Talk:Phi Kappa Psi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Phi Kappa Psi is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
ΦΚΨ This user is a brother of the
Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity

Vivimus et Vigimus
For the Phi Kappa Psi userbox, copy {{User Phi Kappa Psi}} to your user page
To add the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject userbox, copy {{Template:User Fraternities Sororities}} to your user page

Conflict of interest notifications[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[1].Pogovasse (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

  • 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:
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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:

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[1] 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" [2]; 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[edit]

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.

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

  1. ^