Talk:Lambda Phi Epsilon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

University of Texas at Austin Details

Due to a lack of citations, I have deleted the second paragraph of the University of Texas at Austin section which gave purported details on the incident. The existing citation led to which is a page that is not found. Skandalicious 08:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment 1

What troubles me is the fact that the actions of individual members of this particular fraternity have been singled out and is dangerously close to being misconstrued as endorsed by Lambda Phi Epsilon, Inc. While I can't speak for the Lambda Phi Epsilon national board, I don't believe that these charges (ie: drug possession, shootings, etc) has anything to do with the fraternity itself. Just because P -> Q and Q -> Z does not make P equal to Z. In this case, it can read fraternity -> member, member -> drugs, does not equal fraternity -> drugs. I am leaving the Kenny Leoung section as-is because although some members may take offense to it, it did happen during a fraternity sanctioned event (to my knowledge). If anyone has any further information regarding it, please post. Thanks all for contributing to this page and let's try to keep it civil and not go back to any revert wars (they're more of a pain in the ass than anything). edit: Perhaps we should wait for offical police investigation results regarding Leoung? Thoughts? -Timlee 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a fair thing to say. The Leung section should stay in. Please feel free to add to it as the police investigation makes progress (I'm not aware of any as of late). You say, "While I can't speak for the Lambda Phi Epsilon national board, I don't believe that these charges (ie: drug possession, shootings, etc) has anything to do with the fraternity itself." -- you must realize that as members of the fraternity and as people living in the fraternity house, these things ARE relevant. What is a fraternity without members? Also, please inform me of what your national board actually DOES since they seem to have not taken a stance on anything even slightly controversial in ages. Indeed, the seeming lack of intervention by your national fraternity is what upsets me so much and why I think many of these events ARE in fact relevant. With little centralized control, it's people like your UCI chapter that basically run the national fraternity. Iheartwiki19 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Iheartwiki19 - A fraternity is nothing without its members and nothing but role-model behavior is expected of each individual. However, the fraternity cannot be held responsible for every single action of its members outside of sanctioned events. Being from a large fraternity yourself, I'm sure you can relate to that. In regard to the inner workings of the national board, as an alumni, I'm far out of the loop on these matters. If you would like an official response to these inquries, it would be best to contact the National Board directly via the website at Also, with no disrespect intended, your statements above as well as your edit history made it very clear to me that you dislike, hate even, this fraternity. Fine. While everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, let's keep this on the disussion page and not let it spill over to the article. Thanks. -Timlee 07:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a somewhat close relationship with the Lambdas and have seen the frightening culture of hazing that surrounds most chapters. I also am aware that your national office is much less involved than the offices of other national fraternities. This is why I think things like the UCI incidence are, if anything, more relevant than similar incidents in other fraternities. The UCI chapter was NOT suspended by the national organization, but only by the school. Any other national fraternity would have revoked the chapter's charter. Iheartwiki19 15:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Timlee

Timlee removed the discussion from the page and posted this comment: [1]. Timlee, I'm assuming that because your are new, you didn't realize that removing the previously posted comments was a bad idea, so I'm not going to worry about it. I already left a note on your Talk page explaining that you should not remove comments from Talk pages. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 04:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that and will remember that for all my future Wikipedia edits. -Timlee 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Timlee I moved the Kenny Luong section up a level and renamed it to improve the page's flow. I agree it was inappropriate in the History section. -Iheartwiki19 08:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So far, you are pretty much the only editor insisting on including this section as opposed to letting it remain in external links. Based on edit history, I'm going to say that the majority of the editors choose to not have a section addressing this issue. I don't feel that it should be left off the page so I'm going to leave the link in External Links. Unless there is a convincing reason why not, I'm going to make these edits tomorrow AM.- previous unsigned comment by Timlee 00:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you should leave the edits in. From Talk page discussion, it seems that you are opposed to the section, whereas Iheartwiki and myself feel the issue needs to be addressed (but I also feel the section on Pi Kappa Phi should stay in as well. See my recent comment on Talk:Pi Kappa Phi.
I am not against the section itself. There are a few things I do have a problem with. The first is that Iheartwiki19 states that this was part of a hazing ritual. Regardless of how you look at it, it is POV. The closest article I can find to justify this is an AP article mirrored here. The relevant section I snipped here: "Police had no information that criminal activity led to Luong's death, Love said. "But given the fact that it was part of a pledging activity, we wanted to make sure," he said, adding that detectives were interviewing players and spectators Tuesday. I'm too exhausted to make these edits to the page now but I will do so tomorrow. The second is that there has been no word from Lambda Phi Epsilon national board and given the controvertial topic and the possibility of a legal case, I'm not sure if this is the doing of lawyers or what. This is a fall down on their part and I'm registering for convention and flying out there just to bring this issue up. The third and final issue is with Iheartwiki19's past edits and how they are blatantly biased against Lambda Phi Epsilon. While I'm glad that he has shown restraint in putting POV recently, I'm concerned by the fact that he twice reverted the Pi Kappa Phi page to remove the two sections I added in. I suppose the third item isn't exactly relevant but it does show me the true nature of his intentions. Long-windedness aside, having used Wikipedia as a reference since its inception (only recently have I registered to contribute), I really want to try to create an impartial article that upholds the standards of Wikipedia. But as long as someone has an agenda, it is frustrating to do so. -Timlee 02:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Timlee, I apologize for initiatlly not writing from a completely NPOV. Please examine the page as it stands now. There were originally several articles in the Los Angeles Times about this incident, but they are dead links now. I linked to one mirrored on a blog a while back, but I think the link was lost in edits. Additionally, just because police don't have the information doesn't mean that the event happening during a pledging activity is not suspicious. There is a very tight code of secrecy in all fraternities, and the suspicions that police and administrators had should not be disregarded. Additionally, one of the other young men pledging with Luong came out and said that it was a hazing activity. Regards. Iheartwiki19 02:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The title of one of the LA Times articles was "Asian Frat in Spotlight After Death." This [2] used to link to the article, but is no longer available. Here's some snippets [] from it. Also, I commend you for intending to bring up your national organization's response to this event at your convention. Iheartwiki19 02:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Is there evidence available to support this somewhat POV edit to the page? Some kind of citation would be a good thing. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In my recent searches on Luong, I haven't found any article that supports this. He may very well have been in an accident but there hasn't been any news reporting on that. I would vote to delete the commented section. -Timlee 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. The pledges have come forward and testified. This is all the evidence you need.

National Recognition

I checked the website, and the wikipedia page for the North-American Interfraternity Conference in reference to recognition. Lambda Phi Epsilon is still listed under this National Conference. --Danngo 20:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Texas Section

Someone that knows needs to clarify between crossing, initiation, installation, etc. AntiG, you're being POV saying that people are not forced to drink. You weren't there (and if you were you're violating wikipedia's no original research guidelines) so you really don't know. Iheartwiki19 00:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think, as a brother myself, I'd know the difference between crossing, initiation, installation, etc. I'm not being POV because being pressured to drink is not the same as being forced to drink. It was a party for godsakes, not some sort of ritualized hazing. People overdrink at college parties, regardless if its fraternity related or not. Don't make this incident to be more than it really is. AntiG
All the same, you gotta cite it. Iheartwiki19 11:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a message board

This is an online encyclopedia, not a message board. Anything that has been reported by the media can be included here regardless of people's feelings. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 00:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This information seems to be from a biased POV.

Starting with the statement "first and only nationally recognized Asian-Interest fraternity based in the United States." I've done some research and this seems to be a very opinionated statement, seeing as their are other National Asian-interest fraternities that began earlier than Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity. I understand that Lambda Phi Epsilon may be recognized as being part of the NIC but many of the chapters are not part of the NIC or any other council at all. Some are recognized only as student organizations, not as an official fraternity at all. Therefore, stating that this fraternity is THE FIRST and ONLY nationally recognized Asian-interest fraternity may be misleading. Please be unbiased towards all organizations, fraternities, etc. and state the facts. 21:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC) T. Redford


I believe that this section (Controversial Deaths) of the article on Lambda Phi Epsilon is quite unfair to be posted on this website. There has been no verdict in any of these cases nor has the Irvine chapter been charged. Why i believe this is unfair is not because these events are being published on this site, but the fact that NO other organizations have a section like this on their page. It is a known fact that other organizations such as Sigma Pi, Beta Theta Pi, etc all have had incidences where such occurences have happened.

For example, the San Jose incident, Alam was a victim of a murder. The person who committed the crime of stabbing the brother to death was closely affiliated with Pi Alpha Phi. However, there is no article linked to the Pi Alpha Phi page, even though some of their xangas and profiles online include the words "lambda killaz".

If posting news articles and published papers on Wikipedia regarding the organization is fair, why are there no other articles linked to the water hazing deaths of mainstream Greek fraternities? Is it because they are more well protected behind the millions of dollars they take from their members? If we want to speak locally, an affiliate of Beta Theta Pi, UC Irvine, was convicted of raping and stabbing a woman, carving swastikas on her body. However, the organization is actively back on the campus. Such examples are of pre-meditated actions whereas we are imcriminating Lambda Phi Epsilon for an accident that happened during a sporting event.

Oh, and as a little FYI, the "evidence" posted here are testimonials from Pomona students. However, did Daniel Dai ever mention that he has self proclaimed to have been a member of Sunny Side Wah-Ching in Southern California? Listening to a gang member who has committed pre-meditated crimes would not be legit in my book.

Due to this injustice of posting, I will continue to delete these articles in this section until further action is taken to include such sections in all pages for other fraternities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crazytrip (talkcontribs) 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Uhhh there's a civil law suit against Lambda Phi Epsilon if you're not aware.... they ARE being charged.! d=5241708

I will agree that there has not been a verdict YET. but nonetheless there is a law suit that is clear and apparent. -shin2chin

There has been a debate about controversial incidents that have occured in relation to fraternities. For a prime example,please see Phi Kappa Psi and its talk page. Samwisep86 06:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the reason why it's included is because it's cited. For better or worse, anything can be included in Wikipedia if it is cited. As far as Beta Theta Pi at UC Irvine is concerned, that person you are referring to was never part of Beta. He was only a pledge for about a week and his actions never took place during a fraternity event whereas the incident at UCI concerning Lambda Phi Epsilon was a fraternity event and therefore involved the group as a whole. The UCI Betas were kicked out over a hazing incident. I know, because I was there during that time. They're back because they've already served their suspension --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 06:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Changing the information structure on the main page

The flow of the information currently is in the following order: Convention, History, and then Chapters. For better flow of information, I suggest that the sections be reordered as: History, Chapters, Convention. (Convention is a congregation of all 46 chapters, which would be more appropriately placed after the Chapters portion.)

If anyone disagrees to this, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll go ahead and make the change. Pinto a 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)