Talk:Phi Sigma Alpha

Userbox

If you are a member of Phi Sigma Alpha Fraternity, you can add this userbox on your userpage:

ФΣAThis user is a member of Phi Sigma Alpha Fraternity.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I will be reviewing your article. It clearly represents a lot of work, but it is not clear that you have addressed all concerns from the prior review.

Please fix these disamb. links: University of Louisiana and WKAQ. I am assuming good faith because the most important source is behind a password wall. I trust that you did not merely translate those materials, but rewrote them completely on your own.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Many concerns from Talk:Phi Sigma Alpha/GA1 still remain particularly the passive voice.

   In the lead, the sentence "By 1998 there were over 4,376 Sigmas.[4]" is confusing because the word "Sigmas" is undefined, and a comma is missing after 1998. If members are called Sigmas state that after the first sentence of the article. DONE

   You start discussing Phi Lambda Alpha fraternity without any introduction that explains that it is a predecessor of Phi Sigma Alpha.DONE

   There is no antecedent for "Under these conditions a movement came about to unite" Please explain what conditions.DONE - the conditions are the ones expresed before the sentence.

   "In 1932 Phi Iota Alpha reorganized and established a superior governing body called the Union Latino Americana,"->"In 1932, Phi Iota Alpha reorganized and formed the Union Latino Americana as its overall governing body, "DONE

   Delete: " The new members were so enthusiastic that they felt the need to establish a Chapter House."DONE

   I suggest deleting, "Sigma Delta Alpha enjoyed for many years certain supremacy over the other student organizations at the University. Their membership included four of the most important student leadership positions at the university: the Yearbook editor, the senior class president, the Athletic Society President, and the ROTC Battalion Commander. Every activity sponsored by the administration was consulted with the chapter president of Río Piedras.[8]"

   Consider "Sigma Delta Alpha of the University of Puerto Rico in 1934." ->" Sigma Delta Alpha chapter at the University of Puerto Rico in 1934." There seems to be a word or idea missing here. - this one is well wrtiting since the university of puerto rico has many campuses and the fraternity at the time had 2 chapters one in Univerity of PR at mayaguez and the other at Rio Piedras thus the fraternity was located only at the universty of Puerto Rico.

   Did an alumni chapter of Phi Iota Alpha merge with the undergraduate chapter of Sigma Delta Alpha for the Rio Piedras campus of the University of PR? Please change the text to spell out what you are trying to say.

   "functional zones including[15]:" - the colon should come before reference [15].DONE

   what does the phrase "militant chapter" mean? Does it mean alumni chapter? You finally explain this in the Chapters section. I would just change all references from "militant" to "alumni". - since the chapters are not called Alumni and are alway refered to as militant I would leave it as is.

   "Like the members of the Sigma, a majority of the members of the Chapter of Phi Iota Alpha of the University of Louisiana disillusioned with character given to their brotherhood decided to separate, founding in April 1939 Sigma Iota Alpha [8] fraternity composed of Latin students of this university. As it was to be expected this new grouping was received with distrust by the other Latin fraternal organizations at the university. Being that Phi Sigma Alpha was organized in Puerto Rico with ideals similar to those of the Sigma Iota Alpha in Louisiana, and being both organizations the product of almost identical preceding brotherhoods, negotiations arose immediately to fuse both brotherhoods into a single one." ->"The Phi Iota Alpha chapter at the University of Louisiana had similar concerns with the political direction of its national organization and started merger discussion with the Puerto Rican zone." - The thing is that it was not a Phi Iota Chapter that joined it was an ex chapter that had formed its own fraternity that joined.

   Need to be consistent: Is SIGMA all caps or is it Sigma with just an initial capital letter? Does it stand for separate words as an acronym?DONE

   Fraternity should not be capitalized. - if should if it fallows Phi Sigma Alfa, since its name is Phi Sigma Alpha Fraternity, just as New York the city is called New York City

   "The Sigma Brotherhood that since 1959 had prohibited in its processes the use of the "Pledge Padle" is proud to have been the first again in prohibiting acts against the physical and mental dignity of the neophyte, even before the Article 125 was enacted." - Many undefined terms are used in this sentence: "Sigma Brotherhood" - is this different than Phi Sigma Alpha? What do you mean by "neophyte"? First among Puerto Rican fraternities? Is this sentence sufficiently important to be included in the article?

   sigma brotherhood is the same as phi sigma alpha, neophyte is the proper name for a person that is in the proces of pledging. It is indeed important, many legal cases and even a law in Puerto Rico forbid this conduct and the fraternity stoped this internaly more than 30 before the law was inacted.

   I understand. Please do not assume that the reader is familiar with your fraternity's vocabulary. I would take out these two sentences. Hazing is against the law, and the reader will assume that PSA compilies with the law even without these sentences. Racepacket (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

   Please be more consistent in your terminology. You can get some variety by calling the organization both "the fraternity" and Phi Sigma Alpha, but throwing in a lot of other terms such as "The Sigma" is needlessly confusing the reader as to whether you mean the same organization or a different one.

   Please add a period between "raising activities for different organizations" and "The Sigma"DONE

   "The Sigma Scholarship Program or ("Beca Sigma" in Spanish) program has been re-established and promises to offer young Puerto Ricans of scarce resources the opportunity to receive University studies.[1]" - This requires some explanation. When did it first start? Why and when did it stop? When did it restart and how does it work?

   Change the section heading from "Administrative Body" to "Organization"DONE

   Are the "Junta de Directores" and "Comité Ejecutivo Central" alumni or undergraduates? Please distinguish what group and officers are alumni and what positions are for undergraduate active members.DONE

   delete " and have been used by many organizations such as Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Eta Gamma Delta, the Rio Piedras Rotary Club, and others." - digressionDONE

   In the chapter table, please add the name of the undergraduate hosting college or university.

   What ramifications are there to "Fraternidad Sigma or (Sigma Fraternity) with its ramifications"?

   The history is hard to follow. I suggest you start by explaining that Phi Sigma Alpha started as four separate organizations and then list all four. Then have a paragraph explaining the history of each. Don't assume that the reader is familiar with any of these organization.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): } b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Footnote 8 does not display for me, may be password protected.DONE Please add a notation that it is password protected if that is the case. Footnote 33 is a dead link.- not a dead link, it opens a word document, try it again

   You are correct. The Word document is a congratulatory resolution that lists Galib as a fraternity member.

   Need a footnote for each alumni listed. Sources should prove that the alumnus is a member. If the alumnus does not have a separate Wikipedia article, sources should also demonstrate notability. Otherwise, please delete from table.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   A lot of unnessary digressions should be removed from the article.

   You explain how the chapter at the University of Louisiana merged into Phi Sigma Alpha, but it is not listed as a chapter. When did it disband? Do you have any undergraduate chapters in the mainland United States? If not, perhaps you should discuss when and why they left.

   If you wish, you can add more explanation regarding what the organization does. It seems that alumni chapters are organized around cities rather than around campuses. Is this more of an inter-college networking group than a way for alumni of a particular university to stay in touch?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Delete, "Since the Phi Sigma Alpha Zone was organized on the strong base, of sincere friendship, insurmountable comradeship and mainly, love to the Sigma, the effect of such separation was not felt. The old members of the Phi Iota Alpha and those of the Sigma Delta Alpha had already left their "old clothes" and were all and each one of them a Phi Sigma Alpha, better known as Sigma, proud of their Brotherhood, and the Zone continued function as if nothing had happened.[8]"DONE

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no edit wars.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The images look very professional and detailed. I was wondering how you came to create them. Were they ever published in another place before you uploaded them to Wikipedia? Perhaps you signed away your copyright in the course of publishing them or they were a derivative work.

   File:Uhacrest.gif - I am not sure that your fair use rationale will work for two different articles about organizations that are different from UHA. That is like claiming fair use of the GM logo in an article about the Ford Motor Company.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing article on hold for one week.

11 January reading

• A number of items listed above are still not addressed.
• Consider wikifying by adding links to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California, Berkeley,
• Define the ULA abbrevation after the first time it appears spelled out.
• Spellout and define C.A.A.M.
• Are there active members on the Comité Ejecutivo Central, or is it all alumni? It would be helpful to explain this in the article.
• If Comité Ejecutivo Central is the name of the first group, what is the name of the second group that consists of "the regional presidents, and by the presidents and secretaries of all the fraternity chapters alumni and active"?
• Change " the opportunity to cover part of their university studies expense and others costs. " -> " financial assistance for a part of their educational expenses."
• Do the active chapters have living facilities or "chapter houses" or is this strictly a non-residential fraternity?

I hope we can complete this review quickly and I look forward to your responses. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is terminated at the request of the nominator to allow him to make further improvements at his own pace. Thank you for working with me. Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability

To be a notable member of Phi Sigma Alpha, someone must be 1) notable and 2) a member.

Tom Cruise should not be included. Though he is notable, he is not a member of Phi Sigma Alpha. If you believe he is a member, please provide a reliable source.

José Victor Oliver Ledesma should not be included. Though he is a member, he is not notable. If you feel he is notable, please write the article first. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the notable members from the list unilaterally. If you believe they should be deleted please discuss here or I will have to ask an admin to protect the page. El Johnson (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for finally coming to the talk page. If you believe the individuals are notable, please write the article first. With the exception of complete lists (i.e. listing the mayors of a particular town), the most widely used criterion for such lists is blue link notability. Individuals with stable articles are included, those without such articles are not. So, for example, List of University of Pennsylvania people is not a list of people associate with Penn that various editors feel are notable, it is a list of blue-link notables.

If you feel this article should use some other sourced, objective criteria, you will need to build a consensus here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers as an example (not all of the names have articles). I can find many more lists as examples if you want. Not having a Wikipedia article is not an indication of non-notability. Since Wikipedia is continuously growing and expanding, new subjects and types of articles get included all the time. To suggest that a particular person in the list is non-notable because his article does not exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good. My intention is that all of them will have article eventually, I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, I believe since that time I have come to learn what qualifies as Notability for Wikipedia and what does not. Thank you for your contributions and observations. El Johnson (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

What would you suggest as sourced, objective selection criteria? :All lists must have sourced, objective selection criteria. Otherwise, this is an indiscriminate list of some members of a fraternity, which is not in any way encyclopedic. Blue-link notable, along with WP:WTAF is common and objective.

(Yes, there are other articles. Some of them are nearly perfect. Others are beyond salvage and should be deleted. That some articles violate our policies and guidelines is not a reason to repeat that mistake in other articles.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes Eljohnson15, we have been over this. This list, as with all lists on Wikipedia, must have sourced, objective criteria. The only commonly used option we can use here is blue-link notability, as I have been suggesting.

If you believe some other criteria should be used, please suggest them. "Will be blue-links as soon as I get around to creating them" is not a sourced, objective criterion.

Your preferred list has been removed by Drmies, Kbabej and me, making the shorter list the apparent consensus. As such, it is your burden to establish a consensus to the contrary. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Eljohnson15, please stop editing against consensus and convention. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not having a Wikipedia article is not an indication of non-notability. Since Wikipedia is continuously growing and expanding, new subjects and types of articles get included all the time. To suggest that a particular person in the list is non-notable because his article does not exist would stunt the growth of Wikipedia, and do more harm than good. Your imposition in this list is the actions that goes against consensus and convention. El Johnson (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people

As a compromise I can: provide a citation to establish notability to the persons in the list that don't have an article El Johnson (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Stop talking about "compromise" until you apologize for templating my talk page. You're the edit warrior, Mr. Five Times Since 30 October. User:SummerPhDv2.0, if you ever feel inclined to report this to WP:ANEW I'll be happy to support. In the meantime, El Johnson, stop preaching about things you don't know very much about. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To all the parties involved, my personal opinion on this subject is the following: A member of Phi Sigma Alpha could be notable and added to the list even of they do not have an article yet. There are hundreds of people in the world who are notable and do not have an article in Wikipedia. I suggest that if a person is notable, his/her name be added followed with an explanation of the the person's notability and a reliable verifiable source. Then maybe someone may be inspired to contribute and write an article about the subjects in question.

This issue should not escalate into a war between well intended editors and placing a "template" in some ones "talk" page during the discussion of an issue is not a good idea. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: With the exception of (perhaps) Kbabej, I believe you have all bumped into me before, so if you have seen my edits you probably know I am a stickler for citations that show notability. That said, I agree with Tony that you do not need an article to be notable in a list within an article. (This is not to say people should be allowed in the list who are clearly non-notable by any standard.)

I'd note that, going by WP:P&G, the reference to the WP:PG Guideline above ("please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people ") would carry lots more weight that the written-by-any-editor essay at WP:WTAF. ElJohnson: the template at Drmies wasn't a good idea as Drmies probably felt, among others, that you were taking the edit war to his doorstep and, as it can be seen, he shut down to everything including a "compromise". But, Drmies, IMO an equally bad idea would be humiliating ElJohnson into an apology. I don't think anyone should be brought before the 3RR court either; senior editors (everyone here is one) should had already learned that edit warring is a no win-win situation; The 3RR policy, IMO, is a tool created to deal with newbies that don't know better. Instead of 3RR, et.al., I would suggest a cooling off period during which, ideally, those who removed blocks of content just because they have no WP article, in a show of communal good faith effort, can actually contribute by validating some of the people in ElJohnson's list and, during which, folks like ElJohnson can come to terms with the fact that perhaps not everyone in his preferred list may, in fact, be that notable (at least not yet). For example, I happen to know that Guillermo A. Baralt is a highly respected historian with close to 100 books under his belt, yet he has no WP article. I believe there can be no argument Baralt is --with or without an existing article-- notable enough for the list. On the other hand, people like Hector R. Cuprill might need further research for inclusion. (I haven't checked the others, just that those 2 stood out because I happen to know of them). What do you all think? Mercy11 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I've run across this "a citation to establish their notability" idea previously. I can provide citations from reliable sources that mention my niece. She's 15 and, so far, not at all notable. So let's suppose I add her, with citations to "People from (location)" or some similar list. You look at the article and decide to give it the onceover to verify that everyone on the list is notable. After weeding through perhaps 50 cites for a dozen non-notable people added by someone with a burning need to add names to the list (ahem), you remove the dozen. Editor X returns and restores some of them and adds a few others. Time to check all of them again. If you run across any you removed previously, time to discuss them and work toward a consensus on each. Or not. Meanwhile, new names are added and removed. Repeat until the end of time in thousands of articles, constantly hammering out on an ad hoc basis whether that local paper's coverage of a 5th grade play and photos of a Girl Scouts event are enough.

In an alternative universe, blue-link notability is the criterion. I establish a stub article for my niece and add her to the list. The stub fails at AfD. The blue link turns red and is removed. I reestablish the stub. It's speedied. Unless/until my niece becomes notable, she's not on the list. Meanwhile, anyone I create a stub for who is actually notable has a place for sources and information to accumulate and grow into an actual article.

This article is a backwater. No one is looking at the list to find articles to create. I simply is not happening. Vague inclusion criteria like "a citation to establish their notability" are an invitation for people to add their senior year roommate whose notability hinges on that one time he made a bong out of a Pyrex measuring cup, duct tape and some surgical tubing, but has a citation for answering questions when a cub reporter called about the charity dance-a-thon.

Long story short: Please explain an objective measure for "a citation to establish their notability" and how it is in any way superior to the shortest of stubs. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• What is so difficult to understand? We who contribute to Wikipedia must follow the guide lines and rules of notability which have been established. If your 15 year niece met the notability requirements which are established by Wikipedia then she would deserve an article. Just because a person is mentioned in the media does not make the person notable, however if a person meets the following criteria: Wikipedia:Notability then he or she can be added to whatever list, including the Phi Sigma Alpha. As long as a verifiable reliable source is included which proofs that the person complies with the standards established in the Wikipedia notability criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The proposal here is to include redlinks with "a citation to establish their notability". The policy you are pointing to, Marine 69-71, requires multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial coverage. If you do not have sources to meet WP:N, don't add them here with "a citation". If you do have the sources, stubs likethis, this, this and this are far more productive, as the original poster seems to now accept. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear; I do not agree with your point of view at all. In fact you have never provided any argument to back it up other than the fact the you and other editors ganged up on me and thereby established so called "consensus". You accused me and threatened me of an edit-war, when you and the others where the ones that where undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part. The only reason that neither of you violated the "three-revert rule" is because there were so many of you. In fact you were all reverting so automatically that you even deleted entries that I had already provided that they had an article. The fact that some of them have articles now is not because I agree with you, its that I care more about content in Wikipedia more than in proving a point. And just to be clear, nobody has proposed to include redlinks as you allege. El Johnson (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Eljohnson15:, the statement you made above ("As a compromise I can <<WHAT GOES HERE ??? >> to the persons in the list that don't have an article I will provide a citation to establish their notability") seems to be missing a word or more. Can you re-write it (either here or at its initial location will be fine) so I can understand what you were trying to say without my making any assumptions? Also, @SummerPhDv2.0:, the 4 links you provided above ("...stubs like this, this, this and this are...") seem to provide evidence that ElJonhson is making a good faith effort to find some common ground with your thinking. But I see his good faith efforts aren't limited to those 4 articles from yesterday. I am referring, for example, to the case from a now full 1 month ago (21:28, 6 November 2018‎, to be exact) when, after you stated (on 17:56, 5 November 2018, HERE) that José Victor Oliver Ledesma shouldn't be included, ElJohnson, in what I read as a gesture of WP:WTAF and teamwork, quickly moved, just hours later (on 21:28, 6 November 2018‎ to be exact) to execute on WP:WTAF and wrote the article for Ledesma HERE. It seems to me that, other that getting furious because of the edit warring, ElJohnson has taken the high road on every instance. To be a win-win for everyone, consensus, like compromise, needs to involve all parties in an equal show of WP:AGF. I, too, find it very tempting to just fire the "Undo-o-matic" button than to deal with the reality that this project is a community-based effort, requiring a meeting of the minds to make progress. Your attempt to discussion HERE is to be commended. That said, it further seems to me ElJohnson has taken every necessary step to participate in the discussion and even towards providing evidence of WP:N for each of his additions --especially now that his work is under the scope by so many of us fellow editors-- whether by writing the article/stub first or by providing, for those not blue-linked, one or more inline cites that can, at least in his judgement, point to why the listed person is notable. However, bringing out the big guns and asking for the creation of articles/stubs for every case, and pointing to "multiple independent reliable sources providing substantial coverage" as a prerequisite to be listed in that (rather obscure) section of the article when the issue here is not a discussion about either (a) the notability of the subject of an article nor (b) the notability of people listed in a "standalone list article" then, like Tony, I too think a member of the society could be notable and added to the list even of they do not have an article yet, so long as his name is added followed with an explanation of the the person's notability and a reliable verifiable source. Hopefully you will think what I am providing here is some food for thought, but ultimately real action will benefit us all. Don't you agree? Mercy11 (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)