Talk:Phi Kappa Psi/Archive 1

Things to add

Things to add:

• More on Phi Psi history
• Images of more symbols (badge, flag, etc.)
• List of chapters (anyone have a good list including inactive chapters?)

• List by state or chronological order of founding (a la AEPi)?

Jewbacca 20:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC) (California Beta)

I am willing to work on getting some of the information but no way could I wikify it. (MN Delta here) Twofeetcia —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:33, 4 April 2005 (UTC).

Added the list of chapters that was posted above (deleted it after adding to the article to save space). Happy birthday. --Bdreams 18:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add all former chapters as reported in the Manual (Oregon Alpha here) R'son-W 04:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Motto

1st Commentator

So what is the motto? Is it "The great joy......." or "United by Friendship, Sustained by Honor, and Led by Truth; We Live and Flourish."

We really need to decide and stick to it on this page....

-Shaq-Fu... WI Gamma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.89.184.239 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd Commentator - "LBT" (updated 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Here are my comments on the two three phrases, "Conjugati...", "Amici..." and "The great joy...":

Conjugati ...

The fraternity motto from about 1855 in Latin and English is

"Conjugati Amicitia, Vindicat Honore Et Ducti Vero --

Vivimus Et Vigemus"

"United by friendship, sustained by honor, and led by truth--

We live and we flourish."

History of this motto

In 1852 "Vivimu et Vivemus" (We live and we shall live) was the password and challenge. By the GAC of 1855 the phrase was changed to "Vivimus Et Vigemus" "We live and we flourish."

In 1855 George Wilson Chalfont of Pennsylvania Alpha initiated his preparatory school friend Louis Kossuth Evans at Bucknell University by mail, and Louis recruited additional men, and they organized Pennsylvania Gamma chapter in 1855. The same year he wrote , "Let your motto always be:

Conjugati Amicitia, Vindicat Honore Et Ducti Vero"

{"United by friendship, sustained by honor and led by truth."}

These two phrases were combined and this motto remains in use.

Amici...

I almost forgot the ubiquitous

"Amici Usque-- Ad Aras"

"Continuous Friendship-- Until Death"

which is heard and sung weekly, and also just "Amici", Friendship, sometimes used as a closing salutation in email. (Occasionally translated "Until the alter".) I have been told that this motto dates from the 1850s, but I cannot currently document this date. It certainly dates to the 19th century and is still in use.

The great joy...

The phrase "The great joy of serving others" seems to have been originated by Guy Morrison Walker in his publication The Record of Phi Kappa Psi, a short history primarily for use in the rushing season. This is also the origin of the [evidently apocryphal] story about

"two college students in a little town in the hills of Western Pennsylvania were nursing and watching their stricken fellow students while an epidemic of typhoid fever raged through the college. During the long nigh vigils a new light dawned on their spiritual vision and its rays shown deep into their souls, ..." [contradicted by other accounts]

It would take some research to find out when this phrase was first used as a motto, or printed in the The Shield. It must have been later than 1970.

So far as I have so far been able to determine it has never been official adopted by the fraternity in any way.

Conclusion

The phrase starting "Conjugati ..." is the 150+ year old motto of the fraternity still in use until this day, as is "Amici ...". The phrase "The great joy of serving others" may or may not stand as a second or third motto. An official adoption by the GAC could clarify the matter. Led by truth

---

There is now the option for both a motto and a maxim on the Template:Infobox Fraternity that is being used on this page. I ended up putting the following. (The Infobox needs to be wider; the text wrapped excessively.)

Motto   Conjugati Amicitia,

Vindicat Honore,

Et Ducti Vero –

.

United by friendship,

sustained by honor,

and led by truth –.

Maxim   The great joy of serving others.

Led by truth (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

References

(talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Led by truth (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Gang Rape

I've added a section, appropriately referenced, about the known 1984 UVa gang-rape. Too bad that there's no way to identify all of the rapes. —12.72.68.11 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

He admitted to the Rap http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/15/12step.apology.ap/index.html

Beebe membership issue

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/15/12step.apology.ap/index.html In an attempt to clarify misleading media reports, I have checked various editions of the Grand Catalogue of Phi Kappa Psi, and at no point is William Beebe listed as having joined Phi Kappa Psi at UVA or any other college. Even if he had been forced to leave the university, if he was ever a member, he would have been listed. Edits stating such are not an attempt at "erasure" but simply trying to make sure all the facts are in. (twofeetcia)20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a cited source that he was a member. If ΦΚΨ has actually denied that he was ever member (as opposed to, say, one stricken from the rolls), then please cite the denial. —SlamDiego 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.readthehook.com/Stories/2006/01/12/coveriHarmedYou21Years12St.html "Although he lived at the house, Beebe was never an official member of Phi Psi, according to Shawn Collinsworth, executive director of the national fraternity."

As a non-member, and without any other members directly implicated (yet) in the crime, is this section really relevant to the article?

Perhaps. I'd leave it to the discretion of a member personally. Or perhaps a better edited version is needed. Jmlk17 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Even in the (utterly implausible) scenario in which none of the perps (such as the bartender) were members, the rape took place in their chapter house, at one of their parties, and has resulted in controversy for the fraternity. If-and-when all of the perps are identified, the title “Controversy” may need to be replaced. —SlamDiego 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Replaced with what? I think it has already been set that they WERE members, or at least pledges perhaps. Jmlk17 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure with what, but “contro·versy” refers to a situation in which there are two or more contesting sides. As questions are answered, it becomes decreasingly appropriate for an encyclopaedia to refer to “controversy”. —SlamDiego 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps "legal issues" or something along those lines would be more preferable. Jmlk17 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. We'll just have to see. —SlamDiego 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you seem to have an axe to grind SlamDiego? Regardless of what you believe happened, the members of the fraternity are innocent until proven guilty, and furthermore have not even been formally accused.

While the events that took place were certainly tragic, it was a single isolated incident that took place over 20 years ago, and certainly is not representative of the organization as a whole. ←Unsigned from 128.255.201.127

I would only seem to have an axe to grind to whose own need to grind an axe caused him or her to be unable recognize pursuit of truth. It is a bald fact that there is a controversy, and it is implausible that chapter house could be used in this manner without the participation of some members of the fraternity. Further, I remind you that the legal status of “innocence” is quite a different thing from actual innocence. With the exception of Beebe, all of the perpetrators are legally innocent, but that makes them no less guilty in all but that legal sense. —SlamDiego 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, we will see what is representative of this fraternity in the extent to which it circles its wagons or behaves with real honor. So far, the repeated deletion vandalism is not suggestive of honor. —SlamDiego 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But without any sort of "legal" determination, how can you assert allegations as fact? Would you edit the OJ Simpson article to state that he was found innocent despite committing the murders? Your personal beliefs on what occurred that night are irrelevant to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.201.127 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm not making allegations that any specific individual (other than Beebe, who confessed) was a perpetrator. If you want to beat-up a straw man, then please go somewhere else to do it. Your deisre to pretend that a crime was committed exactly and only to the extent that the perpetrators are convicted is beyond obscene. —SlamDiego 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the section is poorly written as-is (from a strictly grammatical standpoint)? 128.255.201.127 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. There is nothing ungrammatical in that section. Perhaps you are thinking of something other than grammar. —SlamDiego 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the entire "Controversy" section from the page as of 4 May 2007, pending any well-thought objections. Its inclusion is not germane to the page's subject, i.e. the National Fraternity. In addition to the fact that Beebe was never a member of the Fraternity, this event happened in a single chapter house of an entity of the Fraternity. Local chapters own their own property, so it is also not correct to suggest that the rape happened on the property of the subject of this page. This topic would be more at home on a Virginia Alpha page, or perhaps the University of Virginia page (where it is not mentioned, nor is there a "Controversy" section). A random sampling of other National Interfraternal Conference member pages yielded zero "Controversy" sections. It is arguably unfair to represent an entire organization by the conduct of its non-members. As a general example, I sampled a few college Wiki pages, and didn't see "Controversy" sections related to violence that occurred on their grounds or within their dormitories or other campus buildings. HOWEVER, the point raised here is a good one. Despite the ostensible best intentions of the policies and ideals of Greek organizations, fraternity houses continue to be one of the most likely places for a woman to be raped on a college campus. I hope that policies and practices of all organizations, Greek, collegiate or otherwise, can help lower the number of rapes that happen, and I further hope that, if Beebe was not the only perpetrator of this rape, all responsible parties are brought to swift and stern justice. As mentioned above, I will be removing the "Controversy" section as of 4 May 2007 if my objections to its appearance here are not responded to coherently. Rjproie 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments; it's hard to object in a way to disagree in any way. Jmlk17 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Were this matter not germane to the page's subject because the gang rape did not somehow take place on a national level, then every other deed and action at a chapter level would, logically, also not be germane. That is to say that any discussion of chapters should be removed. The absurdity of the rationalization process here is palpable! —SlamDiego 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that entries about other institutions are incomplete (or perhaps successfully censored where this entry is not) is no argument for removing the section; it is merely an argument that other entries need work. —SlamDiego 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to some extent with Rjproie. These actions were the actions of a small number of individuals many years ago. Yes, the rape was tragic and horrific, however, blame for the actions was placed on the right people-the individuals that did those actions. I believe in this matter in the context of an organizations article, blame cannot be placed on the particular organization for an incident that 1.) was carried out by individuals (some may or may not be members of Phi Psi, it is still unclear) and 2.)occured 23 years ago. It is indeed a different story when the incidents are more recent, as they bring into question the current practices of the organization. It is obvious that Phi Kappa Psi does not condone this type of behavior today, nor had they 23 years ago. I do hope that victim recieves her justice, but the national fraternity should not be held at fault for the actions of a few. Samwisep86 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if the fraternity isn't responsible for its chapters, then let's just purge the article of all references to the chapters. The article entitled “Phi Kappa Psi” can be about a suite of offices somewhere, that aren't responsible for much of anything. Of course, this suite of offices is then completely unnoteworthy, so it shouldn't have an article at all. —SlamDiego 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think my point is being misconstrued. The National is responsible for its chapters to an extent, and depending on what vantage point from which you're arguing, that extent can change. For example, from a legal standpoint, the National is shielded in many respects from the day-to-day operations of its chapters. Regardless of the vantage point, in this case, there is no "Controversy" for the National Fraternity, as it has no stake in the discussion at present. As mentioned in a previous post by SlamDiego, there are two contesting sides to a controversy. The ΦΚΨ National has no contest; no Fraternity members have been implicated in any source. Again, there are better places for this article. I'm not trying to censor anything - I would be in favor of a page specifically created for this very subject (William Beebe page, perhaps?). The fact remains that the subject of this page is so far removed from this specific incident that it does not bear mentioning on this page.
To respond to the idea that no positive action of any chapter should be included on the National page if the misdeeds of a chapter (which this situation has not proven to be thus far) should not be included, I point to the motto and Creed of the Fraternity as guidelines. When an individual member is "guided by truth" to attain something positive, he has applied the ideals of the Fraternity to the situation. When a member experiences "The Great Joy Of Serving Others" in a public service, he has upheld the Founders' principles. When an individual who is not a member commits an act of violence, he has not upheld or experienced any of the reasons the National exists - and couldn't really be expected to, since he never joined (it's a separate argument that he should have learned not to rape elsewhere in society, one that we don't need to have on this talk page). Succinctly, the National is a collection of ideals shared by individuals, none of which (ideals) have been affected in this situation because of the simple, incontrovertible fact that no members have been implicated, regardless of the opinion that it is "...(utterly implausible)..." that any members were not involved in this incident. This argument is not absurd, as it is grounded in verifiable fact.
If there needs to be a "Controversy" section on this page, I suggest seeding it with actual controversies on a National level. In that sense, this article, and many others, do indeed "need work."
Finally, the continued use of the term "gang rape" is somewhat troubling. There is nothing but rumor and innuendo to suggest that a gang rape occurred. No evidence exists to rationally argue that anything other than a single rape, perpetrated solely by William Beebe, happened. This talk page would feel more like a fair discussion if we all would stick to fact. I'm glad this discussion is continuing, but at the moment, I'm still planning on removing this section on 4 May 2007, again, pending a good reason why it should be on this page. Side note: to be clear, if other controversies are posted on this page, that do relate to the National Fraternity, I won't remove the entire section, just the references to the UVA incident. RJ 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the logical flaw of your point isn't going to be hidden by a flood of words.
• That point hasn't been misconstrued; it has been exploded. Again: If individual chapters are in no way the concern of this article, then this article has no content that is both relevant and notable. Things such as creeds are notable only to the extent that they do things such as influencing actions or providing cover for misdeeds.
• Your claim that “no members have been implicated” is simply false de dictu; the state has implicated members. It has not indicted members and has not named members; but it has said that members were accessories and perhaps more immediate participants.
• A fact is not diminished by calling it “opinion”.
• Your argument isn't “grounded in fact”; it's grounded in de re/de dictu confusion. You might as well claim that there are no white people in any of the photos of the lynching of Shipp and Smith because the names of those white people aren't immediately available.
• Your assertion “There is nothing but rumor and innuendo to suggest that a gang rape occurred. No evidence exists to rationally argue that anything other than a single rape, perpetrated solely by William Beebe, happened.” amounts to the perverse claim that the memories of the victim are nothing but rumor and innuendo. Further, it turns a willful blind eye to the fact that Beebe was not the bartender.
• You'll find that censorship of that section by an editor with an account isn't much more effective than the previous censorship by anonymous vandals. Quite a few editors have the article watchlisted and have been reverting the censorship by anonymous vandals. I'm merely the one who has also been discussing the issue on the talk page. —SlamDiego 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

“I agree to some extent with Rjproie.” In the context that you are Rjproie, your agreement comes as no surprise. —SlamDiego 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The very idea that you have cooked up this story and now believe it to be true ("you are Rjproie") is hilarious. I can't believe I have to continue to say this, but I am not a sockpuppet. RJ 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

indeed. One person who happened to be in the house committed the rape, he was verified to be not a member, all other notions to the contrary presently are conjecture and hearsay. If you had a house guest that lived in your house that committed a heinous act in your house, should you be held liable for housing him? I think this is the issue in question, and all evidence points that, at this time, no members of the fraternity, and by extention, Phi Kappa Psi fraternity should be held accountable for a non-members actions. Samwisep86 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Again: Beebe was not the bartender.
2. You are throwing around the term “hearsay” inappropriately.
3. The article doesn't tell the reader who to hold liable; it reports allegations as such. It reports the response of the national organization as such. The proposed censorship is about not letting the reader have facts. —SlamDiego 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• If there is a "logical flaw," I would like to see it. Simply pointing out my prediliction for explaining my position in full is a poor example of a flaw.
• I answered the "individual chapter vs. National" query in my previous post. To abbreviate, individual members acting in accordance with the National Fraternity's edicts, bylaws, etc. are directly upholding the idea of "the National" and are rationally relevant to this page's subject. Non-members acting in any capacity and members acting outside of ΦΚΨ's ideals are not germane to the subject of this page.
• The state has implicated members to the extent that it has suggested that it is a possibility that others were involved in this incident. Again, the National Fraternity is not a party to these claims, and therefore has no contest to said claims.
• Agreed: a fact is not diminished by calling it opinion. However, I did not use the terms "utterly" and "implausible" together to describe the possibility that others might have been involved with this incident. That is the opinion to which I was referring. Until names are named, and those names are verifible Fraternity members, the National Fraternity does not have a contest to these claims, and this section is misplaced as it exists on this page.
• The point about the existence of whites in the linked photo is incindery and without merit. By rational means (sight; unmodified photographic evidence), it is clear that whites are involved in the lynching cited. As sight and unmodified photographic evidence are not available in this incident, you're comparing apples to oranges. Albeit cleverly. No Fraternity members have been directly implicated in this incident.
• It's not perverse to suggest that the report of a single individual is "rumor and innuendo." To return to an earlier rhetorical rubric utilized by another user, "rumor" is defined as "a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts," and "innuendo" is defined as "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or derogatory nature." Both of those definitions are absolutely in line with the case at hand. Is it unsavory to suggest that the victim of a rape is passing along "rumor and innuendo?" Absolutely. In this instance, is it literally correct? Absolutely. I cannot be more clear: if this incident becomes a National issue (National in the Fraternity sense), PLEASE post it here. I am at least as devoted to truth and verifiability and NPOV and everything that Wikipedia stands for (ok, it doesn't stand for truth) as anyone. I'm exceptionally pleased that this discussion is continuing. I just want a standalone reason for this topic to appear on this page for it to exist. "Beebe was not the bartender" does not exist in opposition to my point.
• To suggest that removing this section is "censorship" is ignorant of this talk page. My experience with Wiki editors suggests that significant opposing points would appear here in this talk page from an editor when an incidence of "vandalism" has occurred, and if this point is correct, I'll be looking for a coherent response on or after 4 May 2007, not simply a revert. I am open to the idea that I'm from another planet in this instance, but I'm not going to believe it just because a user with an account suggests it.
• If nothing else, I hope this talk page is affecting a few opinions, inside and outside the Fraternity. While I don't believe this incident reflects upon the National Fraternity (see any of my arguments for elucidation), it inherently reflects upon the American Greek system. Anyone who doesn't like what we're discussing (in a civil manner) should take a long, hard look at fraternities and sororities. If a Greek reader doesn't like being automatically implicated as a racist, sexist, rapist, etc., (s)he needs only look in the mirror. Your "brothers" and "sisters" are creating this environment, and until you hold them accountable, this discussion is going to continue in some capacity.
• The argument that the article doesn't give the reader a liable party is a POV statement. Unless the National Fraternity is enticed or required to take a stand in this issue (other than opposing rape generally), this article belongs somewhere else. RJ 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• The principal logical flaw is in seeking to dissociate the national organization from a chapter — on the grounds that it is a mere chapter — without applying the reasoning to consistently. A national organization with no chapters for which to take responsibility is not noteworthy.
• Your answer to this point is exactly equivalent to a claim that the article on the Roman Catholic Church should not have the “Sexual abuse cases” section because the abusers failed to follow the creed of the Church.
• The national organization Phi Kappa Psi stands in the same sort of social relationships to the allegations of rape as does the RCC to the allegations of sexual abuse.
• Plausibility claims are either true or false; they do not exist in a nether world of being neither fact nor falsehood. Again: A fact is not diminished simply by noting that it is (also) opinion.
• The example of the photo is more like scalding water than fire. A confusion has repeatedly been cultivated on this page between knowing the set from which members have been drawn and knowing the specific identities of those members. It is my plan to effect clean-up with such scalding water every time that discussion is fouled in such manner. I make no pretense that cleaning up that confusion is by itself a rebuttal of any other argument given here; the confusion of apples and oranges has come strictly from some of those who would delete the material in question.
• The point that Beebe was not the bartender likewise refutes a specific point of argument, the repeated claim (in which you have participated) that Beebe acted alone. If, indeed, Beebe were the only one to have penetrated the young woman, still the bartender is morally a rapist and legally an accessory to rape.
• You want to say that it is “unsavory” to suggest yet not “perverse” to declare that the testimony of a rape victim is rummor and innuendo? Perhaps you ought to have read the definitions of “unsavory” and of “perverse” while you were attempting to trump me with technicalities. You're simply wrong.
• Likewise, you need to look up the definitions of “censorship” if you want to object to my use of that word. If we were to all agree to remove the material, it would still stand as censorship. As things stand, you propose to act exactly like any other censor who is simply willing to consider appeal.
• Samwisep86 demanded to know “If you had a house guest that lived in your house that committed a heinous act in your house, should you be held liable for housing him?” If controversy erupts about your liability qua owner then fairness has nothing to do with whether the allegations are to be included in any Wikipedia article about you. It is, however, Wikipedia's responsibility not to present allegations as more than what they are. You now accuse me of making a POV argument in baldly noting that this article reports allegations qua allegations, in reply to Samwisep86's cry for fairness. It should not surprise you that nothing about this discussion pleases me, however much it might gratify you. —SlamDiego 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your example of the RCC molestation scandal would have been a good one, except for the fact that Roman Catholic priests are explicitly endorsed by the Church, and Beebe has nothing to do with the National Fraternity. A better example would be a rape committed by a man who happened to stop by a church being construed as the responsibility of the RCC (though still not perfect, as those local churches probably have a more direct ownership tie to the worldwide organization than a chapter house). It is highly improbable that the RCC would be held responsible in this example, and neither should the National Fraternity. The underlying point that Phi Psi should be held, to some extent depending on vantage point, responsible for its chapters and members, was discussed above and has been consistent from my end. Once again, apples vs. oranges.
• If examples were found and posted on this page that are actual controversies where the National Fraternity has a side to take, I would not remove them. The argument that removal of any content is "censorship" is only correct to the extent that removal of vandalism is also censorship. The opposite argument to my "censorship" is your "vandalism," i.e. you are like any vandal who happens to sign his work, which is equally valid. I'm asking that a sound argument be made as to why this content is attached to this page, and, particularly in light of examples like the Roman Catholic Church's scandal, that connection has not been made.
• Plausibility claims may not be true or false, but they certainly exist on a spectrum of validity. Trying to force a party to prove a negative (e.g. Phi Kappa Psi is part of a network of oppression including all Greeks) does not make a claim valid. This particular argument, the possibility that a bartender may have drugged the victim (and would, if true, make him a legal accessory to rape), is not very strong. Presently, no members of the Fraternity have been directly connected to this case.
• Whether the metaphor is fire or scalding water, the existence of a topic that has at most exceptionally little to do with the subject of a page flies in the face of the point of having an "encyclopedia".
• My use of unsavory instead of perverse was clearly POV, and was a mistake on my part. Regardless, unverified statements have been made by a single individual, and those statements are the only connection to any Fraternity members. The National still has no stake in this discussion.
• No controversy has erupted over Phi Psi's liability in this instance, so the argument that this topic should be on this page "if" said controversy erupts is self-defeating, hinging on that "if."
• I'm not happy that this topic is being talked about, but I am impressed by the candor and intensity of the argument. I apologize if I seem gleeful. RJ 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• You ignore the fact that the controversy entangling the RCC is not merely associated with proven acts or identified priests.
• Your subsequent pattern of inference is therefore at best mistaken.
• No, a plausibility claims must be one or the other; it cannot be neither. And, again, a fact is not diminished by labelling it an opinion.
• No one is trying to force someone to prove a negative, so your claims about such are waling upon a straw man. Your denial that the bartender was an accomplice relies upon a thorough-going unwillingness to believe the victim on any score — as once even her claim to have been raped was denied. There is, in fact, no evidence that a determined disbeliever could not reject. You could object to Beebe's confession as the delusions of a former drunkard, and insist that I were attempting to make you prove a negative on that score as well.
• This discussion is not an encyclopedia article, and the argument which I washed away is not the argument of a scholar. Since what was being offered was a bogus principle, it is not necessary for the counter-argument to draw from the immediate subject of the article. Indeed, people are more apt to see whether a principle truly works by attempting to apply it in a different context. My earlier, less ghastly explanations of what was wrong with the specific principle in question were repeatedly ignored.
• The rule against POV concerns content of articles. Your use of “unsavory” was a mistake exactly in that it gave up the game, by being implicitly honest about the perversity that you wanted to deny.
• The national organization has the same sort of stake as does the Vatican in the difficulties of various dioceses, even though legal liabilities often stop at the level of the dioceses (and even though in some cases all that one has is the testimony of alleged victims who cannot even always identify which priest abused them).
• Likewise, an article on Phi Kappa Psi is no more naturally restricted to the doings of the national headquarters and national officers than an article on the Roman Catholic Church is naturally restricted to the doings of the Vatican. (If this article had a section about the national-level structure, and someone were attempting to place the discussion of the UVa rape within that section, then you could make a case against it.)
• I did not take you as gleeful. But I find no satisfaction of any sort in this argument. —SlamDiego 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• While the RCC scandal isn't merely about identified priests and victims, it is principally about a number of verifiable attacks, and is grounded because, as I pointed out above, priests are explicit members and leaders of the RCC. For instance, a Presbyterian minister engaging in abuse should not be held against the RCC. Nor should a non-member's actions be held against an organization.
• I don't think I'm ignoring any of your points; I'm attempting to use this bulleted response style to address all issues at hand. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that William Beebe, the perpetrator of this incident, is not a member. This page should include information about chapters, and there is positive and negative news to report in every single instance. However, this incident is not a Phi Kappa Psi incident.
• The wording of this section is problematic. The state of Virginia has alleged nothing of the sort, and certainly not in the linked article. The state is investigating claims made by a victim of a crime, but has not made any sort of decision on where to go with those claims.
• I'll keep it relatively short this time around: explain why the actions of a non-member of the organization represented on this page should be included in the article. RJ 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Again: The Vatican lacks legal liability, just as does the national-level offices. Allegations have been made agains priests just as allegations have been made against actual members. (If a Presbyterian elder raped a woman at a Catholic function, allegedly' with the cooperation of RCC clergy, then it would be relevant to an article on the RCC.) And the typical accused abuser amongst the RCC clergy has no authority at the level of the Vatican. You have simply attempted to apply ad hoc rules to this article that wouldn't be applied by you (nor my most other editors) to other articles.
• Nope, you're actively ignoring my points, and your previous response on the RCC is a nice illustration of that.
• The state of Virgina has alleged that the victim was drugged by the bartender whose existence and responsibility you keep trying to wave away. More generally, the article does not assert that indictments have been brought against specific members; it says that allegations have been made that things were done by members.
• The actions of a non-member should be included principally because he is alleged and appears to have had one or more accomplices who were/are members. Further, the way in which the fraternity managed the function and the aftermath of the rape contributes to the scandal. (You would even bother to ask if you didn't ignore the real comparisons the RCC scandal.)

—SlamDiego 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys need to stop arguing, stop reverting and then re-reverting (whoever is doing that), and get a mediator in on this issue. Jmlk17 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion will almost certainly not be ended by mediation, for the simple reason that those who want the section removed are almost certain to lose, and then the very same people who were anonymously censoring the article before will go back to anonymously censoring it. —SlamDiego 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the mediation cabal's help in this, since it doesnt seem were getting anywhere arguing with this, and to get another party's take on this issue. Samwisep86 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness...thank you. Jmlk17 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The creation of the request was with the account User:Rjproie. As User:Samwisep86 you now declare that you made the request, and subsequent edits to the request were with account User:Samwisep86. Apparently, I have been made to do battle with a sockpuppet. Why? —SlamDiego 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Slamdiego, but RJ is not a sockpuppet; any IP check will tell you that. I edited the mediation page to make the information more accurate. I, as anyone, want a speedy resolution to this debate. Per the request, I thought I had put the request in originally, but apparently RJ created the mediation page, I just edited it. I also did put up the request tag at the top. Please don't make any accusations about "sock puppets", when I am a third party helping to organize the request. Samwisep86 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Here is my IP:141.164.74.246 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) check it against RJ's.

An IP check would prove no such thing; pretty much anyone can edit from multiple IPs. What we have is assertion at 04:43 that you'd made the initial request, when your first edit qua User:Samwisep86 to the request page was made at 06:26. With the more than one-hour difference, you wouldn't then think that you'd made a request if you had merely edited a request made by another. And your edit history shows nothing else that corresponds to any ostensible request —SlamDiego 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contact me privately. I am willing to work this out with you. If there is a verifiable way to prove that I do not have a sock puppet, let me know. I will give you the information to prove to you that I do not have a sock puppet. Samwisep86 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You've already shot yourself in the foot, as explained above. Demonstrating to me that you can log-in at computers at two different physical locations will not impress anyone aware of how trivial it is for anyone in the industrialized world to do such things. And I too could get friends to drop things in the mails to me from multiple locations. —SlamDiego 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

honestly, your assertion that I use multiple IPs is wild and unverified. I am a busy college student, why would I need to argue with you creating proxies to create another account to argue with you in a debate about a wikipedia article. I do not either have the time nor knowhow to operate proxies, or as described by you, edit using one account, and hurridly go to another physical location and login just to spite you. You and rj were duking it on on this page with no end in sight. I tried to help you two by trying to mediate the situation. I sent in the request, which apparently didnt go thru. The next time I looked at it, RJ had filled out the request. I just decided to make beneficial corrections and expand both editors POV's on the matter in question. You assume that I am attacking you by making the accusation that RJ is a sockpuppet, that however is furthest from the truth, WHEN I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT. I am not trying to attack you, I am trying to help you. Samwisep86 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I logged in to Wikipedia, saw that there was a mediation request, and filled out the form. I don't see how this got turned into a massive conspiracy theory, and I didn't make the mediation request. I appreciated the idea that mediation was available, since this argument isn't going anywhere.
• Furthermore, I reverted the page when an anonymous user removed the section in question. As far as I can tell, everyone involved who is logging in is at least trying to be fair.
• I'm not a sockpuppet.
• I'm not going to continue this argument in this space until we get some feedback from the Mediation Cabal. As I mentioned earlier, this argument isn't going anywhere. However, I will extend my deadline for personally removing the section in question, pending mediation, which I wholeheartedly agree to. RJ 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is no massive conspiracy theory, especially as conspiracy (from Latin for “breathing together”) would involve there being two or more people working together. Samwisep86 admitted to doing something that in fact was done qua Rjproie. Now you are denying making the mediation request, when the request history says that you did.
• Yes, you reverted the page when it was vandalized, but that won't undo the implications of Samwisep86 claiming to have performed an act of Rjproie (and now Rjproie denying that he performed that act).
• The evidence says that you are a sockpuppet.
• If account Rjproie is not suspended, then Mediation can proceed. It's reasonably clear what will be concluded by the Mediators. Unfortunately, the anons will keep removing the secion thereafter. —SlamDiego 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing wild about the point that you can use multiple IP numbers, and no need to verify that you do, as you were the one trying to prove something from multiplicity of IP numbers.
• Mediation will neither hurt nor help me, and I don't see it as an attempt to help me.
• The end, in the absence of Mediation, was very much in sight, which is why I have been expecting it, as a last-ditch effort. (I wasn't expecting the revelation that came when you leapt in to that last ditch.)
• You're not even being consistent about whether you sent in a request, or confused something else with a request.

—SlamDiego 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I noticed the Mediation Cabal link at the top of the page, clicked the form link, and filled it out, because I like mediation. Any suggestion that anything improper happened is foreign to the truth. In fact, I didn't even know that something like the Mediation Cabal existed until I saw the link on this talk page. I didn't place the link, I filled out the form. I considered the link placement the "request" for mediation, and filling out the form a step along the way to mediation. I'd be more than happy to identify myself with verifiable personal data, if that's the only way to end this completely useless argument about who is who. Additionally, if you don't want to mediate, fine, just say the word and we can continue to argue about the subject at hand. RJ 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I linked you to where you made the request. Perhaps you and Samwisep86 will be able to persuade the admins that you each stumbled around in a way that perfectly mimicked sockpuppetry. We'll see. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

To clear up confusion, I placed the link at the top of the talk page, meaning to submit a request, which I erroneously stated I placed the request, when in fact I didn't. Samwisep86 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, you've given inconsistent explanations about what you did and about when it was done. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys, arguing and bickering isn't what this site is supposed to be about. Someone already called for a mediation on the issue, so why not just cool it on here for now? I see the notice as I write this at the top of my page that says This page is 39 kilobytes long. That's pretty damn long, especially for a talk page, but ESPECIALLY for just one topic on a talk page. Wait for the mediation, wait for the result, and then respect it. I've been watching this argument go back and forth for several days now, and while interesting, it's starting to become old. I'm not attacking anyone, nor taking any side in this issue anymore. I just want to see some sort of end to this whole issue, sooner rather than later. JṃŁЌ¹⁷ 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Meta-arguing doesn't generally put an end to arguing. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Section Break

After reviewing the article, the arguments here, and the online source article. I must say that the controversy section really does not seem very appropriate here. The 4 page news article only mentions the fraternity once or twice. In Phi Kappa Psi's 150+ year history, this really does not seem all that relevant. A rape happened in a frat house on a college. So? It's [barely] news (or at least it was in 1984). We don't cover every rape at every college; except for the fact that this one had an op-ed piece or 2 written about it recently, what makes this one so special? According to [1], "In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape." This is not, in the context of the university and the fraternity, a very significant event. According to the study, thousands of women are raped in colleges. Even Duke University (a featured article) has only a couple sentences about the rape scandal there, it does not have its own section or even its own paragraph. It does have its on article though, with 188 references and 14 more external links, showing that it was a much more significant event. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you are not listed as a member of the Mediation Cabal, so referring to your comment in your edit summary as a “mediator comment” is somewhat problematic.

Second, if it truly were the case that 1-in-4 women were the victim of rape or of attempted rape, that would be the worst possible excuse to avoid talking about it in any given article. (In fact, the stat in question was generated with a willful combination of bad techniques which I would be glad to labor somewhat on my own talk page, but which would run us on what I regard as a tangent.) I would be shocked and dismayed if this argument were embraced by Rjproie, by Samwisep86, or by Jmlk17.

Third, unless we are to take it as given that every analogous article that you site is in final form, the alternative interpretation of your data is that one of the many ways in which Wikipedia is unfinished is that it doesn't cover this sort of material. —SlamDiego 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely am not going to embrace that argument. Jmlk17 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that you have declared yourself as having taken the role of mediator at the RfM. I have contact the Mediation Committee in general, and the Committee chairperson in particular, to raise an alarm about this. —SlamDiego 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the case is with the unofficial Mediation cabal, not the commitee, of which anyone can be a member. Second of all, you accuse me of favoring one side. On the case page, the requested action was: "A third-party recommendation to either leave the post or have it removed and not reverted." That is what I provided. The main point of my reasoning above was that I have seen no evidence that this rape is more notable than any of the thousands of rapes that happen every year or why it is especially relevant to the fraternity, except that it took place in a building they own and the perpetrator may have been a member. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I accuse you of favoring one side, because that's what you have done. Worse, you have offered an absolutely sickening argument in presenting your conclusion. I absolutely will not enter into a formal agreement to mediation by MedCab in this context. I will agree to mediation by the Mediation Committee or we can just take this to Arbitration. —SlamDiego 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A third opinion was asked for; I provided a third opinion. The point of my "1 in 4" argument is to be used in conjunction with the "relevancy" argument. This information might fit in it's own article as it did get minimal news coverage, but it really has nothing to do with the fraternity itself. If you are only rejecting me as mediator, I will gladly change the case status back to new (though I would suggest you modify the "What would you like to change about that?" section). If you are rejecting an informal mediation altogether, I will change the status to closed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I am rejecting the MedCab in toto, because a member of it has done what you have done. As I've said, I will accept mediation by the Mediation Committee, or we can go to Arbitration. —SlamDiego 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved anymore, as it seems hard to approach this without getting accused of doing something that I didn't do. I don't know how you can accuse Mr. Z-man of "taking sides" when he provided an honest third party opinion after he said that he "reviewing the article, the arguments here, and the online source article". SlamDiego, I think you need to take a step back and breathe, if you so desire that the Mediation Committee become involved, so be it. Samwisep86 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I accused him of (immediately) taking sides because he did not query anyone before proceeding. For example, the “What is happening?” section is written in a way that is misleading; Rjproie stated what he wanted as a resolution; I was not asked what I wanted as a resolution. We've had a somewhat tangled argument above; no one asked for a structured restatement of anything.

Second, as I have more than once said, Mr.Z-man (premature) conclusion is founded in part on an absolutley disgusting argument.

Third, do not tell me that I need to take a breath. Instead, be glad that I am doing so instead of taking this matter outside of Wikipedia now. Do you have any idea how various other institutions would respond to the fact that a purported mediator claims that rape is too common in some contexts to be worthy of report? —SlamDiego 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing anymore. This issue has taken up too much of my time over such a small issue in the context of an online encyclopaedia. If you want mediation, feel free to seek it yourself. Samwisep86 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have told the Mediation Committee that I wish to use them. (Since the subpage is still marked-up, from the earlier, rejected request, I have not been able to just start a fresh request.) I have informed the Committee that you have withdrawn, but I have stated that I would not object to your becoming a party to the mediation. I think that Jmlk17 should be allowed to become a party if he wishes. (Rjproie was originally listed by you as a party, and I would seek to have him be such now.) —SlamDiego 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more than fine with joining a mediation issue. Jmlk17 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to be involved in mediation. As I've alluded to previously, if the MedComm sides with SlamDiego, I will help to ensure the section's inclusion on this page and will revert vandalism (which I have done in the past). I further agree that the way I filled out the Med Cabal request page was misleading, though I assumed (bad practice) that it would be touched by both sides prior to being accepted in mediation. I don't agree with Mr.Z-man's argument, whether the stat quoted is accurate or not. I would also like to archive this discussion once mediation is completed (and miscellaneous other items on this talk page) to make it more readable. RJ 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, archiving would be very appropriate then. —SlamDiego 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This controversy should be a free standing article.

This crime is notable/controversial because of UVA's dismissive response to the victim when the attack when reported, the confession of the attacker twenty years later via the ninth step of AA, his unexpected indictment because Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies, his extradition to Virginia, his plea of guilty to a lesser charge after insinuating he could help identity “others involved,” his being wholly unable to provide useful information to such effect, his later release after serving only six months and the suffering of the victim because of the delay of justice. This incident does not appear in the AA article, the rape article, the UVA article or the Virginia article. Why as such should it appear in the Phi Kappa Psi article except under the theory that it is notable primarily because of where the crime took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.168.149 (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-Visiting Inclusion of the Elizabeth Schimpf Rape in the Phi Kappa Psi article

This controversy if worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia should be a free standing article.

This crime is notable/controversial because of UVA's dismissive response to the victim when the attack when reported, the confession of the attacker twenty years later via the ninth step of AA, his unexpected indictment because Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies, his extradition to Virginia, his plea of guilty to a lesser charge after insinuating he could help identity “others involved,” his being wholly unable to provide useful information to such effect, his later release after serving only six months and the suffering of the victim because of the delay of justice. This incident does not appear in the AA article, the rape article, the UVA article or the Virginia article. Why as such should it appear in the Phi Kappa Psi article except under the theory that it is notable primarily because of where the crime took place.

As such I will be removing the article.

I submitted the article as written, with the included reference to the new article page. It was rejected.

74.77.168.149 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether this section should be included went through mediation. The mediation concluded with agreement on 12 October that the section should remain. Having discovered this latest attempt to erase unfortunate history (just a day after that conclusion!), I have restored the section. We can go back to patrolling this article if necessary. —SlamDiego_←T 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This criminal action does not deserve inclusion in this article. If it even belongs in an ancyclopedia at all it belongs as its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just absurd wiki-lawyering. If this article is again subjected to a pattern of vandalism, then I will again request that it be semi-protected, with a notice that it has been protected. —SlamDiego_←T 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong sir. RJP's unwillingness to follow through does not negate the fact that this controversy section does not belong in this article. If you are commited to the controversy you create a new article for it and update the data accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. RJP didn't simply cease to follow through; he reported that after due thought he recognized that the section was appropriate, and expressed the hope that I would continue to monitor the section. And please note that even if there were a separate article, this article would properly link to it. So you wouldn't be able to erase the controversy from this article, only to magnify it. —SlamDiego_←T 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been warned on your talk page about violating the three-revert rule. —SlamDiego_←T 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

RJP's capitulation does not negate the fact that this "controversy" section does not belong in this article. There is no controversy, involving the topic of the article, to speak of. There was a rape committed in a fraternity house. It is an isolated incident notable, if at all, for the actions of the rapist that lead to his own conviction two decades later. It is not noteable otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk • contribs)

At best, you are now making a case for retitling the section, and pretending that it is one for deleting the section. (If someone thinks that the section would be better titled something such as “Tragedy”, then that can be discussed.) —SlamDiego_←T 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not here to play wordsmith. The fact is a man was convicted of the sexual assualt of a woman chiefly because he admitted to raping her decades later. He made this admittion because of his participation in alcoholics anonymous (ninth step). This rape occured in a fraternity house. It does not make sense to include every crime, rape, or murder in an encyclopedia article based on where it occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's pretty clear why you're here. The notability of the crime has already been discussed, so your talk of including every crime is a red herring. —SlamDiego_←T 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego, my argument in chief is that this crime does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 斎 齋 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 斎 齋 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You conclusion is that it doesn't belong here. Your arguments for that conclusion have been quite ad hoc, inconsistent across instantiations, and characterized by nonsequitur within instantiations. —SlamDiego_←T 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I note that you were explicitly told that you cannot delete content from an article based on the theory that it belongs elsewhere. You were also told that if you felt (as you claimed) that there should be a free-standing article, then you could creãte one. Instead of doing so, you just asked someone else to creãte one, and when no one did, you used this as the thinnest possible excuse to delete content, thought this contradicted what you had been told. Now, let me again note to you that, if someone were to creãte a free-standing article, this article would still properly link to it; let me also note to you that proposals to merge the free-standing article could be entertained, so that things were restored essentially to where they are now. —SlamDiego_←T 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GOOD L_RD!!!! It's even worse than I thought! No, you didn't even ask anyone else to create the article. You tried to create the article anonymously, and when that didn't work, you used that as an excuse to delete the content! —SlamDiego_←T 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chapter List

Can someone remove the chapter list from the main page and put it as a list on another page. It is way too big and takes the majority of the article. Samwisep86 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can create a subpage Phi Kappa Psi/Chapters and link to it from the main page. Just click on the red link to start editing. —SlamDiego 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this has been done already. Someone created a list as noted on the main page. Samwisep86 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I guess that it won't make a lot of difference to not make it a subpage, but I suspect that such lists will eventually be consistently made such. —SlamDiego 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV for member lists?

I notice that, for Billy Mitchell, it says

Brig. Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, "Father of the U.S. Air Force," Congressional Gold Medal recipient (D.C. Alpha, George Washington University, 1896)

It could instead say

Brig. Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, advocate of indiscriminate terror-bombing in war-time (D.C. Alpha, George Washington University, 1896)

Why should the listing of members be puffery? Shouldn't NPOV apply as much here as anywhere else? 75.30.200.107 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both entries as listed here are NPOV. The first is NPOV becuase of the mention of the uncited "father of the Air Force" comment, while the second is also NPOV, as it imnplies a bias on the part of the writer. Samwisep86 06:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing POV with NPOV. But, anyway, the specific point was that there's more than one way to look at Billy Mitchell, not that the article ought to note him as a foremost advocate of terrorist murder. And the general point is that none of these entries ought to be POV. Let the fratenity brag at its own website, not here. 75.30.200.107 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

correct. I didn't write what I meant. My apologies. Samwisep86 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the Billy Mitchell inclusion do not address the problem. It is a fact that he is widely considered the father of the Air Force. It is a fact that he was awarded a medal. And it is a fact that he was an advocate of terror bombing. The choice of which of these facts to include should not be driven by POV. His awards should no more be noted than his monstrous viciousness. And the same is true for every other member listed. The listings should all be NPOV. 71.154.208.43 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as good criteria for making member listings NPOV? I'm open to suggestions. Samwisep86 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone's personal ideals and/or issues about Mitchell are in conflict here. We aren't asking nor demanding flattery nor condoning it. But truth be told, Mitchell is considered the "Father of the Air Force". Personal and historical issues aside, it does not matter what his ideals were. 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is total POV nonsense. The fact that Billy Mitchell won some medal is far less important that his advocacy of terrorism. That doesn't mean that he should be listed in this article as a terrorist. The point is that he shouldn't be puffed (as he is now) or bashed (as he could be) even though facts are being used to puff him and facts could be used to bash him. His listing should be something such as

• Col. William "Billy" Mitchell, naval officer, noted advocate of military air power, (D.C. Alpha, George Washington University, 1896)

which doesn't puff or bash him. And, yes, Colonel, because Brig. Gen. wasn't his permanent rank, you puffers!

Moreover, the same standard should be applied to all the other listings. These listings are not supposed to be trophy cabinets. They are supposed to note members who were significant, not make them out as he heroes (which, in the case of terrorists, is stupid and gross). 75.5.174.166 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I sort of happen to disagree. The notable members are supposed to be prestigious members of the fraternity. This means people of esteemed service and notability, not notoriety. Jmlk17 06:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that Billy Mitchell won the Congressional Medal of Honor, so why wouldn't that be listed in an encyclopedia? Absent opinion (e.g. - awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for bravely defending this great nation), I don't understand the argument that this fact doesn't belong here due to "puffery," when the supposed "puffing" (done by "puffers") is simply true. Regarding the point about his permanent rank, he did end up a Col., but it appears reasonable to list him as Brig. Gen. due to the Air Force's similar claim on the official Air Force website. RJ 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that he advocated bombing noncombatant civilians, and wiping out entire cities with poison gas, to demoralize the enemy. (In one word: "terrorism". See Wings of Judgement by R. Schaffer.) Do you want to focus on the verifiable facts that play in his favor, the verifiable facts that play against him (which in this case are more important than a gold medal, because of their effect on subsequent policy), or do you want to adopt NPOV? The Air Force is obvious going to want Mitchell "puffed". His permanent rank (as the WP article on him notes) was Colonel. 12.72.70.42 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That position is a complete violation of WP:NPOV. 12.72.70.42 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The position I took above is NPOV. It relies on a verifiable fact that is significantly held (i.e. Billy Mitchell was indeed awarded the medal). I didn't take a position on the so-called "terrorism." The listing does not misidentify Mitchell as a Brig. Gen., as he definitively attained that rank during his career. Anyone who wants the full history of Mitchell's service can click the link and learn all sorts of fascinating facts about the man, but that's not the point of a "Notable Member" listing. As far as the charge of advocating "terror bombings," again, that information should be fully digested on the Billy Mitchell page. Every mention of a topic does not need to include every single piece of information - that's why WP is separated into topical pages as opposed to being one huge page of text. Mitchell is notable because he attained the rank of Brig. Gen., was awarded a prestigious medal and is a member of the organization that is the subject of this page. He's arguably notable for many other things he did, but those can (or should) be found on his page, not within a list of "Notable," not "Notorious," members, as proposed by Jmlk17 above. RJ 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not handling threads right. You are replying to what I said to Jmlk17 as if it was said to you. Indents show the threads and subthreads. I know that some people don't get that, and that their bad habits make things hard for other people to learn.

The Mitchell article could probably be improved, but his advocacy of terrorism is more important than any medal. WP:NPOV isn't simply about sticking to facts. It's about thing like not trying to hide facts of one sort behind facts of another sort, and it's about letting the reader be the judge of things like good and bad. Calling Mitchell a "noted advocate of military air power" is factual and NPOV. The other suggestions have been POV, one way or another. He is a lot more notable for being an adovcate of military air power (NPOV) and of killing whole cities than for winning a medal. If the only issue was room then his advocacy of terrorism would be the thing to put, not the medal.

I don't see his rank as a very important issue here, but his demotion to Colonel was actually more significant than his highest temporary rank, and his highest rank was actually Major General (he was promoted from Colonel to that after his death). But listing him as a Brig. General make his rank seem comparable to that of one who was given that rank on a permanent basis, which Mitchell never was. (The after-death promotion didn't have a stop at Brig. General on the way.)

If a list of Notable members had to be a list of Prestigious members, then a list of Notable members would be forbidden under WP:POV. If Lee Harvey Oswald or Ted Bundy had been in a fratenity, they would belong on the list of Notable members for their fraternity, alond with any heroes and with people who weren't heroes or villains but were still important. And the list should tell the reader who was heroic or who was a villain. That's for the reader to figure out... without getting nudged one way or another by selection of facts. 12.72.70.42 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy" revisited

As a member of Phi Kappa Psi, I'm using my discretion and agreeing with everyone that it is irrelevant to the article. At my chapter, there was a rape back in 1990 that has all sorts of haziness and ambiguousness surrounding it, yet it's not included in this article either. These happen all the time everywhere, and as someone said above, we just don't have the resources to report every one. This is an article about Phi Psi's history, statistics, and ideals, and not the place for one random, disputed incident that happened years and years ago.

Imagine it this way... can you see this part showing up in Enyclopedia Britannica? I don't think so. If need be, as stated before by someone else, create a new article if you're dying to get this out to the public, or even add it to the UVA page. But there's no need for it here. Amici ~ Triberocker (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to claim that anyone is agreeing with everyone. It's impossible to agree with everyone here, since there are a couple of people who think like you, and a bunch of people who don't want this article censored. That rape is part of Phi Kappa Psi's history, just as the controversies concerning the Roman Catholic Church and US Marine Corps are part of the histories of those organizations, and are reported it the articles about those organizations. This article is not supposed to be a PR piece for Phi Kappa Psi. —SlamDiego_←T 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying it was a PR piece? I'm just saying that until you can write-up and cite every single incident like that's ever occured at every chapter, this one random piece is completely and utterly out of place and irrelevant. This is not censorship for God's sake, this is for the sake of enyclopaedic standards and proper reference. I will relocate this to the UVA Greek Life section. ~ Triberocker (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't recall anyone openly advocating that it be a PR piece, because that would be letting the cat out of the bag. No, we've already discussed the rapes-are-too-common-for-any-to-count theory. This rape was notable. There has already been a mediation on the section. You'll just have to accept that your fraternity was entangled in a notable rape. —SlamDiego_←T 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is a noteable rape then it should have its own page as was pointed out previously. SlamDiego, is intent on smearing the subject of this article with this horrible incident as if the fraterntiy as a whole was to blame. Methinks he is biased for. Clearly a wikizealot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.29.125 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense. According to your line of reasoning, anything that is notable belongs in its own article, and not in any other article. The logical result would be no articles. Anything in an article that were not sufficiently notable to stand on its own would be removed for lack of notability, and anything sufficiently notable to stand on its own would be removed to another article. Of course, the new article could then be similarly analyzed into parts, each of which would be discarded or given its own article, until the content had dissolved into discarded bits.

Now, as I have repeatedly noted, articles on the Roman Catholic Church and the United States Marine Corps contain references to and discussions of controversies involving the behavior of some of their members. These articles do not thus claim that every member of those institutions is to blame for the behavior. For some reason, you believe that ΦΚΨ should enjoy a greater level of privilege than other institutions, but it will not be given that. —SlamDiego_←T 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed "Controversy" (again)

SlamDiego must have an ax to grind or a personal interest in this story since they keep reinserting the paragraphs. The incident has nothing to do with the Chapter or National Fraternity and SlamDiego refuses to accept that fact dispite multiple sourcesTmpafford (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack against me does not legitimize your willfully unconstructive edit. As has been repeatedly noted, these incidents have as much to do with Phi Kappa Psi as scandals that have affected the US Marine Corps and the Roman Catholic Church have with them. —SlamDiego_←T 07:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how this is a controversy for the National Fraternity? What did the National Fraternity do to cause a controversy? How is this a controversy for the Chapter? What did the Chapter do to cause a controversy? Just because the rape happened in the house does not mean that the National Fraternity or the Chapter did anything that was controversial. The blame and responsibility lie with the scum of a guy that committed the rape. The only reason you continue to attach this unfortunate event to this page is because there happened to be greek letters attached to the house.Tmpafford (talk)

Tmpafford, make sure you are aware what has occurred in this issue already. There already has been a lengthy discussion concerning this part of the article, plus a mediation case has already been closed on the issue. Just some helpful advice. Samwisep86 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, Tmpafford, the standard being applied here is the same as that which is applied for articles on such institutions as the US Marine Corps and the Roman Catholic Church. One could, with equal absurdity, as what the Haditha Massacre or the various pædophilia scandals have to do with the (inter)national offices or subdivisions of these institutions. —SlamDiego_←T 18:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will concede that the Controversy paragraph will have to stay dispite all the contrary evidence that it is not relevant to the Fraternity, but it is a monor incident, no more relevant than the popular culture referance, and should not be at the top of the page. Moving it back to the top of the page only shows your bias in this matter.Tmpafford (talk)

No. Again, there is the analogy with the US Marine Corps and with the Roman Catholic Church. One would not put controversy sections concerning either of those two institutions after lists of their prominent members. You were simply seeking to burying the section, and persistent attempts to do so will be plainly unconstructive. —SlamDiego_←T 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Your argument is flawed. The Roman Catholic Church activly tried to cover up their rampant paedophelia; moving priests around the country or removing them from public view instead of accepting their part in the controversy. The Roman Catholic Church should have a prominant paragraph on their page. This was a one time event that was not condoned by the National Fraternity, the Chapter, or its members. Again, moving the paragraph to a more prominant spot only shows your bias on this subject and is plainly biased.Tmpafford (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC).

The vatican never condoned the sexual abuse of children either, and the US Marine Corps actively pursued charges in the case of some of its scandals. However, Wikipedia isn't here to judge the US Marin Corps, the Roman Catholic Church, or Phi Kappa Psi; it is here to report the notable facts as they stand, including the controversies that have involved those institutions. —SlamDiego_←T 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego, when was the last time you looked at United States Marine Corps and Roman Catholic Church? There are NO sections on controversies. The MAJOR pedophelia scandal for the Roman Catholic Church is mentioned only as a minor paragraph of the Second Vatican Council and it is the second to last paragraph in the article. There is no mention what so ever of any controversy in the United States Marine Corps page.

Based on your own argument, the justification for keeping this paragraph on this page is not valid. I ask that you please drop all your objections for the deletion of this paragraph.Tmpafford (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing not only the argument but the evidence.

The article on the United States Marine Corps mentions the Haditha incident, which, further, has its own article on top of that mention. The article on the Roman Catholic Church not only mentions the pædophilia scandal, but also various other scandals through-out the history of the church, many or all of which also get their own articles. The reason that these controversies don't get lengthier treatment in the main articles is simply that each of these institutions is has such an extensive and important history that their articles are kept to manageable size by the use of satellite articles. Were Phi Kappa Psi a more notable institution, then its various controversies would probably get their own, separate articles as well.

Again, the issue of whether there was to be a section went through a mediation of months, ending on the conclusion that the section should stay. You need to accept that the content of the section is not going to be erased.

Although you seem to have abandoned the transparent attempt to bury the section after lists, I will again note that articles on other institutions (such as the USMC and RCC) do not bury the discussion of controversy after lists. —SlamDiego_←T 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First - The basis of your argument to include the Controversy section was that similar sections were listed in Roman Catholic Church and United States Marine Corps. Similar sections do not exist in the articles. Since no Controversy or similarly named sections are listed in those articles, no Controversy or similarly named section should be included in this article.

Second - There is no existing section relevant to the content of your paragraphs. The creation of a new section based on sections that do not exist in other articles is a flawed argument and does not justify a new selection. It has no relevance to any section on the original page. As you stated above, the controversies of the Roman Catholic Church and United States Marine Corps were relevant to sections in the articles and not a seperate section.

Third - There is no main article to link this section to. As you stated above, the other incidents justify having their own page and can stand on their own. This cannot be said about your paragraphs. The placement of this information on the Phi Kappa Psi page implies that the fraternity played a major role in the incident. The only role the fraternity played in this incident was in renting a room to an individual that committed a crime.

Forth - You have not come up with any justification for the prominent placement of this section other than any other location would be considered burying it. Your placement implies that the fraternity is engaged in controversial acts all the time.

And Lastly - You continue to argue with every opinion that does not match your own(see the whole page above). You are unwilling to compromise, capitulate, or work with any other editor in finding a reasonable solution.

I believe that you have lost your objectivity and neutrality on this subject. I asked for a Third Party review (see below) and you did not accept their judgment. I believe that this, and the above statements, justifies taking this back to mediation.Tmpafford (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

First, the argument isn't about sections as such; it is about content. If it were merely about sections, then you'd be able to show me a diffent section (or different setions) into which the content could reasonably be integrated. (Further, the USMC abd RCC articles used to have sections specific to controversies, and the articles on other entities continue to have such sections. If coverage of the USMC and RCC controversies hadn't been spun off into separate articles, then they would still be distinction sections in those articles.)

Second and third, your argument on factoring is actively absurd, and has already been tried. If a general rule were applied that nothing could should be in the encyclopedia if it couldn't stand in its own article and couldn't be well integrated into some other section, then most content of most articles would have to be balled-into single, ungainly sections, or deleted altogether. I don't see you trying to delete the “Creed” section simply because it works best in the article standing on its own, and doesn't have corresponding main article.

Fourth, the placement is not prominent. The only section that it does not follow that is not a list is the “Endowment” section (which also does not belong after those lists). The fact that putting it after the lists does bury the “Controversy” section is sufficient to show that it shouldn't be there, and your edit history is sufficient to show that your intent was to bury it.

Fifth, the history of the argument isn't as you'd like to depict it, which is why the outcome of the MedCom process was that the section was kept. It isn't my responsibility to capitulate simply because many people think that only idealized portrayals should appear in articles about this class of institutions.

Sixth, given your edit history here, it simply isn't your place to claim that I've lost my objectivity and neutrality. You asked for Third Party review in violation of the guidelines for such — your edits had been reverted by multiple parties — for a dispute that has alreayd been handled by MedCom.

You're mostly just recycling arguments that have been tried and failed. —SlamDiego_←T 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you refuse to listen to arguments on the section, lets look at the content.

First - Your first three words should disqualify the paragraph from this page. It is alleged means that it has not been proven. Does that mean that I could make any allegation I wanted and have that reported in Wikipedia? It may be alleged, but it also has been denied multiple times in numerous forums. Until it has been proven, and not just alleged, that the fraternity had any role in this crime other than renting a room to a scumbag, this content should be removed.

Second - Mr Beebe, as has been stated by numerous sources, was never a member of Phi Kappa Psi. All the other controversies you give as examples were committed by members of the organization (United States Marine Corps and Roman Catholic Church). The fact that the crime is alleged to have happened in the fraternity house has no more importance than if Mr Beebe drove a Ford that night, was wearing an Izod shirt, or if he had been drinking Budweiser beer. It was a name for the place of the crime and that makes it, at best, a trivial fact in this case. It bears no more weight than if it had happened in Central Park or a Motel 6.

Third - Mr. Beebe and Miss Schimpf were students of the University of Virginia. Since this is a common factor for all parties involved I went looking at the University of Virginia page. There is no mention of this incident on that page. Why is that? Since you are so concerned by what members of different groups are doing, why is this information not located anywhere on the University of Virginia page; a group that they all are members of?

Again, it is my contention that you have lost all objectivity and are more concerned with slandering the name of the fraternity. I am again asking that we take this mater to mediation.Tmpafford (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First, allegations, explicitly noted as such, are perfectly appropriate content for Wikipedia. Again, consult the articles on scandals of the USMC and the RCC. Returning to Oswald (the fellow who has been repeatedly used in analogy by would-be censors here), applying the same reasoning as you do here, we'd have to delete the whole article about him, because he never got his day in court.

When you go on to write “the crime is alleged to have happened in the fraternity house” (emphasis yours) you further expose how much you are PoV-pushing. It has been established in a court of law that the rape took place in the frat house.

Second, the article plainly states that Beebe did not become a member of the fraternity. But Beebe simply didn't act alone. There was the bartender who drugged the drink and the other rapists, and the party at which this occurred was a fraternity-sponsored event. If a similar gang-rape had been effected at a party sponsored by a church, a political party, or a commercial corporation, there would have been scandal and legal liability.

Third, there may be a case for including discussion of this story in the article on the University of Virginia — since it can be documented that they gave Ms Schimpf the bum's rush to cover-up the rape — but it's not my job to set every article right on Wikipedia. You certainly don't see me opposing the inclusion of such a discussion there.

Again, your behavior shows that you are not positioned to criticize anyone on a lack of objectivity. And, since you have been forced to actually argue instead of anonymously vandalizing, your arguments have all involved principles that would be non-starters if applied to articles more generally; you are just making it up as you go along. Most or all of the arguments that you've cobbled-together were already tried before or during the MedCom mediation. —SlamDiego_←T 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I an not familiar with the terms of a mediation case, however I don't know if this would go to Mediation. It looks at this point, this should go further, to Arbitration, to get a final resolution to this situation.Samwisep86 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I'd love it if this matter were within the scope of ArbCom, but it simply isn't. (Read their mission statement.) I won't actively fight a filing with ArbCom, but it will be rejected (unless it's a matter of Tmpafford returning to abusive use of sockpuppets and vandalism). —SlamDiego_←T 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi all. I've read the history and read the arguments here. I think that a controversy section should exist, but that it should probably be called ==Chapter controversies==. I think this because the controversies are not really about the organization as a whole and to just put controversy could lead a person just looking at the TOC to think the whole fraternity had issues. This is clearly not the case: they are not teaching members how to rape girls. To compare, look at the US Marine Corps article and read the bit on Lee Harvey Oswald "Lee Harvey Oswald, the man suspected of the assassination President John F. Kennedy was a Marine, as was Charles Whitman, who killed 16 people and wounded 31 others at the University of Texas at Austin in 1966.". Now, Lee Harvey Oswald was certainly a notable marine and certainly a controversial one; but the article on the USMC (of which he was once a member [and actually trained him to shoot]) only has a single line on him as it's an article on the USMC and not Lee Harvey Oswald. I think that the same thing applies here frankly. There should be some mention of these controversies, but it should be fleeting. If they are truly notable then they'd have a bigger section on them, or else their own article. As such I think you should; a) rename the section, 2) trim the verbiage to note the issues, but not elaborate on them. It's important to remember that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. What happens if these guys are found innocent? Please comment :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 19:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to argue for change based on how you think Wikipedia should judge any of these institutions is based upon the fundamentally mistaken notion that Wikipedia should be judging at all.

Should we call the Roman Catholic Church controversies section “Diocese controversies”, or the Marine Corps section “Squad controversies”? Unless we're going to start trying to spin things similarly for other institutions, we shouldn't be doing that for Phi Kappa Psi.

If Oswald's status as a former Marine had embroiled the Marine Corps in controversy, then it would be the job the article to report on the controversy; it simply doesn't matter whether that is just or “fair”.

The Roman Catholic Church didn't teach the sexual exploitation of children, and the US Marine Corps doesn't teach rape and massacre, but allegations (some well-founded, others questionable) about such things have caused controversy for each.

As to what happens if these guys are found innocent, the same question can be asked about the scandals involving the RCC and the USMC. The articles should be updated accordingly, of course. —SlamDiego_←T 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

SlamDiego, when was the last time you looked at United States Marine Corps and Roman Catholic Church? There are NO sections on controversies. The MAJOR pedophelia scandal for the Roman Catholic Church is mentioned only as a minor paragraph of the Second Vatican Council and it is the second to last paragraph in the article. There is no mention what so ever of any controversy in the United States Marine Corps page.

Based on your own argument, the justification for keeping this paragraph on this page is not valid. I ask that you please drop all your objections for the deletion of this paragraph.Tmpafford (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, there are no "controversy" sections for those articles. SlamDiego, your views are POV pushing. fr33kman ^{t - c} 21:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, you should have waited for my reply to Tmpafford before leaping to agree with the conclusion that you really wanted ab initio, when it seemed to have found a plausible case.

As I noted above, the articles on the USMC and on the RCC each contain discussions of controversies. Those discussions are integrated into other sections. No one heretofore has proposed integrating the content now in the “Contoversy” section into another section, and I don't see a suitable section in this article for such integration. —SlamDiego_←T 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're being argumentative. The integration of the controversies should be done. If you knew this, why did you not just do it, perhaps by creating such integration yourself or else making subpages for each chapter? I've checked out your history and this is the 3rd most frequently edited article by you; are you sure you're not taking this personally? WP:OWN? A 3rd opinion was asked for and given, take it or leve it. Arguing witht the 3O will not do you favours in the future if you need help. Perhaps this is better in MEDCOM or even ARBCOM? fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're just flailing.

• Telling me that I'm being argumentative in the course of an argument — and one that I didn't even start — is a bit silly.
• It's a bit late to pretend that you want integration after you've embraced Tmpafford's call for deletion. And, again, there isn't a suitable section in the article for integration. Moving content to an entirely different page wouldn't be integration, and there simply aren't subpages for each chapter; if there were such subpages, then it might make sense to move most of the content from the “Controversy” section thereto.
• This is the third most frequently editted article by me simply because it is the most frequently vandalized page on my watchlist. The vast majority of my edits to this page are nothing but reverting deletion of the “Controversy” section. [Correction: It is the second-most vandalized page on my watch-list, but “Goat” is so heavily watched, that I rarely learn of the vandalism until after it has already been fixed.]
• You declare “take it or leve it” — it's been more of “them” than of “it” as you try different ways of insulating Phi Kappa Psi — yet you have a problem when I left it/them. I wasn't looking for “favors” from 3O; Tmpafford posted the request when it became clear that vandalism wasn't going to work, it was never just a two-person dispute (Tmpafford's edits have been reverted by multiple editors), and the issue already went through MedCom (so much for your pretense to have read the past argument). Your behavior here persuades me that 3O would be a poor choice for proper resolution in any event.

—SlamDiego_←T 22:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Attacking me won't help here. I'd suggest it's a case for RFC from the whole community. NB: 3O works very well thank you. Its history proves that. Please note, 3O is not mediation and a 3O opinion giver is free to agree with one side, both sides or none at all. I've finished with this issue now, I'd suggest it's for RFC (as stated) or else formal mediation with MEDCOM. Bye fr33kman ^{t - c} 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You've already been told (in boldface, even) that the issue previous went through MedCom. (Your earlier suggestion of ArbCom, BTW, shows a misunderstanding of the nature of ArbCom. Short of Tmpafford returning to abusive use of sockpuppets and so forth, ArbCom is irrelevant.) For 3O to work well, its guidelines would have to be followed; 3O has no way of preventing bad self-selection of those who would offer opinions. (Since you'd previously offered a “final” response, should I just assume that you'll be returning here indefinitely?) —SlamDiego_←T 02:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tmpafford, I have already replied to this bogus argument in the previous section. See also my reply in this section to Fr33kman. —SlamDiego_←T 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A Final Resolution to the Controversy Section

This issue has been going on now for a year, and I am of the opinion to settle this once and for all. The section was added a year ago and is probably the most changed/vandalized part of this article. It has once been through Mediation, and arguments pro and con have lengthened this talk page considerably.

I am going to try to place myself in this debate as a neutral party, for the sole purpose of finding a resolution here. Although I find rhetoric mildly entertaining, I have to admit seeing this debate continuing to pop up on my watchlist is tiring.

What I would like to see is this discussion leading to a mutually agreed upon solution that satisfies both parties. I want solutions posted here, not ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks. Let's see if we can resolve this. Samwisep86 (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sam, the MedCom mediation resulted in a mutually agreed upon solution — after everything got thrashed-out, it was conceded by previous opponents that the section was appropriate as it was. One of the former opponents even expressed a hope that I would continue to maintain the section, but (sick of Wikipedia) I walked away from the article for a while, only to discover later that within a few days after the MedCom result, a PoV-pusher came in and deleted the section again.

In other words, even if Tmpafford actually recognizes that the section is appropriate, there's just going to be another guy after him, and another guy after that. And the result of compromising with each PoV-pusher would be that the whole section would be erased in a step-wise manner.

The content meets all of the standard policies of Wikipedia. Multiple editors have reverted deletion of the section, and one of us (I) slogged through the process of defending it in mediation. We're not under some bizarre obligation to meet one PoV-pusher half-way, and then another three-quarters of the way, and then another seven-eighths of the way, until the content is dissolved.

There seems, BTW, to e a real failure here to project the consequences of fighting ever more furiously to censor this article. It just won't play-out well for Phi Kappa Psi. —SlamDiego_←T 03:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Coming late to this issue, it seems to me to be more of a chapter issue and not a national issue. I think that the section should be titled as "Chapter Controversy" at the very least. Jmerchant29 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that entitling the section “Chapter controversy” or “Chapter controversies” is gong to do much if anything to settled-down those who want the content removed from the article. But, when various other institutions with divisions have had controversies, the sections on their controversies haven't been presented simply as scandals for those divisions. The discussions of the Haditha incident or of the pædophilia scandals that have hit the RCC haven't in any way emphasized the notion that these are issues for squads, parishes, or dioceses. —SlamDiego_←T 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How about giving it a try and see if it settles the issue down some. I don't want to get edit war or a huge debate about the issue. I was just throwing out my 2 cents worth and trying to offer a solution... Jmerchant29 (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't revert that edit if it's made. I suggest that “Chapter controversies” might be better than “Chapter controversy”. —SlamDiego_←T 00:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Hope that it settles things done some.Jmerchant29 (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!! Althought I still have a problem with the content being on this page in the first place, the only other problem I have is the placement. I believe that since the section was renamed to Chapter Contorversies it should now be loacted following Chapters.Tmpafford (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying the bury the content. It just seems more logical to file it after Chapters (no matter where Chapters is located on the page)Tmpafford (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC) (corrected text)

Even if one bought the idea that you were now acting in good faith, the objective fact remains that moving text after long lists serves to bury the text. If you will not accept the present compromise, then we will return to titling the section as it would be for any other institution. —SlamDiego_←T 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Now who is engaged in personal attacks? All I am proposing is a reorganization of the article to be listed in subjects from largest to smallest, major to minor. National first, chapter second, individual next, and trivia at the end. This would mean moving Endowment Fund higher in the list, Chapters and Chapter Controversies would be next, then all the famous individuals, followed by Popular Culture.Tmpafford (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The new order I am proposing would be:

• History
• Creed
• Symbols
• The Order of the S.C.
• Endowment Fund
• Chapters
• Chapter controversies
• Notable Phi Psi's
• Popular culture
• References
• External links

(originally put it in the wrong paragraph)Tmpafford (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

One could already understand what order you proposed, and the fact remains that it buries a section of prose after a list. The list itself borders on trivia. Jmerchant29 suggested the change of the section name as a “final resolution”; I've explained why the title change is undesirable, but I agreed to his proposal of “giving it a try”. If you persist in trying to bury the section, then the trial fails, and the section title will be restored. —SlamDiego_←T 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please help me to understand. What list am I burying it under???? Chapters is one line! Again, I am not trying to bury it. I am just trying to now put the section in a logical location. My proposal would move the paragraph roughly 14 lines further down the page (depending on your screen size).Tmpafford (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, “Chapters” to be itself a list, but I see that the list was spun-off and the section is now just a link to a list, so it wouldn't burying the section as it was with your edits of 18 Sep ([2][3]). So long as it is not, returned to such, then I have no problem with that proposal. And I have already stated that I feel that “Endowment” should not be buried either. I've effected that move and will hope that no one objects. —SlamDiego_←T 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have a citation to the allegation from the State of Virginia? I would put a "citation needed" but I don't want to seem to be nit picking. The article from The Hook says that he was a pledge.Tmpafford (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The allegations from the state of Virginia are reported in the news articles which are already cited. The {{fact}} tag is used when no “reliable source” has been cited, not when some editor simply thinks that another source would be a further improvement. —SlamDiego_←T 00:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read all the articles and nowhere in those articles does the state call him a member of Phi Kappa Psi. That is why I am asking for help in finding a link to the actual state allegation. The wiki article says the state names him a member of the fraternity, one of the articles referenced calls him a pledge, and the guy from the national fraternity office says he was never officially a member. I am just trying to clerify Beebe's status within the house. I believe that this will also stop some of the objections to this content. If the state is calling him a member and the national fraternity is saying he was not, then a pleged is most likely what he was; some one who wanted tho join the fraternity, but had not gone though initiation yet.Tmpafford (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The state doesn't allege that Beebe was a member, and the article doesn't say that they do. Pay attention": The state alleges that a member, acting as bartender, administered the drug, and the article reports that. This isn't simply a rape that happened to take place in a fraternity house, nor a rape that happened to take place in a fraternity house during a fratenity-sponsored party; the chapter's bartender is alleged by the state to have been an accesory to the rape, and it is alleged by the state to have been a gang rape. All that has been in front of you and plainly stated all the time. —SlamDiego_←T 20:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I miss read the first paragraph.

There is no need to be hostile. I am trying to work with you now that you seem to be open to other editors input. Your threats of reverting the section back to a state prior to Jmerchant29 solution is unproductive.Tmpafford (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You spent months trashing that section without reading what it actually said.

WP:AGF requires us to begin with an assumption of good faith, but we're well past that beginning, and your remarks of yester-day are a strong indicator that your attitude and objectives are not fundamentally changed. There's nothing unconstructive in the “threat” that you'll have to accept the terms of Jmerchant29's deal if you want that which you see as its benefits, and your attempt to “work the system” by parroting the language of Wikipedia policy is another strong indicator that we have a ways to go before the assumption of good faith is again applicable. —SlamDiego_←T 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Making Chapter Controversies into a list

Does anyone have a problem with making the Chapter controversies into a list?

• University of Virginia rape case
• San Diego State University drug case

I believe that this will make it more obvious that there are at least two controversies and will set a precedent for future additions.Tmpafford (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The content should not be pared in order to make it fit neatly into list items, but if a big list item is deemed acceptable, then I think that the only question is of whether making these into a list is premature.

If it needs to be made more obvious that there are two controversies, this can be done with subsection headings “University of Virginia” and “San Diego State University”. Just enter these headings with three (instead of two) equal-signs to either side, eg “=== University of Virginia ===”. —SlamDiego_←T 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted subsection headers into the section, which makes it clear that there are two chapters with distinct controversies. Until and unless the number of controversies discussed grows quite large, use of subsections should be a better solution than conversion to a list. In fact, at such time (if it should come) as there seems to be a need for a list, there should probably also be a “main” article going into some or all of the controversies in greater detail. —SlamDiego_←T 00:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That is what I meant. ThanksTmpafford (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

University of Virginia Section

Here is a revised section planned for substitution for the existing section for the purpose of making it better correspond to the cited references. (I expect to make this substitution tomorrow or the next day.):

University of Virginia

After a party in 1984 there an incident involving two intoxicated party attendees—student William Beebe, who was living in the chapter house but was not a member of the fraternity, took a female party guest, seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Schimpf, to his room and later sexually assaulted her. Twenty-one years later, in 2005, as a result of an Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step Program he wrote her an apology saying, "I harmed you." After an exchange of emails she filed a complaint with Charlottesville Police. Beebe was extradited to Virginia where he pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, of which he served 6 months prior to parole. Reporter Courtney Stuart wrote in the Charlottesville tabloid The Hook that during the plea hearing Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Claude Worrell alleged that "Other sexual assaults occurred that night by other individuals in that fraternity", but he refused to comment further on that statement. He found no evidence to file charges.

UV Notes:

Background of this change:

On 10 December upon finding that the material in this section was not fully supported by the citations, especially the former first sentence, I marked it "Citation Needed" by using an additional {{fact}} tag. I also edited the paragraph to update Beebe's status from awaiting sentencing to sentenced, substititing a reference to a later story for an earlier one. (I did not notice that the first story had a reference to "Other sexual assaults..." but that later one did not.) Another editor removed my tag and left a strong message on my Talk page, calling my tag "vandalism". I provided a detailed description of the material I found unsupported compared with the references and suggested that the section be rewritten or supported with references. She or he complained on the Administrators Noticeboard/Incident page. The consensus of the discussion among the administrators was that my actions were valid and that the article should be corrected. No corrections sere made so I prepared the above revision. Led by truth (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

1. The section is fully supported, and that was explained to you on the 12th. The “consensus of discussion among the administrators” involved exactly two administrators who had fallen for your misrepresentation of the section as somehow claiming that Beebe was a member, both of whom withdrew from discussion when it was made plain to them that they'd been duped by you. (Beyond the issue of actual membership, their only objection (in embarrassed retreat) was that the article “ties Beebe to the fraternity”, but the documentation clearly supports doing exactly that.)
2. Your proposed edits involve considerable synthesis, omission, and surreptitious commentary. Simply put, you are trying to spin the story, instead of reporting the bald facts.
3. Since you want to spin this as something other than a gang-rape, I note that the Washington Post quite explicitly says “Investigators believed Seccuro was gang raped.”
4. Your earlier excuse for some of your vandalism, that a footnote (which did appear) was not attached to a specific sentence, isn't particularly consistent with your now placing every footnote at the end of the section.
5. As more than one editor has repeatedly noted, this section has already been run through this dispute resolution process (which process took some months).
6. The one thing that the continual string of attacks by anonymous vandals, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and now single-purpose accounts promises to do is to draw eventual external attention to these efforts at cover-up. There have been news stories about how, for example, Starbucks has tried to spin the Wikipedia entry about it. You wanna see something similar about Phi Kappa Psi?

—SlamDiego_←T 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is an update of the University of Virginia section above planned for substitution for the existing section. It includes recent information.

University of Virginia

After a party in 1984 there was an incident involving two party attendees who had been drinking—student William Beebe, who was living in the chapter house but was not a member of the fraternity, sexually assaulted female party guest, seventeen-year-old student Elizabeth Schimpf in his room. Twenty-one years later, in 2005, as a result of an Alcoholics Anonymous 12-Step Program he wrote her an apology saying, "In October, 1984, I harmed you." After an exchange of emails she filed a complaint with Charlottesville Police. Beebe was extradited to Virginia where he pled guilty to aggravated sexual battery and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, of which he served about 6 months prior to his parole. At the plea hearing Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Claude Worrell was reported as saying that unnamed investigators believed Schimpf was gang raped. In July 2007 officials told the AP they had exhausted all leads regarding gang rape and that that case was stopped.

UV Notes:

Further information on this change:

I believe that everything in this section is verifiable with identified citations, that inaccurate or unverifiable material has been removed, and that it covers the key points, namely

• the connection with this fraternity (the party and the location)
• the aspect of the incident that made it newsworthy (the apology, the exchange of emails, and the long-delayed charge)
• the assault
• the sentence and time served
• the allegation of gang rape

The inclusion of the gang rape allegation is problematic from a Wikipedia BLP policy standpoint. This article does affect living people, the men who were members of the chapter at that time. Facts that make this inclusion questionable include that

• the alleged victim does not know whether or not such an attack occurred having evidently had a memory blackout and only later having an "impression" that others might have been present or active
• there was no corroboration of the allegation by witnesses
• the man who did confess to the assault stated that "There were no other men present. I was the only one."
• the investigators who raised the issue gave up after exhaustively investigating it

There is no verification that a gang rape actually occurred; a justification for including the allegation would be if an allegation from unnamed investigators reported by the Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney is notable in itself.

Comments by other editors? Led by truth (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• The word “incident” is used to treat things as relatively minor.
• Leading with the fact that Schimpf had been drinking is a standard blame-the-victim rhetorical device in rape cases.
• You have papered over this bit

  When her friend didn't come back, she started looking for him, and that's when some of the men offered her a drink they called the “house special”.
  Soon after she began sipping the drink, Seccuro says, she began to feel that the men were watching her. Then she felt “panicky and immobilized, like my arms and legs didn't work well.”[4]

• We are not in a position to positively deny that Beebe was a member; we are only in a position to say that the fraternity reports that he was not a member. (By contrast, the present text was written at pains not to claim that a gang-rape occurred, but simply that the state had alleged it to have occurred.)
• The term “sexual assault” is willfully mincing. For example, grabbing her breasts would be a sexual assault, but not nearly so egregious. This was a rape.
• The description here of the investigators as “unnamed” is a rhetorical device for impeaching their credibility. And not only was there no particular call for him to name the investigators; we don't know whether he did (in passing or otherwise); we only know that the articles didn't name them.
• The use of the word “stopped” above rather than “stalled” is to insinuate that the case is effectively closed, which claim isn't supported by the sources.

In all, your proposals are grossly unacceptable spin. You're trying here to present one side's case to “the court of public opinion”, but we're not supposed to be writing or thinking like lawyers or politicians. —SlamDiego_←T 00:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• The word incident is appropriate for an encyclopedia entry.
• The statement was that they both had been drinking, not just that Elizabeth Schimpf Seccuro had been drinking, and no more blames the victim than blames the perpetrator. Omitting this fact contributes to bias of this paragraph. If there is any blame to Seccuro then it should not be omitted from an encyclopedia article.
• We don't know that your quote is true; we only know that Seccuro, who apparently had a memory blackout and admits to having only a partial memory of what she did that night, made that statement twenty-two years later. Her statements at the time of the incident were not found sufficiently credible for action by the college administration, by the campus police, or by the city police. Also differences were alleged in court between her 1984 story as reported under a pseudonym in the University Journal and her 2006 story. Emphasizing this 2006 statement continues a trend of presenting a biased view of this case supporting Elizabeth Schimpg Seccuro's 2006 story, ignoring Beebe's statements and actions, and attempting to discredit this fraternity.
• We are as sure that Beebe was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi as we are of anything. No source claims that he was a member the fraternity and additionally we have the confirmation of this fact from the Executive Director of the fraternity.
  The state did not "allege that a gang rape had occurred"; it merely said that some people believed that and it wanted to start an investigation into that possibility.
• The references generally call this incident an alleged rape or a sexual assault, hence the Wikipedia article should also use those terms rather than the stronger term rape according to the Wikipedia policy against synthesis (which you yourself have referenced). (The incident was denied to have been a rape in court, the charge was reduced, and the conviction was for a lesser offense.)
• You seem to be trying to hide the fact that the "belief" that a gang rape occurred was a belief held by persons not notable enough to be named, another incidence of bias in the existing paragraph.
• The investigation of the alleged gang rape did exhaust all leads; all published indications are that it is stopped.

The present statement, which you have been aggressively pressing for 20 months since it was anonymously posted from IP 12.72.68.11 in February 2007 contains unsupported and misleading allegations, including those of which I provided detailed description and which the administrators at the noticeboard hearing agreed should be changed. The posting of this statement in its original form, which then had an additional misstatement regarding Beebe's membership, in this article could itself have been considered an act of vandalism.

---

The current section reads

It is alleged by the state of Virginia that, on the night of 4 October 1984, a member of the University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi drugged seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Schimpf, and that on the morning of 5 October 1984, William Beebe and members of the fraternity gang-raped Miss Schimpf. Beebe was arrested in Las Vegas in January 2006 and was extradited to Virginia. He was charged with aggravated sexual battery, pled guilty, and sentenced to 18 months in prison. Shawn Collinsworth, executive director of the national fraternity, while acknowledging that Beebe lived in the chapter house, denies that Beebe himself was ever officially a member of the fraternity.

To review, previously noted errors and unvalidated statements of the current section include–

The first sentence misleadingly implies that Beebe was a member of the fraternity, as noted by the administrators and others who read it, and there is a false implication later by the use of the word "denies" that he was alleged to be, although none of the sources portray him as a member of the fraternity.

There is no statement in the cited sources that Elizabeth Schimpf Securro had been drugged or was believed to have been by the Deputy Commonwealth Attorney, and there was no such allegation by the state.

The sentence grossly exaggerates the "belief" of some unnamed investigators that a gang rape occurred, about which the prosecutor would not even comment, into an "allegation by the State of Virginia", and it does not reveal that their investigation of a gang rape led nowhere.

I considered the least possible interim change (rather than, for example, those above) that I could come up with to the existing paragraph in order to make it verifiable and current, although not free of its existing bias regarding gang rape, which should be corrected before too long. The result is

As a result of his apology in 2006 it was alleged by the state of Virginia that 22 years earlier on the morning of 5 October 1984, student William Beebe raped seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Schimpf, and that investigators believed that Schimpf had been gang raped. Beebe was arrested, charged with aggravated sexual battery, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 18 months in prison, serving about six months prior to his parole. In July 2007 officials told the Associated Press they had exhausted all leads regarding gang rape and that that case was stalled. Although he lived at the house, Beebe was never an official member of Phi Psi, according to Shawn Collinsworth, Executive Director of the national fraternity.

UV Notes:

I plan to post this correction to the article before long. Led by truth (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• No administrator claimed that the first sentence implied that Beebe was a member, or otherwise referred to the first sentence. Two administrators took your misrepresentation on that point at face value. Upon examination, one subsequently asserted (correctly) that the first sentence implied that Beebe was tied to the fraternity; however, the references show that he was tied to the fraternity.
• As noted, alcohol is a drug, and the natural reading of Schimpf's claim is that she believes that she was drugged. In any case, I have inserted a sentence which conveys what she claimed. Consider this as part of truly “the least possible change”.
• Previously, you insinuated that the DCA had actively avoided naming investigators simply because the article hadn't named them, Now you go notably further, asserting that he wouldn't comment, in spite of one source explicitly claiming that he did just that, simply because the quote given by another source might, out of context, be instead interpretted to claim that multiple persons had been raped, each by one assailant.
• There was no exaggeration of the level of belief; there was simply the bald “is alleged”, with no adverbs.
• The section was written before the investigation was reported as stalled; I know of no one objecting to updating it on that point.
• The sources explicitly said that the believed assailants were “in the fraternity”, not merely that a bunch of other rapists from outside of the fraternity were presumed to have found their way into the chapter house. Consider conveyance of that much as part of truly “the least possible change”. (If you can find a “reliable source” supporting a claim that the DCA misspoke, then of course the section should be in some way amended)
• Saying that you're going to effect an edit “before long” and then doing it about 15 minutes later seems somewhat disingenuous.

—SlamDiego_←T 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does Slam Diego seem to have such a bone to pick with Phi Kappa Psi. He or she wants to keep the section labeled "Controversies" and in addition seems to be the only one who is for the section. Slamdiego further addresses others revisions as spam because they do not fall in line with his/her idea of what should be put on the page. Why doesn't the Theta Chi page have more than one mention of the San Diego State University drug bust, when a large portion of the chapter was implicated and their charter was revoked? Sounds like this problem/vendetta Slamdiego has is a personal one that should not be resolved on Wikipedia. 129.22.169.98 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacking me personally has repeatedly been tried, and of course fails. Nor is it the case that I'm the only one who wants that section. Indeed, the subsection on SDSU is mostly the work of others, even though the events happened in my “backyard”. As far as Theta Chi goes, I have enough trouble watching the pages that I do without trying to work on every friggin' article on fraternities. The notion that you get to vandalize this article because one particular editor isn't trying to maintain some other particular article is absurb. —SlamDiego_←T 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oldest continuous active chapter of any fraternity claim

This has been continually changed so I would like to point this out for future reference. Phi Kappa Psi does NOT have the oldest continuous active chapter of any collegiate fraternity. Chi Psi at Hamilton College was established in 1845, a full 10 years BEFORE Phi Kappa Psi's claim. It has never been shut down. [5]. Moreover Phi Delta Theta has a chapter founded in 1850 which has been uninterrupted. There may also be more older uninterrupted chapters but at best, Phi Kappa Psi has the third longest continuous active chapter. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

Just wanted to noted that I left out a “no” in an edit summary. I meant to write “so no violation”. —SlamDiego_←T 05:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest notifications

Wikipedia has rules and guidelines about conflicts of interest. As per the section about declaring an interest, it is probably in the best interests of Phi Psis to notify the Wikipedia community of their affiliation before editing, or before commenting on this talk page. Fraternity members should also take WP:OWN very seriously. Below this paragraph, please declare your affiliation, with chapter and year of initiation not necessary, unless directly relevant to a section. NYCRuss ☎ 16:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a member of Phi Kappa Psi and the Order of the S.C. NYCRuss ☎ 16:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion to Move William Beebe Rape to Separate Article

Seeing as no Phi Psis were convicted in the crime, it is inappropriate for this incident to be at the center of an article about Phi Kappa Psi.
NYCRuss (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. William Beebe was in no way associated with the fraternity and neither was the victim. The crime has more in common with the university than it does with the fraternity. Both victim and perpetrator were students of the university.Tmpafford (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I can find no other fraternity on Wikipedia has been subjected to this kind of persecution, identification, and possible slander just because the name of the fraternity was mentioned in a news article. Fraternities and fraternity members are no more likely to commit a controversial or criminal act than the general population of the university. I would like to see that this whole section be stricken from the fraternity's page and moved to a separate page or, at the very least, to the page of the university in which the controversies are associated.Tmpafford (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tmpafford, not sure why Phi Kappa Psi is the only fraternity on Wikipedia that has a section like this. I know at Ole Miss, the Beta Theta Pi chapter has made national news several times, including dropping a white pledge off naked with racial slurs written all over him in the center of a nearby "traditionally black" college. (They got kicked off of campus for that incident.) I say remove the entire section.Jmerchant29 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's reset the clock with this discussion to the RfC that was just posted below. NYCRuss ☎ 11:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Crash into me" by Liz Seccuro lists two men that were members of Phi Kappa Psi as part of the trio who gang raped her at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house in 1984 at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. William Nottingham Beebe lived in the house and Phi Kappa Psi members deny he was a member of the fraternity. Beebe was the last of the three to rape her and he lived in the house. As part of his 12 step process through Alcoholics Anonymous, Beebe sent the victim of the gang rape an apology letter. He was the only one convicted of the crime that was committed at the Phi Kappa Psi house. This gang rape is a part of the history of Phi Kappa Psi and should not be covered up by the fraternity or it will lead to even more gang rapes happening in the future. The other two men's names are mentioned in the book because an investigation was conducted and several witnesses came forward to say there were three of them who committed the crime along with Beebe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnDay64 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AnnDay64. The Liz Seccuro gangrape at the Phi Kappa Psi house should be included on the page.

Fraternity members should also not be involved in controversial edits on this page. It is a clear conflict of interest and smacks of whitewashing.Pogovasse (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Possible move of the William Beebe rape section to new bio article

Suggestion to move the section about a rape that occurred in a Phi Kappa Psi house to a separate article. There are no records that the convicted rapist was ever a member of the fraternity. NYCRuss ☎ 11:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'm working on a bio for Beebe here: User:NYCRuss/Sandbox/William Nottingham Beebe NYCRuss ☎ 13:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Split, with NYCRuss's text as a good starting point. Although Beebe was a tenant at the house, he was not a member of the fraternity, so the incident's connection to this article is very tangential. A backlink to this article from the article is in order, but I don't think a mention or see also from here to there is needed. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat new at editing, so I'd like to make sure that I have everything covered. There was previous discussion, and various allegations. Here they are:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-29 Phi Kappa Psi
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive213#Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Latest_attempt_to_censor .E2.80.9CPhi Kappa Psi.E2.80.9D
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive474#Tmpafford and anonymous sock attacks
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Samwisep86
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Triberocker
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tmpafford
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected/22#Phi Kappa Psi
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#.E2.80.9CLikely.E2.80.9D .28not merely suspected.29 sock- or meatpuppetry by Triberocker

With all of that taken into consideration, is it still OK to split this into a new article? If so, should that wait until the RfC has expired, or is it OK to do that now? NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hrm. Based on that, I would make sure the RfC runs its course. I would also say that it would probably be prudent to include a See also line like the following:

• William Nottingham Beebe, who [allegedly] committed a rape while a tenant at the University of Virginia's chapter house

with the "allegedly" being optional text. Also, some of those cases are old; there are more recent fraternity issues where past indiscretions have been omitted from the articles. See Talk:Lambda Phi Epsilon for one example—and with a tenant involved in one of the incidents, at that! I can't remember the second, but it was a situation where the fraternity emailed OTRS asking to have a single-chapter incident removed from the article. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for the RfC to run out, and adding a line to to See Also sounds reasonable. NYCRuss ☎ 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

It is my belief that we should keep a version that actually uses hunter green and cardinal red, rather than brighter colors that some people seem to prefer. NYCRuss ☎ 00:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible removal of San Diego State section

This is in regard to Phi Kappa Psi#San Diego State University as it appears in the Phi Kappa Psi Wikipedia article on 3:03pm EST May 10, 2010. Seeing as there is a dedicated article about this incident, and that this chapter is no longer on suspension, I don't believe that this needs to be in this article anymore. Is this OK to remove now, or should an RfC be created? NYCRuss ☎ 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the fraternity coming off suspension is cause for removal of the section from the article. However, I've noted that they are off suspension. Is it too fluffy to note they complied fully with the suspension requirements? —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably just mention that they are off of suspension. As far as keeping the section, how about moving it to List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters in the notes by the chapter? This is to keep all chapter specific information off of the main article, unless it effects the fraternity as a whole. I've already moved positive information about chapters off of the main article to List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters. I believe that this keeps things balanced and maintains a WP:NPOV. NYCRuss ☎ 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Go for it, and if somebody else sees where it causes an issue, we can deal with it from there. —C.Fred (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removal or move of University of Arizona section

Here's the situation to date. Allegations were published, and investigations occurred. No Phi Psi from that chapter faced any charges, nor did the chapter.“Police Beat: Oct. 8 — Woman claims to have been drugged at Phi Kappa Psi party”“Phi Kappa Psi homework found with stolen Wildcats”“UAPD closes paper theft case; Frat members were never questioned”“Phi Psi found not responsible for theft of newspapers”“Phi Kappa Psi newspaper caper” I don't believe that this should remain on Wikipedia. Opinions? NYCRuss ☎ 01:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How was the addition of this paragraph justified? It seems ridiculous to me that someone can easily add any information onto this wikipedia article just because some part of a story references Phi Kappa Psi, but to remove the paragraph, editors must jump through hoops to justify it's removal. This paragraph should never have been added in the first place.Tmpafford (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been over a week and there has been no objection to the removal of the University of Arizona section. With it's removal, there is no need for a "Chapter controversies" section.Tmpafford (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I placed this back because it has not gone through formal process like an RfC. I'll generate one in a few minutes. NYCRuss ☎ 17:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not all that familiar to the RfC process, but I believe that the removal will be justified.Tmpafford (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

C.Fred removed it. It turns out that I was overly cautious. NYCRuss ☎ 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC to remove the University of Arizona controversy

CoI notification: I'm a member of Phi Kappa Psi. There were published allegations regarding Phi Kappa Psi's University of Arizona chapter in late 2009. No charges were ever pressed against the chapter, or against any of its members. I believe that it should be removed. NYCRuss ☎ 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• BOLDly removed (diff). The item relates only tangentially to Phi Psi. If it were about a single living person, it wouldn't pass muster with WP:BLP. I don't see any reason to be slacker with allowing the material in because it's about a group of people. If anybody presents an argument to keep the text, I'll restore the text without hesitation while the RfC runs its course. However, I don't see any reason to keep the text in the article right now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was overly cautious as I'm trying to very mindful of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. NYCRuss ☎ 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Notable Alumni paragraph

The paragraph listing notable members is becoming large and unmanagable. The solution would be to convert this paragraph into a list, but this has already been done once and the information is on the linked page. I believe this paragraph should be removed.Tmpafford (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As I'm the one who placed it on the article, I went ahead and removed it. NYCRuss ☎ 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Chapter naming convention

To someone more familiar with the topic, is this a typo? : "The third chapter was installed at Washington & Lee University, in Virginia, so it is the Virginia Beta chapter." The third Greek letter is gamma, so is this supposed to read "second chapter" or "gamma chapter"? Caduon (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Per List of Phi Kappa Psi chapters, the naming convention is the state where the chapter was located and then a Greek letter. So as the second chapter chartered in Virginia, Washington & Lee has the Virginia Beta chapter. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the ambiguity. I just edited it in an attempt to clarify. Is this better? NYCRuss ☎ 13:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The second chapter, and first in Virginia, was installed at the University of Virginia, so it is the Virginia Alpha chapter. The third chapter overall, and the second in Virginia, was installed at Washington & Lee University, so it is the Virginia Beta chapter.

This could be vandalism

But I don't know how to fix it. I refer to the words: 'The Hi is the chaplain of the chapter'. (A common vandal edit is to add 'hi' to pages). Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.144.45 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is why it's important to have reliable sources, which the entire section lacks. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing alleged gang rape because multiple mainstream journalistic outfits are doubting the story published in Rolling Stone

I have removed the allegation that there was a gang rape done at the UVA charter of Phi Kappa Psi; while the Rolling Stone did publish an article claiming so, multiple reliable mainstream journalistic source are now doubting the accuracy of this story. To wit:

• http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/sabrina_rubin_erdely_uva_why_didn_t_a_rolling_stone_writer_talk_to_the_alleged.html (Title: The Missing Men; Why didn’t a Rolling Stone writer talk to the alleged perpetrators of a gang rape at the University of Virginia?)
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/author-of-rolling-stone-story-on-alleged-u-va-rape-didnt-talk-to-accused-perpetrators/2014/12/01/e4c19408-7999-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html (Title: Author of Rolling Stone article on alleged U-Va. rape didn’t talk to accused perpetrators)
• http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/rolling_stone_uva_rape.php (Title: Rolling Stone’s omission in UVA article proves problematic)

That in mind, keeping these allegations here is, at this point, a potential WP:BLP violation. Samboy (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, and the new sources reflects poorly on the Rolling Stone article. I don't think deleting the entire section is the correct way to address this, though. A large part of the Rolling Stone article[6] deals with other, uncontested sexual assault claims against the fraternity at the UVA (notably on page 5). Since this has national implications for Phi Kappa Psi, and has been covered in other media, is it still worth mentioning?

Regarding the more recent incident, I would be very, very alarmed if the article named the alleged perpetrators, but mentioning the incident's existence doesn't seem to be on the same scale, WP:BLP-wise. In fact, sources specifically don't name the individuals involved at all. Using these new sources to explain the situation seems like the appropriate way to go, rather than deleting the entire thing. Grayfell (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the content with the new sources added. The sources about the reporting seem to express that the reporter should've made it clearer that she was unable to reach the alleged rapists, or that she should've tried harder to do so. That's not really enough, in my opinion, to ignore the entire story, especially when several sources are reporting on it, a chapter was closed, the chapterhouse was vandalized, etc. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The sense I am getting from reading reliable sources is that we can’t tell if the story is true or not since Ederly did not do enough due diligence; indeed, the Slate article explicitly says this isn’t just some procedural glitch. There are now a number of sources questioning Erdely's reporting; I have expanded the paragraph in to an entire section about Erdely’s article, the reaction it caused, and the subsequent reliable sources questioning Erdely’s reporting. I don’t like the “some” wording, but that’s the wording a reliable source (CJW) used: "some are now questioning whether her story is true at all" [7]; that is also why I added a WP:NEWSBLOG source, so there’s at least one named doubter. While we need to be really careful about possible WP:BLP violations, considering the amount of press this is now getting, and the reaction it generated, it may be better to discuss it in full. Samboy (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've slightly reworded and expanded. This is tying into a larger issue of the psychology of rape, how to respect rape survivors while still prosecuting criminals, false rape accusations, and large collection of other things that have very little to do with the fraternity. Still, leaving it out completely would do a disservice to the article. It's worth noting that BLP also applies to the reporter, so we should be cautious when making claims about her professional competence. I'm sure this could be condensed into something much shorter and clearer, but brevity isn't my strength, unfortunately. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to make this more concise. I have reduced this whole soap opera in to a quick two sentence summary, without getting rid of any of the references. There are a lot of important issues being touched upon which go well beyond the scope of this fraternity and I agree we should keep this as short as possible. If this whole allegation continues to generate a lot of press, it should be in its own Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That'll work. I'm a little skeptical that this would work as a WP:NEWSEVENT article, especially without WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE but time will tell. Grayfell (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the story is ongoing. I've added more sources (tip of the hat to User:BlueSalix). Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to see my comments on this question on the University of Virginia Talk page. deisenbe (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's an update on the rape story as posted on a different Wikipedia page. The left hand knoweth not...

A Rape on Campus

☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request - add additional information

This statement "On April 5, 2015 Rolling Stone retracted the story. Sabrina Erdely publicly apologized for the article on the same day." should include the fact she did not apologize to the fraternity. She mentions that it was a painful time for her but said nothing of the problems she caused the fraternity.

"Rolling Stone journalist Sabrina Rubin Erdely issued an apology for her discredited UVA rape article on Sunday, but the three-paragraph statement did not apologize to the falsely accused fraternity members, nor university administrators Erdely accused of turning a deaf ear to rape victims."

"The past few months, since my Rolling Stone article 'A Rape on Campus' was first called into question, have been among the most painful of my life," she wrote, according to The New York Times. "Reading the Columbia account of the mistakes and misjudgments in my reporting was a brutal and humbling experience. I want to offer my deepest apologies: to Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the U.V.A. community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article," she continued.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/rolling-stone-uva-apology-sabrina-rubin-erdely/2015/04/06/id/636616/

Ammobox (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120208084949/http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/ud-fraternity-center-of-hazing-investigation to http://www.wdtn.com/dpp/news/ud-fraternity-center-of-hazing-investigation
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130621193340/http://www.cornellsun.com/node/56530 to http://cornellsun.com/node/56530

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204112024/http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/ud-fraternity-accused-hazing/nHSDL/ to http://www.whiotv.com/news/news/local/ud-fraternity-accused-hazing/nHSDL/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323185024/http://viewer.zmags.com/htmlCat/index.php?mid=rprthh&pageid=5 to http://viewer.zmags.com/htmlCat/index.php?mid=rprthh&pageid=5

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64xPF0Dxy?url=http://www.phikappapsi.com/News/Action/Index/ArizonaAlphaCharterRevoked to http://www.phikappapsi.com/News/Action/Index/ArizonaAlphaCharterRevoked

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105072516/http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/3403142/1984234184/name/Award%20winners%3B%20SMC%20speech%20text.pdf to http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/3403142/1984234184/name/Award%2Bwinners%3B%2BSMC%2Bspeech%2Btext.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323185024/http://viewer.zmags.com/htmlCat/index.php?mid=rprthh&pageid=5 to http://viewer.zmags.com/htmlCat/index.php?mid=rprthh&pageid=5

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823195621/http://oregonalpha.com/pkp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=28 to http://oregonalpha.com/pkp/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090612071942/http://people.brandeis.edu/~adamce/assets/applets/PHI_shield_1205_1_Shield1.pdf to http://people.brandeis.edu/~adamce/assets/applets/PHI_shield_1205_1_Shield1.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

1880 GAC and Woodrow Wilson

I've added that Woodrow Wilson was a delegate at the 1880 GAC. I'm a bit uncertain if this is appropriate, so other opinions are welcome. NYCRuss ☎ 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)