore, it is incorrect to attribute authorship of the Standard to Jordan. Ironically, had Jordan been called upon the write the Standard (as Ade was with the Creed) it likely would never have been called the "Jordan Standard" and would not have included his name, as he was known as a modest and unassuming man.
If i'm not mistaken, it's a violation of wikipedia policy to post song lyrics, as they're copywritten works. I'll leave it on, but if anyone knows that actual policy and it says that the lyrics need to be removed, please do so.
I've found no sources that attribute authorship of the Spirit to Founder Scobey, i've found a few that attribute its writig specifically to the Fraternity.[1] says that Scobey was the prime proponent of the ideals that would become the Spirit. Or basically that Scobey believed passionately in the ideals of diversity, different temperaments, etc. And that it was in that spirit, that the Fraternity wrote the Spirit of Sigma Chi. I'm going to removed the information attributing authorship to Scobey, and put something similar to what i put for Jordan. Just to keep things factual. Batman2005 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We own the copyright and HQ does review the content so I don't see there being any problem. Dauerad (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Brothers

Added R. Brooks LaPlante to the Business section of Notable Brothers. He's the Founder and CEO of Doughmakers Bakeware, a multi-million dollar company, as well as a former state level politician. Should be notable enough for inclusion. Additionally, he's a Significant Sig and former recipient of the House Corp. President of the Year award given by HQ. He also owns the Theta Pi chapter house. 4.224.90.65 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to get a discussion going ... the notable brothers section seems completely out of control. There's no method in place to check any of these ... I Googled a few that I didn't believe, but I think there are quite a few more in there that are not legit. 128.141.130.234 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through the list and adding the Category for Sigma Chi brothers to all the listed alumni. As per discussion on this discussion, the extensive list may be narrowed down and a note added to check the category as well. Scoutersig 15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Ziegler (US Press Secretary under Nixon during Watergate) - Can anyone verify whether or not he was a member of Sigma Chi at USC? It isn't mentioned in his article, nor is it mentioned in his obituary on the USC page [[2]]. 128.141.130.234 08:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ron Ziegler is/was most definitely a Sigma Chi. (Ronald L. Ziegler, USC, Class of 1961). When my home chapter received it's charter in 1973, Ziegler sent a telegram from the White House communications room to congratulate us. If you're still in doubt, check the Sigma Chi Fraternity homepage, and click on Significant Sigs. 72.150.117.53 21:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the ones i've checked are legitimate, Sigma Chi is massive with a massive amount of brothers who have gone on to do great things. Who else do you think might be bogus and I'll help you look for references. Batman2005 04:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

additionally, many of them can be verified by using the 150th Anniversary Directory. Batman2005 17:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to create a seperate page for Significant Sigs and have the section just link to the page. I think it would make it much easier to navigate both the alumni page as well as the main page. Acidskater 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt Groening

Can anyone provide evidence that "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening is a Sigma Chi? He is not listed in the Sigma Chi Directory, 2005 Edition or earlier editions; nor is he a Significant Sig, listed with the General Headquarters. Groening graduated from Evergreen College in Olympia, WA, which has no Sigma Chi chapter, nor has ever had any Sigma Chi chapter in its history. The only piece of information I can find is a listing from a chapter's website of Significant Sigs. I really believe this is an urban myth. I have also heard another myth that one of the characters on "The Simpsons" was modeled after former Grand Consul Dick Hester, also without validity. 72.150.118.89 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not true. Evergreen College, according to all my sources (sigmachi.org, The Norman Shield, Sigma Chi 150th Anniversary Directory, etc.) has NEVER had a Sigma Chi Chapter. Matt Groening is not listed among any brothers in the Directory, nor is he mentioned on any Significant Sig listing (which he surely would be if he were truly a Sigma Chi, HQ would have honored him by now). I've deleted the incorrect data and will continue to do so! Batman2005 13:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Great to know! Some guy, who knew a lot about the Simpsons, claimed that he was Matt Groening, was sitting near me at BLTW in 2003. I only saw him at one open session and was fooled for a short time. I doubt this "imposter" was even a Sigma Chi. There are a few episodes that appear to have Sigma Chi references; however, there are numerous episodes and many references to other organizations, etc. So, did the "Stonecutters" episode inspire the rumor that he is a Freemason?

One of the artists on the Simpsons is a Sig and did base Mr. Burns on Dick Hester, from what I've heard, although it is just what I've heard. ASigIAm213

An interesting thing I found was in the episode 'Tis the Fifteenth Season a fraternity called Sigma Chi Sigma rents out Flander's house. Acidskater 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone on that staff was a Sig, just watch this. Acidskater 15:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is an episode that alludes to Dr. Nick being a Sigma Chi. He has a flashback to college and a paddle is hanging on the wall... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.2.197 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Dickinson College, Omicron Chapter

Omicron Chapter at Dickinson College is still an active chapter of the Sigma Chi Fraternity, so whoever is the goon that keeps deleting its inclusion among the chapter list needs to check the facts; I refer you to the website of the Sigma Chi Fraternity [[3]]. 72.150.117.53 21:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Sigma Chi infobox

I have replaced the infobox with the standardized infobox for all fraternity articles, and nominated Template:Sigma Chi infobox for tfd. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 06:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to mention -- I created the Sigma Chi infobox in the fall of 2004, and I'm glad that we're following the standard now. 128.141.130.234 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Congressional Recognition

Sigma Alpha Epsilon has also been recognized by congress for it's 150th anniversary which occured in March 2006. The line "Most recently Sigma Chi was honored by the United States Congress on its 150th anniversary on June 13th, 2005, becoming the only Greek letter society so honored" should be changed or omitted.

It has been changed to the "first" -- cheers. 18.220.1.58 01:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The wording on the recognition line is still confusing. It currently sounds as though you are claiming the first Congressional recognition for any fraternity, not just for a 150th. Also, is there any proof of this superlative? The reference merely takes you to a text of the resolution, there is no mention of this resolution being the first for a fraternity's 150th. I know there are many fraternity's who celebrated 150ths before Sigma Chi, so you might want to verify the claim. Thanks DUKyleXY (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Steny Hoyer

I'm currently unaware of any order in the listing of notable Sigs in the public sector, so I added Steny Hoyer to the top of the list. Revise as needed. IHSV

Chi Psi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity

Some of you need to read Joseph C. Nate's History of the Sigma Chi Fraternity, or Robert M. Collett's Centennial History of Sigma Chi. There definitely was/is a "Chi Psi Chapter," located at the old University of New Orleans, chartered in 1882. However, the chapter did not last but a year. Alpha Omicron Chapter at Tulane University is recognized as the successor to "Chi Psi." This chapter is still listed in the "Norman Shield" as a chapter of Sigma Chi. I added this chapter to the list only as a historical reference (or trivia, if you like). If you guys don't care for it, then delete it. I'm a archivist, can't help that I like history, especially of my own fraternity.

Sorry, I forgot the protocol for Wikipedia, and didn't sign the above diatribe. IN HOC. Drsowell 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chapter listings; inactive chapters

I began to update the chapter listings after I sheepishly realized I didn't know that one of the chapters listed WAS a chapter. So using the Norman Shield, I dug in. I've listed inactive chapters in italics; is this something I should keep doing? I don't know if it is standard or not, but I think that it is useful and important, and since Wikipedia is not paper I think we should do it. Also, can/should this be a table with activation/inactivation dates--some chapters have such info just appended to thier lines. Scoutersig 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what the Shield does; I'd go with it. ASigIAm213

Grand Chapter, Grand Council, Executive Committee

I noticed that there really isn't any mention of any of these within the article. There is a little info in the into about the Grand Chapter, but thats it. There also isn't any info on chapter officers. I know there are a lot of officers, but we can include the main ones (Consul, Pro Consul, Magister, Quaester, Annotator), or create a subpage. I wanted to hear what everyone thought about it before I did it. If no one really says anything in a week I think I'll put in a good bit. Acidskater 15:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that a seperate section, between 'founding' and 'leadership programs' would be fine; none of the other IFC fraternities have seperate articles for their organization levels—well, most that I looked at don't even mention international officers at all. A section on the organization at that level (and down some, to a province, though with less detail) would be fine, and the similarly-titled section of the Shield would be aperfect place to start. —Scouter Sig 00:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

So I asked the user who labeled the page as unsourced to let me know what exactly was unsourced but to no avail he did not specify. I have added some sources but wanted to ask everyone to add sources to the article. I'm not sure if he is trying to get a whole bunch of edits(I know, assume good faith, blah blah blah), but if you can't source something use the fact label so others can see what exactly needs to be sourced. In my opinion the page doesn't need the heading of being unsourced and I would very much like it taken down but I'm not quite sure what actions need to be taken to do so if any at all. IHSV Acidskater 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been about a month since the unsourced label was put in and since I asked about what in the article needs to be referenced. Since I have yet to get an answer I am taking the label down and asking any editors who want something sourced to label it specifically. Acidskater 12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, I think adding all of that is a little too much.

Removal of Undergraduate Officers

I removed this sub-section for several reasons. Firstly, it only mentioned about...6 of the offices. Absent were Kustos, Tribune, Chapter Editor, etc, etc. Secondly, many chapters, mine included have numerous more officers than the ones which were listed. We had officers to meet the specific needs of our chapter...such as a House Manager, and an Alumni Relations Officer. To avoid the confusion of others adding their chapter specific officers, I felt like the "Undergraduate Officers" section could be, and should be, deleted. With such vast differences in chapter government, it's best to list only those officers who preside at a national level. Batman2005 20:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with full removal. Maybe keep the 6 that every chapter must have - i.e. consul, proco, annotator, magister, quaestor, and kustos? --Searles2sels (PJ) 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you, but here are some reasons why I chose those 6 officers:

1. All those positions are represented at the BLTW except Annotator.

2. All chapters have these positions (to the best of my knowledge). Even more than that, with the exception of Recruitment Chair, the officer titles are different than that of english generic terms (President, Vice President, etc.). While there are many other positions such as Kustos, Centurian, Tribune, etc. that follow this, I did not list them because to my knowledge not all chapters have some.

3. These were the first 6 listed by the Norman Shield 41st Edition in yellow highlight (the other yellow highlights not included were Tribune, Chapter Editor, Historian).

I would like to list at least these 6 (Consul, Pro Consul, Annotator, Magister, Quaester, and Recruitment Chair) and possibly consider more to list (Kustos, Centurian, etc.) that are at the majority of chapters. While the explanations may not need to be so long, I think it is important to this article to at least give those outside of Sigma Chi somewhat of an idea of how each chapter is setup. Acidskater 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with listing the ones listed in the Norman Shield. Batman2005 17:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All of them or just the positions highlighted in yellow? Yellow includes Consul, Pro Consul, Annotator, Quaester, Magister, Recruitment Chair, Tribune, Chapter Editor, and Historian. All would also include Kustos, House Manager, IFC rep, Public Relations Chair, Risk Manager(Centurian), Scholarship Chair, and Steward. I was thinking we should include all but give a brief sentence in an above description saying that not all chapters use all the positions. Acidskater 19:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Acidskater --Searles2sels (PJ) 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should list all the ones in the Norman Shield and provide a brief synopsis of the general duties of the office. Batman2005 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but if you guys want an outside opinion on this, I'd be more than happy to oblige. Otherwise, sorry to interrupt. Jmlk17 10:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea since we're all in or were in different chapters with different rules. Go for it! --Searles2sels (PJ) 14:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm a Pike, so I'm not exactly too knowledgeable in the ways and workings of Sigma Chi. From what I've read in the whole article, it is exceedingly well written. By just reading the article by itself on a whole, without even checking the external links or references, I got the gist of the fraternity quite well. As for the officers, my suggestion would be don't base it on your personal chapter, or a few chapters; rather, base it upon what must be in each chapter organization. I would assume each must have a President, Vice-President, Treasurer, Secretary, etc. I also assume that not every chapter has chairs such as House Manager or the such. But I would suggest to list the basic, necessary officers, then ass a footnote or subsection explaining that it varies from chapter to chapter. I hope this view helps a bit. Jmlk17 20:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just redid the section taking into account what we have discussed. I started the section with a brief sentence describing differences at each chapter. All positions from the Norman Shield were included with a bried description. Before deleting or adding more to the section please discuss here. Acidskater 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am from another chapter and we dislike seeing so much clutter and information on this article. It is not necessary to have the chapter officers on here especially since every chapter is different. If it is not on the International Sigma Chi website than it should not be on here, that's just too much.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a rush brochure or a website for advertisement. Acidskater 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything with Sigma Chi on it is a Recruitment Brochure or advertisment. And I don't think the Fraternity has yet officially changed the Risk Management officer to Centurian, half of the chapters don't even know what that is I know none of the one's in my province do. If chapter officers are going to be on here they should only be the ones on the international website which are Consul, Pro Consul, Magister, Quaestor, and Recruitment Chairman. Either the whole list of undergrad officers need to be removed or it just needs to be these 5 because there is already to much unnecessary information on this thing as a whole. If this is an encyclopedia all of this info should be brief and short, it's not a book. I feel that if people want more info about the fraternity then they check sigmachi.org.--Tcbell7 07:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tcbell7, if this were a Recruitment Brochure or advertisement then this article would have POV in favor of Sigma Chi. Length shouldn't be a matter either as Wikipedia is not paper. The list is based off of the most recent Norman Shield because it is considered the Reference Manual of the Sigma Chi Fraternity. The only thing I can see worth changing is Centurian because it isn't actually in the Norman Shield yet. Truthfully I think your biggest issue with the page is the scare that ritual information will be placed in here. I can assure you, as well as the other Sigs on here, that no ritual info will be put on this page. If it were to be it would be gone quickly. Acidskater 15:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Pledgeship/hazing/incidents/derbydays

I wanted to create a section specifically about the pledge period. It would talk about the average length of pledgeship (8-10 weeks I believe), common pledge tasks (cleaning, learning about sigma chi, etc). I also wanted to put in a section about Sigma Chi's hazing policies as well as incidents of hazing. I also wanted to include other incidents of sigma chi, both good and bad, into it's own section. Incidents would contain things that gain broad attention such as the John Hopkins Halloween in the Hood party, UNC's recent hazing issue, and whatever else anyone can think of (unfortunatly good things don't gain nationwide attention). The one last thing I wanted to add was a section on Derby Days. Just let me know what you think and within a couples days I will start this 'project' on the article. IHSV Acidskater 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is "good luck" and great job on working on the article. It's pretty cool that someone actually addresses issues in their fraternity instead of just turning a complete blind eye as in many other situations. Happy editing man. Jmlk17 09:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why it is necessary to have anything on here about pledgeship details. I don't know about you but in our chapter and other chapters in our province a lot of that stuff is secret. Putting specific hazing incidents or parties gone wrong on here will only make us look bad or worse depending on which campus your on. I think it is a horrible idea to add any of that stuff. Derby Days is different at every chapter as well, some chapter can only have a Derby Day due to university policies.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tcbell7 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 8 May 2007.

The point of an encyclopedia is to include ALL relevant information. And I'm quite sure that 1) general information will be given for the general fraternity, and specific information provided will be cited for specific schools (in regards to officers, activites, etc.); and 2) any information that is truly intended to be secret remains secret. Acidskater has proposed (and input has refined) just that. And as for damaging materials, well, that will come up anyway. (See The Phi Psi talk page for an instance of this.) Again, the idea behind Wikipedia is to have accurate and reliable information, not publicity. —Scouter Sig 14:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a need to put the hazing stuff on here because wikipedia is not a news source. IF there was a specific incident which came to such national attention that rules or laws were changed, then surely that could be included on a page about Fraternity Hazing or something like that. But simply putting something about a party gone wrong, or a kid being paddled at an isolated chapter...doesn't really reflect Sigma Chi as a whole, and isn't encyclopedic in and of itself. As for the pledgeship section. I think it's fine so long as only what is included on pledging is the stuff contained in the Norman Shield and other public information. I'm sorry if the chapters of some users keep their pledgeship material secret, but if it's in the norman shield...it's not secret. I see nothing wrong with including a section on pledgeship, it's purposes, goals, etc. Batman2005 20:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your right, if it is not in a Norman or on the International website than it should not be on here. Period.

Sweetheart

Should the information about the International (and we should mention chapter sweethearts too) be under ""literature?" I don't think so, but I am unsure of where to add it: say, "organization"? —Scouter Sig 16:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should create an awards section and place it there along with other awards such as the Peterson Award, Balfour Award, Bash Award, Significant Sig, etc. Acidskater 17:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I hope everyone likes the new section on awards and I would really like to hear some comments on it. I chose those awards because they are the most 'well-known' among sigma chi (to the best of my knowledge). Acidskater 22:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alumni Chapters

User Dauerad has a good idea: a list of Alumni Chapters, though I think it should be a separate page. I'll work on getting some of that information. However, how should we organize them? I'm thinking the best way is alphabetical, within states; Canadian chapters would be separated at the end. PLEASE use the discussion on the List of Sigma Chi chapters page, not here, for continuity. —Scouter Sig 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alumni Officers

While I think this is a good idea I wanted to know where the alumni officers came from? Acidskater 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the reference (if one exists), but it is my understanding that whether or not an alumni chapter uses the terms "Consul" and "Proconsul" for their respective chapter officers depends on if they hold ritual meetings or not. If not, they are referred to as President and Vice President. Regardless of ritual use, it seems to me (as the President of the Washington Alumni Chapter since 2006) that HQ prefers to use President/Vice President over Consul/Proconsul. Might be too nit picky though. Dauerad (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The Founders

I redid what was there of the founders because they were exact copies of the article of the founders. Most of the info in this is based of what is in the Norman Shield. I'm trying to keep each founder to just a paragraph with the majority of the paragraph about their connection to Sigma Chi. Acidskater 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was getting curious about the new information about the founders...seem verbatim out of somewhere. Jmlk 1 7 09:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

nope, I just made a list of NPOV facts from the norman shield and some other sources and put it into prose. Acidskater 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Horizonslogo.jpg

Image:Horizonslogo.jpg 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 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 04:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SigmaChiBadge.gif

Image:SigmaChiBadge.gif 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 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 11:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed Sigma Chi Good Article Justification and Suggestions

1. Fair use rationale must be added to Image:Sigmachicrest.png, Image:Normanshield.jpg, Image:Order Constantine.jpg and Image:SigmachiFlag.jpg. The {{Non-free logo}} tag explicitly states...

This tag is meaningless without an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded.

... see Image:Horizonslogo.jpg and Image:SigmaChiBadge.gif for examples.

2. The many typos need to be addressed... a couple example...

The founding of Sigma Chi began when came as the result of a disagreement...

He developes and implements...

He also cooridnates the publications...

As a general rule, each undergraguate chapter elects a female...

3. Founding section, under History does not have one reference. There are so many facts in this paragraph that need a reference I can't list them all. See WP:CITE for help.

4. Several {{fact}} tags need to be addressed.

5. Fair use rationale must be added to Image:Norman Shield.jpg. See {{bookcover}} tag for justification guidelines.

6. I recommend, but it's not required, to conform all your references to citation templates... makes it look much cleaner.

... Jazznutuva 09:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Citation...sort of

I plugged a hole in the Founding story with a cite from the 31st Norman Shield because I've momentarily misplaced my copy of the 41st. If someone could fix that between now and when I find my Shield, I'd greatly appreciate it. ASigIAm213

List of current officers

While some may see listing current grand officers and the current international sweetheart as within the guidelines, I believe it falls under WP:NOT#DIR. Seeing as there are some who do not agree with me I wanted to see what others thought of this. Acidskater 03:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're spot on man... Jmlk 1 7 05:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it falls under WP:NOT#DIR. It's not as if we're giving out phone numbers and e-mail addresses for them and saying to contact them. We're merely associating a name with a position. Much like a school lists a principal and superintedent. Batman2005 23:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Chapter Numbers

While the website and magazine are both not up to date, it is 221 because I was there during the installation of the 221st chapter which was also the largest recorded installation of a chapter in the history of the Greek world(still have yet to find a source about it), the Summer Magazine of 2007 says on page 85 that there are 218 chapters and 149 alumni chapters. This is more up to date than the website and is an actual source. Acidskater 14:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty. I have seen you more than enough around here to trust you man :). Although a source would be nice ;). Jmlk 1 7 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ritual Material

Whether or not the 'ritual material' added to this page is true or not, you can not add it because there are no sources you can cite. The only time you will ever be able to add ritual material to a Secret Society's wiki-article, is if they stop being a secret society and release their ritual information. Acidskater (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Founders' Articles?

I see that a few of the founder's articles (Scobey, Caldwell, Lockwood) have been deleted recently. Two were deleted for copyright infringement and a third for lack of notability. Is their accomplishment as a founder enough to make them notable? Can wiki quote from Normal Shield as long as proper credit is given? Also, wouldn't these three be good examples of where the redlinks should be left intact (and red), to encourage a potential author who finds a dead link to contribute? Just wondering.... --DAW0001 (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is "one" wikilinked?

In the Grand Chapter section, why is the first "one" wikilinked in the following sentence?

It is composed of one delegate from each active undergraduate chapter and alumni chapter, the Grand Consul and Past Grand Consuls, each being entitled to one vote.

That seems like link overkill....--DAW0001 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Cooperbadge.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Cooperbadge.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Other Faternities

I have heard other fraternity's recruitment slogans and they claim that they are the largest fraternity is the U.S. I know this is false so should we provide some more proof on the page such as an actual member count. I'm sure HQ wouldn't mind giving a link to some hard numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.154.24 (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What do these symbols represent and mean to Sigma-Chi Fraternity Members?

(1) What does the Sigma-Chi Cross represent? (2) What is the Historical Meaning of the Cross to Sigma-Chi? (3) What do the colors in the Sigma-Chi Cross represent?

Beaconmike (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reworking the article.

Hey guys, the article looks excessively detailed and large amounts of the article are unnecessary to keep in. Do you think we should cut down on some bits a little? Vacationlandman (talk) 11:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You asked other editors for their opinion, then waited 2 minutes before making a huge deletion from the article. Please give other editors a few days to respond. Do I feel the section you cut should have been? No, it was sourced and seemed appropriate. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright point taken. Vacationlandman (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've already removed a lot of puff on this article in the past, but there's a lot more that could stand to go, in my opinion. It's written in an excessively wordy style, with a large amount of minor trivia tacked on. The article contains a large amount of minor details drawn from a handful of primary sources (mostly The Norman Shield, which is the frat's manual). This does not do a good job of establishing WP:DUE weight. It's been tagged as having excessive detail for years. If anyone thinks it's not excessively detailed, maybe we should discuss what we can do to reach a compromise and remove the tag. Grayfell (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll start editing and see if we can get better sourcing. A lot of the work done which was excessively worded was most likely something I did back in 2006/2007, so I will see what I can do to bring it down and get the tag removed. Acidskater (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sigma Chi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061210100737/http://www.eiu.edu:80/~sigchi/birth.htm to http://www.eiu.edu/~sigchi/birth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

I'd like to discuss the multiple issues tagged at the top of the article as I believe some may be irrelevant at this point.

Fan's point of view - I believe that the article now meets the standards set by WP:NPOV as it is very fact based, has a non-judgemental impartial tone, and shows both positive and negative information as per WP:BALANCE.
Intricate Detail - I believe this article adheres to WP:NOT and is not excessive in detail anymore. Every section fits the guidelines as it gives a proper encyclopedic overview of the fraternity and is not excessive in description as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
Primary Sources - While I do believe the references for the article need a bit of a cleaning up the article does adhere to proper sourcing as per WP:OR, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD which states " The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." It seems that the use of primary sources in the article are all used as sources of information about basic facts of history, products, employees (members in this case), and facilities. All other information has reliable sourcing, most notably in the hazing and controversies section.

Please let me know if you agree or disagree. If you disagree please outline specific examples of why you disagree so we can discuss them and properly improve the article and remove the tags. Acidskater (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been only a few days but if this remains uncontested by Saturday April 16th I'm going to take these multiple issue tags down. Acidskater (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been a week with no one arguing against taking the tags down so I will take them down. Acidskater (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I would've restored the tags if I had noticed this sooner. The article definitely still has a lot of problems, and I think they should be addressed before GA status. As one example, the sections on philanthropy, organization, alumni awards, and publications (no sources at all!) are all far too detailed for the handful of primary sources involved. Intentional or not, this gives the article an extremely promotional tone. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD is not a policy, but WP:NOTADVERTISING is. This isn't just "basic facts". The vast majority of the article is solely supported by primary sources, and the only exception is the hazing and controversies subsection which has been tucked-away under the 'pledges' section. I don't think it's a good idea to take the only independently sourced section and downplay it like this. To demonstrate that this isn't an overly intricate level of detail, provide secondary sources. I don't think unrealistic to expect that from such a lengthy and detailed article. If such sources cannot be found, the article should be trimmed substantially. Grayfell (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Acidskater: The recently added sources are a step in the right direction, but they still fail to clearly establish due weight for a lot of these details. The Greek Letter Men of Boston source, published in 1900, only mentions the Sigma Chi Quarterly once, and only briefly. While an older source is certainly usable, it's telling that this is the only secondary source about the magazine. From these sources, it does not appear that the magazine deserves an entire subsection. This is a recurring problem here, as all of these very small sections make the article harder to navigate and imply that trivial details of larger importance. This is a form of editorializing. It also, to be blunt, makes the article look similar to the frat's own website, or a recruitment brochure, which is not acceptable.

As for the "staple philanthropic events" line, that seems far, far too promotional too me. What does "staple" mean here? It looks like a WP:PEACOCK. I don't think wikt:staple is the right word, but "signature", from the source, is much worse in terms of neutrality. If a neutral source doesn't describe it this way, neither should Wikipedia. Charity events are not exempt from neutrality requirements. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Yes, it is a start but when there is only person actually working to improve the article by providing sources it takes a little time. As well, some of these new sources may not verify much but they do verify the factual statements that they mark (which is the point of having sources). Such as the main publication of Sigma Chi being the "Sigma Chi Quarterly" - in no way does the fact that this is mentioned once in the source make it any less of a source for that fact. Even more so a lot of these facts are supported by Primary Sources which are allowed to be used as per WP:PRIMARY - "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." None of the facts supported by primary sources are exceptional claims and are all straightforward, descriptive statements of facts about the organization and it's structure, all of which are encyclopedic. While I agree there is a lot of use of primary sources I don't believe it is excessive as all primary sources are used properly and without interpretation. I also find it ridiculous that because there are a lot of primary sources you believe sections need to be taken out. Even more so, your statement about Derby Days "Derby Days is a series of charity events held by many Sigma Chi chapters" is an incorrect statement and obviously based on original research with no source. The source I provided through the CMNH does describe it as "signature event" but staple or signature is a perfect word to use as the diction fits well, I don't see it as promotional in anyway, and it does not violate WP:PEACOCK. If you don't agree with the use of the word staple then find another word (signature, main, featured) but I find it ridiculous that you're denying the source even though it is providing a straightforward and descriptive fact, which is allowed even if the source is biased as per WP:BIASED and the use of staple is plainly summarizing that verifiable information. And so you know - Staple (noun): a basic or principal item, thing, feature, element, or part. Acidskater (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've read wp:primary many times. They are not exceptional claims, exactly, but they are promotional without being particularly important or informative. Highlighting a charity event is using Wikipedia to promote the fraternity. If this isn't trivial, why hasn't any other source ever commented on them? This is as much about neutrality as it is about primary sources, and this article is not neutral, because of the lavish a level of detail that is out of proportion to the level of independent coverage. That's the spirit of WP:DUE, and this is undue. The article is written in such a way that it assumes that these minor details are relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic.

How is the Derby Days event "basic or principle" to the fraternity? What would that even mean? Does means that the event is something that your frat is proud of, and likes to highlight as an examples of the good work it does? The article is not explaining why it's significant, it's just mentioning that it exists and that it's... (some synonym of) important to the fraternity because the fraternity says it's important. It's tautological and overly flattering.

That's the only the tip of the iceberg, and as someone with a conflict of interest, I hope you will step back and try to assess this article from an outsider's perspective. Wikipedia is not just for greeks. As I said, some of the sources you added are a step in the right direction, but before that, the only independent sources were about hazing. That means the the article would arguably not technically pass WP:ORG. I think we can agree that's ridiculous, as this is clearly a notable organization. That hypothetical nomination would be a speedy keep close for sure, so than why does that guideline exist? It's partly because if the only sources are PR and inside accounts, the article isn't going to be truly neutral. Does that help explain why this is a problem? The article needs independent sources, not as a technicality, but to insure that it's neutral and broad in coverage. I'm not trying to strong-arm you into drudging-up a hundred-year old book to pad-out the article out of a love of bureaucracy. The underlying structure has problems that need to be fixed. Rewriting this to stick to neutral, independent sources is the simplest way I know to address the problems that I see here. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sigma Chi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sigma Chi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The lead needs to expanded to summarise the article per WP:LEAD. It should consist of two paragraphs for an article this size

"Isaac M. Jordan (May 5, 1835 – December 3, 1890) was born in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania[18] as Isaac Alfred Jordan" - no need to have this in bold (MOS:BOLD)

First paragraph of the Purdue case section is unsourced

Most of the Nomenclature and insignia section is unsourced. Can the content from the subsections be merged into one if they're not important?

Lots of unsourced claims in the Organization of the fraternity section, and a few citation needed tags which need to be dealt with

Two citation needed tags in the Publications section which need to be sourced

" Since 1855, Sigma Chi has initiated more than 300,000 men" - this is unsourced

Is the Alumni chapters important? If it can't be expanded, can you merge it elsewhere or get rid of it?
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

There are several unsourced paragraphs and claims which will need to be dealt with before this meets the criteria. I see that this article is indeed well written and comprehensive, so I'm willing to give this a chance. There are some citation needed tags which will need to be removed and sourced, so once all of my concerns are addressed I'll take another look at this. Please let me know if you have any questions JAGUAR 19:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I will try to address these issues within the week but with limited time I do hope other users will lend a hand, especially for some of the sourcing. Acidskater (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem, take as much time as you need. JAGUAR 23:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Status query

Jaguar, Acidskater, it's been almost six weeks; where does this review stand? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh god, I completely forgot about this! It looks like I'm still waiting for Acidskater's response. If I don't hear anything back in a few days I'll close the review. JAGUAR 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I barely have time to do anything on Wikipedia and did a bit not too long ago but really haven't had time for much of anything. I'm gonna try to keep doing what I can but I know I'm not going to have the time for at least the next few weeks. I totally understand if you have to close the review but hopefully another user will be able to step-up to help. Thanks Acidskater (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Jaguar again; it's probably time to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Acidskater, I'll have to close this review now. Please let me know if you'll renominate and I'll be happy to take this again in the future.

JAGUAR 11:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sigma Chi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sigma Chi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ilwwcm.sigmachi.org/ilwwcm/connect/Home/Sigma+Chi/About+Sigma+Chi/History/The+Founding/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070911031105/http://www.jgdb.com/articl31.htm to http://www.jgdb.com/articl31.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Justice for Gregory Media

Some of the sources here might be appropriate for additional references on Gregory Johnson.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zr54qhR0iSsb2OF6C0u-VFQIi5rDYgojedmRzah403U/edit