Talk:Delta Sigma Pi

Deltasig vs. Delta Sig
I know we went 'round and 'round on this in my collegiate chapter oh so many years ago. Remember when writing about Delta Sigma Pi, the correct 'shorthand' is 'Deltasig' and not 'Delta Sig' (because then you are referencing Delta Sigma Phi). --Thebisch (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be a local chapter preference thing. I know with my greek org, it depends on where you are as to what the appropriate "shorthand" is.  My chapter refers to Alpha Phi Omega as 'APO', but many other chapters use 'APhiO', and several of our chapters at HBCU's use 'APhiQ'  None of them are necessairly incorrect.  There are several GLO's that also refer to themselves by a single letter ('Kappa's, Omega's). I don't think any particular group has a stake in a shorthand/nickname unless it's something unique.  There are only so many letters in the alphabet, and even less in the greek one :) Justinm1978 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We actually learned from the Deltasig Central Office that the correct shorthand for Delta Sigma Pi is 'Deltasig'. --Thebisch (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. To stave off future changes from other editors who may not be aware, can you find a cite for that? I won't revert it back to "Delta Sig", but others may try to do so, and having a source helps.  Justinm1978 (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can come up with, at the very least, I could probably come up with an email from the current Grand President (who was a Regional Director when I was in college). --Thebisch (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even as an objective outsider, I'll confirm that Deltasig = Delta Sigma Pi and Delta Sig = Delta Sigma Phi. This is also evidenced by the title of the Delta Sigma Pi magazine being The Deltasig, or on the About Delta Sigma Pi portion of the website (http://www.dspnet.org/site/about_us/default.asp) where it talks about "Deltasig of the year recipients" BlueGold73 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Article I Section 2 of the Bylaws states: "No abbreviations of, departures from, or variations in the name of this Fraternity will be permitted, with the exception of the following: Delta Sigma Pi and Deltasig." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.231.6 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

objectivity
this sounds like a commercial, is this objective?

additionally, low diversity of sources and lots of information that lacks citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.168.203 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright
Please do not copy material from http://www.dspnet.org/dspmarket/about_us/history.asp for the history section of this page. Also please note that many Deltasig chapters copy sections of the national history page for their own chapter websites. So please be sure if your chapter wishes to release the information on your sites under the GFDL that you have the authority.

The national fraternity has not released images or text on the national website into the public domain or under the GFDL as of September 2006. --Abernaki 13:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

External links / Deltasig Pin Store / Museum
Please to not change the Delta Sigma Pi pin museum link of http://www.dspmarket.org/websites/pinmuseum/ to http://www.deltasigpins.org/. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise websites to sell pins.

Whether we support the site and regardless that the site is not for profit the link advertises a site whose primary goal is to sell products (pins). They have the pin museum linked from the site and the maintain both pages, but the actual pin museum page is the only site that gives information not in the article that may be meaningful to brothers and casual visitors alike.

For any questions please refer the the Wikipedia Guideline Manual_of_Style in particular the External_links section of the manual. --Abernaki 13:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy?
I'm taking issue with the 250,000 members and 250 active chapters. The article's own list, as well as the national site, only lists about 215 active. Given that the national site only lists "over 200,000 active members," i feel that is the number that should be cited. If you can provide a reference for "over 250,000 members," i will gladly back off. Additionally, while i can understand if dsp's nationals isn't updated every day, an update to the site last year means that each of the 215 chapters would have had to initiated 230 members since the last update Desertroguex 19:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note about the accuracy of initiate and chapter numbers has been fixed, and references added. While I hold in my hand the latest version of The Deltasig that states 210,000 current members, I could not find that number quoted on the national website, so instead I quoted what the website says - 200,000 members. We have over 180 active collegiate chapters and over 50 active alumni chapters. Does that suffice? -- MikeVitale 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi & Alpha Chi
Why are these two chapters missing off the chapter list?

Fixed. -- MikeVitale 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now a Rho Psi Chapter at The University of South Florida St Petersburg we were inducted on December 1, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logank44 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Need more secondary sources
Greetings Wikipedians and Delta Sigs! BetaOmega891 here. Wow, this is the first addition to this talk page in 13 years. Wikipedia has flagged this article as lacking in secondary sources. I think that's because our inline citations refer too often to primary sources, i.e. literature published by Delta Sigma Pi itself. To add credibility to this article, we need more references to reputable news organizations that mention DSP in published articles, preferably written by journalists that sign their names to their work, in mainstream media or major academic journal sources that are independent of DSP (see Content Policies and Guidelines. I have added some of those, but we need more. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)