Talk:Lambda Phi Epsilon

/Archive 1

Serious problems

1. This article is little more than a rather inflated and exaggerated (especially in terms of touting its community service activities, based on what I've seen over the years) promo piece for the fraternity and a tribute to those named in it, and because of this, violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). To be sure, the article is almost totally unencyclopedic.
2. It is mostly unreferenced.
3. It was obviously written by members and/or alumni of the fraternity, so there is a problem with conflict of interest.
4. Because of the problems mentioned above, it is in desperate need of clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards.

I hope someone will accept these comments not as an insult. Rather, they are intended to inspire editors to bring it up to the quality that Wikipedia articles should have. -- 208.127.79.104 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I edited the page changing the wording from "Lambda Phi Epsilon is dedicated to" to "Lambda Phi Epsilon's goals include" so it seems less biased. On top of that, I added DJ JTrix as notable alumni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.12.231 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

1) the article is fine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.200.253 (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article is fine, you obviously aren't familiar (or don't care) about Wikipedia standards. This article actually fails those standards in several ways. No offense intended, but if the intent is to use Wikipedia as a recruitment vehicle for the fraternity, the article succeeds in fine fashion, while at the same time, violating Wikipedia policies. But if the intent is to provide a factual (and verifiable) article that is balanced and is written in a neutral point of view, then the article fails quite badly. This criticism is meant to get the article fixed, not to insult, denigrate, etc. -- 208.127.79.104 05:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The verbiage of this page could definitely be changed. It does come from a non-neutral POV. However, its not like the whole article is problematic. The only part I say that I would question is the first paragraph. That totally sounds like a recruitment line. The rest of the article, although it may seem cool and recruitment like, is factual. I don't really see the problem with everything else, regardless of who wrote it. As long as its not trying to unnecessarily promote the organization, which only the first paragraph really does. And yes, I am a member. Adamchou 08:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be factual, but how does anyone other than a member know that, since the article doesn't cite a single, verifiable reference? And you said it yourself...if the article is "recruitment-like," it is not written in an encyclopedic style, and that must be addressed as well. -- 208.127.79.104 10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

To 208.127.79.104: I've been waiting to make a revision to make the article NPOV... but something you have to understand about Greek organizations is that there isn't a lot of publicly-documented information from mainstream media outlets. For example, look at Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Sigma Nu. If you're gonna carry out a whole crusade about unsourced articles, or articles that only cite their national website, then you better hit up those pages as well. Otherwise you're pretty much editing Lambda Phi Epsilon because of some issue that you have against their organization. And maybe the conflict of interest that you flagged the page with is your conflict of interest. Pinto A 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I flagged this article because I do know some people who were in it at one time, so I have a very, very, very minor interest. Don't care about other Greek organizations at all. My ONLY concern is accuracy and that the article follow Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, verifiablity, conflict of interest, etc. I'm not contributing to the article, so please spare me the conflict of interest accusation. Seems more like a cop-out to me. And yes, I realize that there isn't a lot of published material in mainstream media outlets about fraternities and sororities, especially ones not considered to be part of the mainstream. However, that is not an excuse for an article to not follow WP:VERIFY. There are other ways to get verifiable references. In the end, my objections are not about the fraternity or its members. Rather, it is about the poor quality of this article and its problems that should be fixed so that the article meets Wikipedia's standards. It's current form does not even come close. -- 208.127.79.104 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the introduction should be rewritten to be encyclopedic in nature. However, the second paragraph about the history is the factual history of the fraternity. I don't see how anything in there is to promote the fraternity. Additionally, if you need it to be verified, I'm verifying that right now. What more do you need? A newspaper article to publish a member saying that its the truth? What Pinto said is precisely the problem with you objectifying this article. You should go around and start objecting all the other organizations. Although your motives to "cleanse" Wikipedia are great, singling out this article does raise some questions and does make it seem like it is your conflict of interest with this organization and not all organizations that have pages with uncited and possibly biased content. Finally, "recruitment-like" does not mean its not worthy of Wikipedia. I read about how the US Airforce does very intriguing research and flies fighter jets. I wanted to join because of a lot of the research I did. Therefore, its recruitment-like. However, whats wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, just as there is very little wrong with this article. Adamchou 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While it may very well be factual, it is not verfiable. You claiming that it factual is irrelevant because that would be classified as original research, which also violates Wikipedia policies. As I stated before, i could care less about other fraternity/sorority articles--I don't really know anyone in other Greek organizations. Even with the Lambdas, I only know a few, so my interest in this article is a passing one, at best. I just ran across this article one day, found it to be lacking in terms of all the things I mentioned above. The fact is, as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned, this article doesn't even come close to meeting them, and it does indeed read more like a recruitment piece than an encyclopedia article, and that violates Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view. Again, I understand that it is a challenge to find verifiable references in this case. But that is not an excuse. There are other ways to get verifiable references, and I'm sure there are potential authors who can locate such information. If this article is ever to reach GA or FA status, these issues must be addressed. Of course, if the purpose is to use Wikipedia as a recruitment vehicle for the fraternity, the article currently serves that purpose well, although I'm sure use of Wikipedia in that manner violates their policies as well. -- 208.127.79.104 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn man, do u have anything else better to do with ur time? honestly, its wikipedia. chill the fuck out.<--- to 208.127.79.104 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.37.242 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously written by someone who doesn't know anything about Wikipedia articles...or worse yet, a Lambda with a vested interest in keeping this article as a recuitment piece as opposed to a legitimate Wikipedia article. -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the mention of three deaths associated with the fraternity can hardly be called a "recruitment piece". --71.106.158.80 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But the rest of the article does read like a recruitment brochure. -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of editing, how has the wikipedia page of Pi Alpha Phi removed the Controversy in San Jose State University? Does that mean it can be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.113.29 (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To Above: What are you talking about? It's still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.165.13.193 (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

editing/removing "Binghamton University" in controversy

Don't see the relevance between a section titled "Controversy" and a drunken car accident. Doesn't quite fit the context of the section nor the tones of the other three items. Lshutfupe (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see it as being related to the fraternity, other than that it was an incident involving fraternity members. (As opposed to hazing allegations, which are more directly related to the fraternity.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Binghamton article should be left in because it reflects a drunk driving accident involving new initiates having recently engaged in forced alcohol consumption. 138.23.2.34 (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)