Talk:Sigma Alpha Epsilon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Sigma Alpha Epsilon is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alabama (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon can add this template to their userpage:
{{User Sigma Alpha Epsilon}}
to display this userbox on your userpage:
ΣΑΕ This user is a member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity.



you sure SAE has 300 chapters? because then TKE should be revised as not having the most active chapters... my last look from my greek stats says 229 (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding the flag[edit]

This is a link to the flag: I have no idea on how to post it here, so I ask one of you to please add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please Split[edit]

There needs to be a new section for famous Alumni.

Perhaps. Either way, why not add a "Members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon" category to each of them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

R. Dismer Bassett[edit]

I have requested this article for comment. R. Dismer Bassett is a name that is being consistently added to the famous alumni section by suspected sock puppets. R. Dismer Bassett is a non-notable and does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia's notability requirments. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 00:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no "famous alumni" section on this page. It is merely a list of SAE brothers. Multiple SAE brothers have been added to this list and removed when they should not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

removed POV sections[edit]

I removed the "To the SAE undergrad..." and "True Gentleman" sections, I feel they violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. Dspserpico 03:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why I am restoring NPOV & Advertisement Tag[edit]

I am restoring the NPOV tag and Advertisement Tag because it is necessary. Since it was removed since I last put it up, I will now justify why I put it up in the hopes that anybody who removes it will justify its removal.

The language on the History section seems to be boilerplate language produced by the Fraternity. While this might be a good guide to the frat's history, it is also deceptive to pretend it is neutral language that doesn't read like an advertisement. It's like reading a Wikipedia page about Wal-mart prepared by Wal-Mart, or reading a Wikipedia page about a Congressman that was prepared by his/her staffers.

Now, the "True Gentleman" section. That perhaps would belong in a section of quotes about the Fraternity or by its founders or whoever the fellow is that said the quote. Its placement in the middle of the article only goes to show that this article was not prepared with the idea of making the entry befit an encyclopedia. It also bolsters the argument that the entry reads like an advertisement.

Until this article is changed to a more neutral presentation, or until somebody convinces me (through this talk page) that the existing page is neutral and not an advertisement, I will continue to restore this tag whenever it is deleted. takethemud 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)takethemud

Atleast now, you've explained why you put the tag in the first place. It is very difficult for other people when other editors place any sort of tag on an article without so much as an explanation (i.e. what specific part of the article that warranted the tag in the first place). Having said that I do agree the history section is not written in a formal tone. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The True Gentleman is a quote by a man that wasn't even an SAE at the time. John Walter Wayland submitted this quote to a Virginia paper in response to the question, What is a True Gentleman. This quote was then brought in as a guiding motto for SAE's because one of their original core values was that of a True Gentleman, that part of the historical and core values isnt one of opinion about the quote but that of fact because it is a part of SAE. John Walter Wayland went to Virginia Military Institute and was retrospectivly initiated by SAE when he was 70ish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"The True Gentleman" Section changes[edit]

I added a history segment to the section about "The True Gentleman." I kept it as neutral as possible. I think the problems with writing about SAE and maintaining neutrality is that the only history publications of the fraternity have been produced by the organization and therefore may sound biased. I understand your concern for the integrity of this website, so I am trying to help the situation. Being a brother of SAE myself, I would really like to see this page meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. Thanks.

Problem Chapters[edit]

what happened to this section?

Answer: I felt that this section shined a negative light on the organization and therefore upset the neutrality of the article. Since there is a discussion on positive bias in the article, the same should go for negative bias as well.

That doesn't make any sense. "The same should go for negative bias as well"? If that's the case, then the negative bias should be in the article. Wikipedia is suppose to be neither for or against. Take a look at Pi Kappa Phi. The problem chapters should be reinstated considering that they were cited.

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)its unfair to attempt to hide noteworthy events because they shine a negative light. Just because something is bad doesnt mean it violates NPOV. Facts are Facts. It isnt about being Against, but rather about documenting events that can be cited IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Relax. I'm about to fix the history to remove the bias from it. You say that "Wikipedia is supposed to be neither for or against." With the problems chapters section and the history as it is, it makes the article for AND against. Once the history has been fixed, then the article should be fine.

California Epsilon[edit]

The article California Epsilon should be merged here. Individual chapters should never have their own website. Wikipedia is not a webspace provider. The same thing happened with chapters of Beta Theta Pi. All chapter articles which were created subsequently got deleted were merged to the main Beta Theta Pi page. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed this article for deletion in according with the above said and WP:NOT.Samwisep86 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Carson Palmer[edit]

Where did the information Carson Palmer is a member of SAE come from? I've looked in the fraternity's national membership directory and he doesn't come up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJohnke (talkcontribs) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Haven't been able to find it either. Jmlk17 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't find it either, except for in a Wiki BLP on him, which states that he was in a "Sigma Alpha" fraternity. Should the reference to him here be removed? Newguy34 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Carson Palmer was an SAE at USC California Gamma Chapter. I know this, because I am currently in said chapter. We have composite pictures, paddles, etc. Definitely true — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but how does that fit in with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Phi Alpha[edit]

Removed reference to the motto, which was necessary due to the fact that the meaning of said motto is a fraternity secret. Please try to not reveal any more fraternity secrets in future postings.

fraternity mottos are not generally secret, however, the underlying meanings may be the_undertow talk 08:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. The literal meaning is quite different than the secret meaning, but it should still not be published in either regard. Jmlk17 23:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised/shocked to surf through this site and find out all sorts of secret the translation of Phi Alpha. Glad to see it's gone. Member # 197971 OK MU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgbsae (talkcontribs) 18:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

           Why are your so called secrets off limits.  If they exist, they are fair gameIlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to say the secrets are not off limits. However, as a member of another fraternity, I would have to say over 99% of the "meanings" posted online are incorrect anyway. If they are being removed it is probably because they are wrong. -- (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As a member of SAE I would say that while an argument could be made that there is no legal standing for preservation of secrecy, that the secret meaning of Phi Alpha and any other SAE ceremony or symbology that the organization chooses not to publicly divulge are the intellectual property of SAE and its members. These members take an oath to preserve that secrecy and any publication of secret information on wikipedia would in fact be a violation of wiki terms of service as it would violate the intellectual property rights of SAE and its members. PA 254545 --Drew.ward (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

References to Phi Gamma Delta[edit]

The best way to handle this issue is to post many different meanings for phi alpha. I keep seeing one member post a reference to some of ΣAE's founders being associated with Phi Gamma Delta prior to forming ΣAE. I didn't remember seeing or hearing anything about that during the pledge education process, but thought it might have been possible I missed something.

After researching in the most recent printing of The Phoenix, and William Levere's "Paragraph History of Sigma Alpha Epsilon" I cannot find anything that would lead anyone to believe any of the founders were associated with Phi Gamma Delta prior to founding ΣAE.

Here is a direct quote from The Phoenix: "It is believed that none of the ΣAE founders was a member of defunct Kappa Alpha or or any other fraternity prior to their organizing ΣAE, although a number of them had been invited to join other groups, and DeVotie, the top scholar in his class, had been invited to join all of the Alabama fraternities."

I am, of course, willing to change my mind if there is significant citation to the contrary.

JJohnke 17:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

--They were all offered bids to Phi Gamma Delta, and all of them turned them down (obviously).

That hardly constitutes an "affiliation." When I think affiliation I think accepted bids and pledgeship. JJohnke 05:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if they were offered bids, the offering of bids back then and now went about much differently. They didn't attend rush events or anything like that. If they did have any sort of affiliation, it was brief, and never amounted to anything. If The Phoenix (I'm a Pike, not an SAE, so I assume that is either your pledge manual or active member history book) says the quote above, then I personally am satisfied. Jmlk17 06:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand there were differences in the bid process 151 years ago, but if several founders had been invited to join other groups they would be no more affiliated with those organizations than they were Phi Gamma Delta. Like I said, I'm willing to change my mind if anyone has significant citation to the contrary. I'm honestly intrigued to know if there's a part of my fraternity's founding I wasn't aware of or that is being omitted for some reason. I've got some other ΣAE history books packed up in my house that I'll have to unpack and scour for this information. JJohnke 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. It's always sorta neat to find out some weird, wacky, or interesting history about your house that you never knew before. Best. Jmlk17 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Phi Gamms claim that the SAE ritual was actually made by a Phi Gamm before he and his fellows became a Phi Gamm chapter at UA. The ritual texts were locked away and that early, unused ritual was what was used by the founders of SAE. But that was over 150 years ago and there are no records etc. It is the stuff of legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PikeBoy (talkcontribs) 20:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does this DboGT insist on updating the article on SAE with falsehoods about SAE being founded by former Phi Gams, and otherwise insult the fraternity? Perhaps he's just mad b/c he didn't get an SAE bid... Barrett74 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Just reverted another reference by Scyclical (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saecoat.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Saecoat.png 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 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 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

== To add to Notable Alumni: Kevin Grevey listing under broadcasting as CBS Sports NCAA basketball game commentator. listing under Professional Sports for Washington Bullets and [I'm not sure of second NBA team but it is on Grevey's Wiki page]. Kevin Grevey attended the University of Kentucy and was member of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity. He was selected an a repeat Basketball All American in THE RECORD of SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON magazine sports articles. Grevey played under the Kentucky Coach Joe B. Hall.

Jack Rushing NM Tau and Texas Rho former Sports writer for THE RECORD OF SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON.

paddy murphy.[edit]

Their needs to be some info on the paddy murphy story. I will do it my self, but I dont know if I will have time to get to it very soon so if any one has the free time to put together a good blurb about it go for it. ΦA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdooglede (talkcontribs) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


are ALL of those people listed really notable? as in notable on the world level, or even the us level? probably not.
also noticed that there dosnt seem to be any criticism at all of SAE, & yet what about this: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible 'The Hangover' Reference?[edit]

If this turns out to be true, I'm not even sure it achieves noteworthy status for the article, but I wanted to throw this out there since I cannot find anyone else discussing it. In the movie 'The Hangover', there is a scene with a bunch of formulas flying across the screen, and out of nowhere the greek letters for Phi and Alpha are displayed right next to each other in identical size, square in the middle of the screen. My buddy and I that saw this both just turned and looked at each other in disbelief, but after several days of not finding anything I figured I would post it here. If anyone can confirm or deny this, I would greatly appreciate it. My only remaining hypothesis is that someone at whatever company was responsible for the sfx of the movie is an SAE and snuck it in there. Scyclical (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

James von Brunn - Just Because It Sounds Bad, Doesnt Make it Pro or Con[edit]

It would seem to me that history is history and facts are facts: If a fraternity was noted for a heinous infraction, or was in the news, the fact something occurred that would seem negative doesnt mean it should be excluded. It seems fraternity men are bound and determined to keep anything that may seem to others as negative out of wikipedia. Should we also go to Hitlers page and remove any reference to anti-semitism just because it sounds bad or makes it "Con". Facts are facts, and as long as opinion is kept out, it should be permissible. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC

  • Its also annoying that people assume just because something is deleted from a Greek page its because members are trying to protect their image... Anyways Discussion on this issue at the bottom of the page hereWikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities the question is not if it is good or bad or keeping something out I'm all for keeping notable but bad stuff in Greek pages makes them seem more non pov, but is this man notable in the context of SAE. his actions have nothing to do with SAE so he should not be mentioned in the article as a separate header. To use your Hitler reference that would be like putting Hitler's actions in the page for some Austrian or french town just because Hitler drove through at one point in his twenty's. He has through his actions today became somewhat infamous but does that make him a notable alum? And if SAE strips him of his alum status and they might have already we have no proof of his membership or status except for his own webpage then should he still stay? please discuss here or (preferably to keep things in one place) there before adding him back for now.Trey (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, you make a good point: He is notable in that he is in the news; In addition, his claim to membership may be false; he also claims to be a member of Mensa the "High IQ" Society. And I agree with your analogy that association with the group shouldn't necessarily mean the group should be painted with this. However, if SAE claims many high profile positive image members as part of its ranks, wouldnt they need to balance that with those who may be more infamous? For not I will avoid edits on this issue during discussion. Another question; do the acts of individual chapters that are in good standing not a part of the SAE history? For example, the SAE chapter in Baylor in 2006 and the party where members parodied negative stereotypes of blacks. How far does an chapter have to go before the organization has to recognize. If the fraternity has multiple instances of negative behavior, shouldn't the facts without opinion suffice in the article? Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • that's been a long term discussion does the actions of one group with maybe 60 members need to be mentioned on the page of any organization with thousands of current members and hundreds of thousands of alumni. I personally am fine with it to a point. I believe it was DZ or maybe DG that had a issue with girls selecting only pretty girls and it made big headlines at the time i fought hard for its inclusion. Thats been about two years ago and now i wonder if it should still be there. in 2006 the Baylor incident was notable because it got press coverage but in the context of a hundred and fifty year old organization? it seems to me to kinda pale. I guess in my case i have mixed feelings while its in the news it should probably be mentioned because people will come here looking for it but after a few years pass the issue of racial stereotypes and recruiting pretty girls seems small and if someone deletes it i won't be the guy blowing the whistle. Different if deaths were involved of course. Its a context thing. If you add it i wont be the one deleting it. And if your very interested i would recommend joining the project and contributing your thoughts there.Trey (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • After viewing the controversy, and the remaining data, I would submit that Von Braun be added, with out the Radical comment or comments on the page, in the Author section, given his writings which have become hot items on amazon and other sites. Using NPOV and citing using his own page and new reports as appropriate If anyone has a better idea where to put this person within the article, please submit and discuss or alter However to complete leave him out, given is notoriety is not NPOV given it is factual. Your thoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
          • After editing and further thought, I included von Brunn as an other notable figure. To meet NPOV requirements, reliable third party sources were included to verify both the event and his educational background and ties to SAE to accompany primary sources in the citations. Please discuss before removal, as the page history shows a constant back and forth between unregistered users making comments on the page and violating NPOV and those simply reverting. If you are going to revert, please offer the courtesy of discussing here.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Have reverted edits made by those not registered. However no one seems to want to discuss changes on this issue: Lets discuss changes or rationale before making anonymous edits. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The current article works for me for now. I have yet to see an official SAE position on him i think they are just ignoring it. You will get alot of anon's taking it out though.Trey (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
        • on another slightly un-related note it may be time to move the notable members to their own page since the list is getting a bit long and unwieldy.Trey (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree that the list is long, and could be cited better for those members with no existing wiki page: I can work on third party citations for notable members, and you could create a separate page if you are inclined with a link to the main SAE page: I think that approach will both allow people to reference SAE while reducing the Anonymous edits from campus IP's. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
      • sounds good. it will however take me a few days to make the page because i'm about to get a tad busy in the real world. if you would like to go ahead and make the page List of Kappa Sigma members would probably make a decent template. otherwise i'll get it done sometime this week hopefullu
        • No problem, I will begin the stub work this evening and begin to copy over the members. When they are completely moved, I will place a link to well known members in the links section at the bottom. In addition, I will try to find citations and information on those members that are not already either cited or in with wiki pages already in place. This will be my first page creation solo, so I would appreciate your feedback and review of the work; Also, I would like to rate the article afterwards at maybe a stub level. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
        • sounds like you have an excellent plan and i'm glad you are taking on this task. I'm sure me and several editors will review the page when you get it up but given your track record and background i doubt you'll have any problems and I'm sure you'll do a great job. As far as ratings go i believe it would be a low importance because its a list and the stub start or B rating would depend on the detail you or other editors put in it. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities for a ratings guide for Greek organization pages and if the subject is one of interest to you they have an extensive to do list and several ongoing discussions. Again glad to have your help and let me know if you need anything.Trey (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I have split the article portion of notable members into its own list as per this discussion, including links and appropriate formatting on the new page List of Sigma Alpha Epsilon Members. I am having an issue, as I forgot to name the page List of Notable Members, and I was unable to to a redirect for that phrasing. Therefore the article link is simply the title of the page =, without the work notable. I could use some guidance on this and any input regarding structure. I have placed the appropriate wiki banner on the article and left it unrated and unclassified for the review of others within the project at their discretion. I have left initial entries in the talk page for review of incoming editors to explain and begin any discussion. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks publication of ritual book[edit]

As of June of this year, the ritual book and other information, such as the translation of "phi alpha" and the fraternity letters have been leaked onto the internet through the website. This has been reflected in the History section. Feel free to move this fact to a different section or create a new section for it, but because it is such an important part of the history of the organization, I believe it should stay. No illegal reproduction of trade secrets or intellectual property has happened by this addition to this article, just a referenced fact placed in the history, without further explanation. Feel free to see the Wikipedia article on and to see other articles referencing leaked material as proof that no terms of service have been violated. Undoubtedly (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding questions of whether or not is a source... yes. It is a primary source.Undoubtedly (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
How do we know that what was placed on Wikileaks is an authentic ritual book? My concern is with verifiability. Placement on Wikileaks does not provide an audit trail for the material. Accordingly, what assurance do we have that the book is legitimate?
That said, if independent reliable sources—or even an SAE publication which can be verified—mentions the leak as legitimate, we can report that. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
And to tack on to my prior comment, WP:PRIMARY suggests that Wikileaks may not be used: "Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Wikileaks does not seem to fit that description. —C.Fred (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikileaks has been used in several past articles, and has been shown to be not only a reliable source, but a well-known source. Submissions made to the site go past an editorial board, among other measures to ensure verifiability. Next time you question an edit a fellow user has made, it would be better practice for you to use talk sections, and not misusing the edit summaries next time to make sure you aren't doing more damage than good in removing another user's edit.
Also, If you would like to see articles using Wikileaks as a source, I would suggest using the search function of Wikipedia. The more popular articles using Wikileaks as a source have already had this debate ten times over, and it would be healthy for you to do some research before continuing this one. Thanks! Undoubtedly (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the inclusion of the ritual handbook, it seems no one is advocating that the document is false. Rather, it seems that the argument is focusing on discrediting the post by questioning the epistemological aspect of the post by asking "how do we know", rather than outright saying "this is not real". Wikileaks is a separate organization that are comprised of journalists and editors to post leaked material after verifying the authenticity of the document. The group is professional and have been reported on time after time in the MSM, and only post material from others after verification. They themselves are not a primary source of research, but rather a secondary that reports and posts gathered material for others to review.

Often, groups claim the use of trade secrets, intellectual property, and just plain courtesy for keeping their material out of the public eye. The Church of Scientology, who had been successful up until wikileaks postings of their material in hiding their content, even had to recognize that they couldn't stop the fair-use, not-for-profit, and public aspect of reporting and leaking the material via the website. This particular post, was reviewed, and verified by a third=party source, and is not primary research. This is the reporting and revealing of material to the general public in a manner no different than the NYT. In short, its a legitimate posting to the article.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've gone through the copy posted on Wikileaks multiple times, so someone correct me if I'm wrong here. The translation for "phi alpha" is NOT mentioned anywhere in the book. Any time it is referenced it is replaced in the text as "x x x x x". Same goes for the supposed meaning behind the greek letters for SAE. The only exception is where someone has hand-written what is alleged to be a translation for SAE on one of the pages. The problem I see with this is, what's stopping me from finding one of these books, writing a different translation in it and posting it to Wikileaks? In what way is this at all verifiable? I don't outright dispute a mentioning of the alleged leak in the article (although I feel it is too minor to be worth mentioning unless proved otherwise), but the way the article is currently written, it suggests that the leak is 100% accurate. This is not encyclopedic.Scyclical (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That was one of the edits I proposed, to say "On June 11, 2009, material purporting to be the fraternity's ritual book was leaked..." IMO, there's a big fall-off in reliability from anything that appears to be a scan of a printed manual to anything written into the manual—especially if the printed manual specified it as knowledge not to be written down. At the same time, it's not Wikipedia's place to be opining on the authenticity of the information; I don't see any need for the article to contain any more than a statement of what material is (purportedly) on Wikileaks so readers can evaluate it for themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. My only dispute is how the section is currently written. A simple "material purporting to be" or "alleged" would make this fine by me, although I still feel it is about as relevant as someone blogging about it and therefore doesn't warrant mentioning. I do see the other side of the argument however and won't dispute a mentioning of a purported leak.
However, I refuse to make any edits myself besides reverting blatant vandalism, as I do have a conflict of interest on this article.Scyclical (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • After looking through Wikileaks, what is so special about the leak of SAE's ritual book that it warrants mentioning? There are about a dozen ritual manuals on Wikileaks. I don't see any of the leaks mentioned in their articles—not even for the fraternity where there's a takedown notice on the site along with the manual (the fraternity's attorney's requested removal on the grounds of copyright infringement). This leak isn't anything novel; I'm not sure why it needs to be in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
In responding to C.Fred, he does make a point - Why only on SAE, and not on other fraternities. However, I would counter it is up to the editors of those pages actively maintaining them to post the data. Again, I would submit that a NPOV statement be made about the release, or at the least the inclusion in the external links, or simply as a foot note for the reader to decide to view or not. As for the notion of novelty, I would make the case that the ritual book of any fraternity being leaked is one of note. Given the hundreds of fraternities among the several conferences, that work to keep their rituals out of the public eye, the few that have leaked are of note. This is no different than the books written based on leaked notes and information from Skull and Bones. Secret societies typically create the notion of exclusivity through selection and secrecy. That which is counter to these notions is notable: namely, the release or leaking of secret rituals. The key is to comment on it in a way that is NPOV and allows the reader to make their own decision with regard to viewing the material or not.IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
To be quite honest, the leaking of the ritual book is not of significant importance to be placed on this page. These ritual books are out there for every fraternity, and have circulated for some time. For example, one would not modify the page of the Freemasons to include a link to their leaked rituals and information. It's been around for quite some time, and it's not historically significant to the foundation/order. Similarly, one would not add an addendum to the page concerning the United States executive branch every time information leaked from them. It is not historically or contextually important to include the fact that the ritual book has leaked, or a link to the leak on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, as stated before, ritual books leaking to wikileaks is not something that is unique to this fraternity. There are ritual books there for several other fraternities, none of which are as blatantly touted as this. Clearly, precedence (see the other fraternity pages for verification) shows that a leak of ritual is not of significant importance to warrant display. With this precedence, as well as the previously stated dubious quality/truth of the translations provided by the source (which isn't truly verifiable), it seems clear cut that this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

First, I applied and was approved for semi-protection to be placed on the article due to high amount of reverts. This will give the room time to discuss this issue and come up with an appropriate solution without worrying about removals of content or reverts form anon users.

I would have to say I disagree with the above statements that this is something that is clear cut and should be removed. However, reading CFred's arguments, and reviewing the information and the arguments in this section, I would submit the following:

1) The document as is, given the nature of the leak and the prominence of WikiLeaks should be accept on WP:AGF is citable.

2) The place where the text is right now regarding the citation of the wikileak of the book is likely not appropriate for the particular history section. If were to be in a section, it would be best in ones that are labeled "controvery","Rituals", or "Misc", or in an article detailing the rituals os greek orgs.

3) While it is in the wrong place, it should not be entirely removed. In fact, given the fact that so few references are available in the first place, it would be a dis-service to readers to remove it wholesale. Furthermore, other than the website of the org itself, no other citations are given.

Given those statements, I would submit to the room that we remove the aforementioned paragraph from the history section and simply leave in the link in the references section, or move it to an "External Links" category with the current citation as listed without comment or review. We can leave it individual readers to determine the veracity or strength of it on their own and we avoid WP:POV issues regarding the text. We also have the option of creating a whole new section for those items in the manual. However, this may cause further controversy and disrupt the page. Your thoughts?IlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, a quick note;I have been working and commenting on this article for sometime, and feel it is time to address the issue of the article have little to no ref's that are third party and the tone of the article. I do not dispute in anyway the veracity or factual nature of the current article. However, it would be best to bolster the article and be able to remove the banner. After we settle this Issue, I would like to open up discussion of a rewrite and reedit. We could possibly work towards making this a GA or Better if we work at it. Your ThoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
The option of removing the paragraph and leaving the reference present seems to be the most agreeable and viable option available at this juncture. As stated, it avoids POV issues, maintains neutrality, and does allow readers to gauge the worth and importance of the material on their own. It still seems questionable whether or not the ritual book is of any actual importance to this article at all: it does not contribute much as to the nature of the organization, the goingons, goals or aims. However, it does not seem viable to remove the reference completely. In the interest of moving forward to working to better this page, while maintaining a functional enviornment for addition of information without controversy, it seems that the option of removing the paragraph and leaving the reference is the current best course of action. It is of the utmost importance to get this page back to a functional state that will not cause further or major unnecessary disruption, especially over something that seems to be of such arguable importance (see the fact that there are so many arguments over this above!).
Your thoughts? (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Listing it as an external link is a valid option. The manual does provide information to the reader beyond that covered in the article. Further, there is no evidence that the manual is under copyright; the one thing that would present a major hurdle to listing it as an external link is if the text were under copyright. I'm on board with moving it down to the external links section. —C.Fred (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems most agree with the notion of using at an external leak only. So to be fair, I say give the discussion two more days on the talk page for outside input, and to be sure so we dont have so many reverts.
As to the book, and copyright, that was an aspect I hadnt covered. As yet, the org didnt make an objection from its national office or it would have been noted in the summary and talk page of the wikileak article. It should be monitored to see if that becomes an issue however and respond accordingly according to citation and copyright rules. Here is the issue with that however; The site wikileaks hosts the material and reported on it. Wikipedia has no control of its deletion. Therefore, copyright issues lie with the site that hosts it, rather than wikipedia.
So to summarize what it seems the room is comfortable with, is we delete the reference in text, and leave it as an external link only without comment or discussion on the page. this sound appropriate? If everyone agrees on the talk page over the next 24 hours, we should make the change. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
While I protected the page, it certainly wasn't an endorsement of the text, just an effort to stop edit warring. Now that I'm watching the page, I'll weigh in: the information on wikileaks isn't terribly verifiable and has copyvio issues. It's probably best not to use it as a WP:RS. So an external link to it would be better than using it as a ref with an overweighted section of text about its release. If, for instance, it gets picked up in the press, the text would be worth having. In my mind, it isn't terribly necessary now, especially with only one source available- anything said about the wikileaks link borders WP:SYNTH. tedder (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Tedder - It sounds like most agree that it should be nothing more than a external link at this time. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Although the National Fraternity has not said anything about it, the ritual is certainly under copyright. I think that we should consider whether or not the link should be included at all. As Tedder stated, wikilinks isn't terribly verifiable. Until there is another source (e.g. news, press release, SAE National release) it doesn't seem particularly important at all. With no information being contributed from this dubious source, why should it be linked to at all? It doesn't seem to actually contribute to the article in any meaningful way, and is certainly less important than revision of the rest of the page. Thoughts? (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with regard to the usefulness of the link given the lack of any references other than the website of the org itself. Again, it doesn't seem to be the argument that the book is false, but rather the discussion is about the source of the leak itself. Furthermore, National hasnt made any statement about it to the press denying it or asserting their copyright. Therefore all we have at this time is the text of the book itself. I would submit again for now that the link be placed in the external link section, and not be used as a ref and leave it to the readers to peruse the link themselves. IlliniGradResearch (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to me like an argument to keep the link around simply to keep the link around, not because it a source of quality information. I would maintain that the link provides no information that is pertinent to the article; however, I do realize that this is probably an unpopular point of view. It seems to me that if more references and quality information was desired, the article should be edited and updated to contain quality information and references, instead of holding on to the questionable ones. (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks suspension of operation[edit]

The links isn't going through as of today; Wikileaks isn't serving any requests, redirecting users to a fundraising page. Since it sounds like they intend to return to operations, I have left the link in place. At what point is it appropriate to remove the link as dead? —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is now February and the link is completely dead. I would like to suggest that we go through the steps of removing this link, it is inactive and fails to contribute to the page at this point. Anyone else? (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also checked the link and have verified that it is dead. I am not sold one way or another in terms of whether or not the ritual book is fair game, but this link no longer contributes to the page; I have removed it. (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

George Desdunes death by hazing[edit]

I think the article should mention the story of George Desdunes, its making significant international headlines (was front-page news on BBC news website, as well as front-page article on Yahoo news and multiple articles on Google News, has been picked up my all major news outlets and TV stations).

First thing I did when reading the article was to come to Wikipedia to read more about SAE, and was surprised there was no mention of this current / relevant event. Would be good to have a balanced, non-sensationalized report about the death here, just listing the facts.

It looks like SAE has had problems with this issue (drinking / death at hazings) for some time, from the ABC news article ".. at least five other deaths have occurred at SAE chapters since 1997", so I think it has a place in this page.

Is it because SAE members would just remove it again (from what I can see, Fraternity pages on Wikipedia are pretty active and there seems to be a general purge of information that could make them look bad, I assume by members / ex members of the fraternities). GothicAwakening (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

There has been a trend to not mention incidents when they relate to a single chapter and not the fraternity as a whole. If ABC (and other sources) are making the statement that there is a pattern of these deaths across the fraternity, then it may be appropriate to mention them in the context of the pattern, rather than with a focus on the most recent one. —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone has added a section called "In the News" - but it's badly written and cites no sources - I think it should be removed, or re-written to a better standard, preferably focusing more on the pattern of deaths rather then this specific one, as suggested by C.Fred? GothicAwakening (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing Sources[edit]

The article did not mention that seven members entered the Union army, or that the founder(Noble Leslie DeVotie) was the first casualty of the war between the states. I am trying to site but I am not sure how. I feel the page is slightly biased by not acknowledging the small percentage who entered the entered the Union Army. " " — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


>> Deadliest U.S. Fraternity Grapples With ‘Historic’ Pledging Ban(Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)).


>> Fraternity Chief Feared for Son as Hazings Spurred JPMorgan SnubLihaas (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I've included it as a source. The JPMorgan things seems noteworthy, and the article give a lot more background on the elimination of the pledge process, too. Grayfell (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OU Chapter Suspension[edit]

Does the incident and related media coverage rise to the level of inclusion in the article? If so, should it be included under History, or be given its own heading? - Brother Bulldog (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(For those not aware, and for posterity, this is a news story covering the closure.) Yes, I think the media coverage is significant. As I type this, the oldest story covering this on Google News is about 5 hours old, but I think we can safely say that this reflects on the organization as a whole. I would think the history section would be the place, but we can wait and see how much enduring coverage it gets. If it's persistent, it should get its own section. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed that section. It seems undue. But happy to discuss it on this talkpage if you'd like to add something about it.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well it's pretty due now, since the chapter has been shut down Inicholson (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It's receiving widespread national and international coverage.[1] I think it's clear that this is way over the threshold of WP:DUE weight. Grayfell (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed — it is important enough to mention, but in hindsight this will be probably be of comparable weight to a number of other race-related incidents mentioned in the current version of the article, which ought to be pared down to a single sentence each more or less and go in chronological order (which I've done). Probably this should be merged into a single section with the hazing incidents and other problems, which could be organized chronologically or thematically. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with paring them down. I'm not sure about merging them, though. I guess it could work, but sources tend to combine drinking and hazing. I don't think sources are nearly as clear about including racism in that list. WP:CSECTION (which is just an essay, not a policy) makes a good case for avoiding lumping all negative content into one section. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. If the legal and hazing issues aren't strongly connected with racism, and vice-versa, they aren't really part of the same narrative. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Organize these incidents into some chronological order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I am concerned that this is becoming an attack page. How is the "fan viewpoint" tag relevant for example? To the contrary, the article fails to show all the philanthropic work and fundraising done by this fraternity. The racial incidents have undue weight in this article.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I agree that the tags are kind of cryptic. The section on the racial incident is getting too large. I'm going to have a go at trimming it down a bit, per WP:NOTNEWS and such.

If you can find reliable, secondary sources discussing philanthropy, that could be included. My experience has been that such activities rarely receive widespread coverage that would indicate they are significant to the fraternity as a whole, though. It might be a good idea to discuss that in a new talk page section, also. Grayfell (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it again, I don't think it's too large. It's one paragraph which contains all the relevant detail. The newly added racial incidents seem to be reasonably well sourced. Well-sourced enough that they should be address on a case-by-case basis, at least. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Subheading for OU event[edit]

Please don't add the word "racist" without direct quotes, especially not in a title/heading.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The incident was racist, what's incorrect about the term? Inicholson (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
"Racial" is neutral/encyclopedic. "Racist" is a legal term and has no place on Wikipedia, unless there is a direct quote from someone using that word to describe the incident--and it should only be used to quote that person's words. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, I'm changing it to "Racially Derogatory Chanting Incident" Inicholson (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to have a separate heading. It all goes under "Discriminatory incidents." That's what it was; nothing more. Readers can find out more by reading the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The incident in question is very significant and has resulted in significant damage to the fraternity. The entire chapter(I think that's the word) was shut down and there is undeniable proof of the racism. What else do you think subheadings are for? Inicholson (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a discriminatory incident, and the article does say how the administration responded. Readers can read. There is no need to smear the entire fraternity by adding another catchy title because of one immature incident in one chapter. Leave it as it is. Or go write a blog. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding your useless title again. It is/was a discriminatory incident. We already have a title for that. That's enough. There is no need to add more/another title. The onus is on the person adding content to explain why that addition is indispensable. It isn't, in this case. So please stop.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Subheadings are used to organize significant information, and this incident was very significant as it resulted in the fraternity dissolving the chapter. Why are you opposed to this information being structured more effectively rather than in one list with limited formatting?Inicholson (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Because it is nothing more than a discriminatory incident. It won't make or break the fraternity. It's an "incident", not a defining moment. And your titles are not neutral; you did not suggest, "University of Oklahoma incident". You are trying to have a tabloidy title. There is no need to. It is fine as it is. The onus would be on you to convince us otherwise, but I don't see how that could happen.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I've requested dispute resolution, since we disagree about the significance of the event. I will note that you never suggested a section title that you felt appropriate, I might have accepted "University of Oklahoma Incident", but I feel that it isn't clear enough. I'll also note that you aren't assuming good faith, which is one of the requirements for editing. Inicholson (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think we need a separate title. Others are welcome to offer suggestions. I am not sure if you are in good faith, but I am and I don't like your accusations and harassment.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And as I've said: I do think it needs a subheading, because structured information can be more effectively used. Flat lists are not a good way to store information. Inicholson (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not a list. It's a set of paragraphs, which is completely standard. It was just a discriminatory incident, so it goes in that section. If you don't think it was discriminatory, please tell us why. We could rename the whole section "Immature incidents" if you prefer. But we don't need yet another title in an already small section.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
So your complaint is that the section is too small? That could be fixed by adding more information about discriminatory incidents perpetrated by members of SAE, we could really flesh out the section and add some depth. I'm confused though, because you seem to be alternating between thinking that the section doesn't need a subheading at all, and thinking that a subheading would be OK as long as it's neutral. Which one is it? Inicholson (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No, adding more weight/content would be undue, especially as there is no section on philanthropy yet, and the history section needs more in-line references. That's where our focus should be. Not on tabloidy descriptions of immature incidents. Again, this is NOT an attack page. This is a neutral encyclopedic page. Perhaps it would make more sense to add those incidents chronologically in the history section actually.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Or moved to the "Suspensions and chapter closing" section, which already has a few lines about the incident. This whole "Discriminatory incidents" section is problematic because there is freedom of association in the United States, so organizations are by definition allowed to "discriminate."Zigzig20s (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that moving all of the "Discriminatory incidents" to "Suspensions and chapter closings" is a good idea from a readability perspective. Are you volunteering to do that? Inicholson (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I will try to do that in the next few days. (I will be offline for a day or two.) In the meantime, let's leave it as it is please.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any COI that you should acknowledge? You seem to be particularly defensive of this page and minimizing any negative press that SAE might receive. Inicholson (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
No. This is your second unfounded accusation directed at me. Completely inappropriate. Sorry, I won't be online again until tomorrow night. I will look at appropriate changes then.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that you learn the difference between a question and an accusation, especially since you indicated that you didn't think I was operating in good faith earlier today; I think that we should take more than a day to cool down. I'll refrain from editing the section in question as well. Why don't you hit me on my talk page on Thursday and we can hash it out. Inicholson (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
If the article's coverage of this incident expands beyond a single paragraph, as I believe it should, then I believe it should get a subheading so readers can find it easily. Given the amount of press this incident is receiving, it would not be undue weight to expand coverage of this incident in the article. According to WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The reliable press coverage of this incident is dwarfing all coverage of the fraternity's philanthropic activities, so it really doesn't matter that "there is no section on philanthropy yet". Also, I believe User:Zigzig20s is misunderstanding the concept of "undue weight". WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints, not facts. As long as the discussion of the University of Oklahoma incident is about undisputed facts, WP:UNDUE does not apply. --JHP (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of African American Diversity[edit]

I wonder how many more chapters of this fraternity will be closed in the future? I can't believe that this is simply one-time incident. I will look into other chapter incidents and report back accordingly. My prediction: This is bigger than it looks.-- (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE: Just doing a quick Google search, I found two other SAE anti-African American "incidents" and one anti-Semitic incident. These references are on the first two pages of my Google search, and most of the other search items were regarding the University of Oklahoma incident. Unbelievable. It appears that this fraternity is full of racists. I'll report back later. But my initial reading here is that they ought to shut this entire damn fraternity down. -- (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant here.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
If I cared what you thought about me, I'd be upset. Just so you know, I'm not. Read into this what you want. You are now DISMISSED. -- (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk pages are for discussions of the relevant articles, not personal opinions about the subjects of the articles. That said, reliable sources are finding that this fraternity has a history of racist incidents that go beyond just the University of Oklahoma. --JHP (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


This article should have a section about all the philanthropic work and fundraising done by the fraternity. I have found some info about their work with Children's Miracle Network Hospitals, for example here, here, here, etc. Is anyone able to find more?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This fraternity should do philanthropic work for the United Negro College Fund. The phrase "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" especially applies to the wonderful brothers of this organization. -- (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your opinion is absolutely irrelevant.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
And who asked for your input? -- (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Please bear in mind that the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for general discussion about the topic of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are setting the bar way too low. The first one is a college paper reporting on a routine local event, The second one is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:UGC, and the third is just a youtube video of a guy shaving his beard for a charity promotion. Does SAE have a national philanthropy? I briefly looked for a usable source for that a while ago, but couldn't find one. Is it Children's Miracle Network, or is that just a popular choice among chapters? If so, that could be mentioned with a solid primary source, but probably only a sentence or two. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Moderated Discussion at WP:DRN[edit]

Moderated discussion is in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the issue of whether a separate heading is in order for the recent OU incident, and possibly for other issues. Please take any discussion to the dispute resolution noticeboard while dispute resolution is in progress. Two editors are taking part in dispute resolution at this time; any other editors are welcome to join also. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Combine Parts 6 and 7[edit]

Almost everything under part 7 - discrimination- would work under part 6 - controversy. Anyone want to combine the two parts, or at least make part 7 a subsection of part 6? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caffeinated42 (talkcontribs) 23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)