Talk:Upsilon Sigma Phi/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Upsilon Sigma Phi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

unreferenced

The "Upsilonians in Government" heading DOES NOT cite its references. Please don't remove the tag until references are given. --Storkk 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List removed

I've removed the list, obviously. Wikipedia is not a list. Including a short list of alumni is allowable but should be limited to very prominent persons, and have encyclopedic content, and not merely be indescriminate lists of almost every Upsilonian who's ever got a goverment position. Moray An Par (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Moray An Par said short list is allowable. So a short list was added. 173.10.139.205 (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No what I meant was a list of around 5 notable people. External links are very much discouraged (aka not allowed). A good indicator of their notability is that they have Wikipedia articles. Since there is a considerable number of notable Upsilonians, please consider creating List of Upsilon Sigma Phi brothers. You can use List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers, a feature list (meaning top-quality), as basis. Be careful not to include non-notable members. See WP:Politician and WP:Professor test for the notability guidelines for politicians and academics since many Upsilonians belong to that.

I'll remove the external links and limit the list to those who are most notable. Moray An Par (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand you can make it as a membership section, detailing how aspirant become part of the frat, membership statistics: how many UP presidents, congressmen, SC judges etc were Upsilonians. There is no specific guideline governing frats and soros. But if you're interested, you can use existing featured articles (such as Alpha Phi Alpha) as basis. It'll also be a lot better if notable members in this article are presented in prose, not as an extensive list. PS About the 5 notable people suggestion, you may ignore that. There is no defined number. Just don't make it too long. Moray An Par (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Upsilon Sigma Phi leaks scandal

This article is essentially just a lead with little other information, now that the contentious stuff has been gutted. There's no reason to keep it as a separate article when everything that's verifiable can be contained within a paragraph or two at the main article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I tried discussing the "gutting" with the author who gutted back in November, but I think we both got distracted. The idea that most of the contentious stuff would be deleted under BLP doesn't make any sense to me.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Disagree - The material has been restored, and most of it seems to comply with Wikipedia's rules as I understand them. Even if some of that restored content eventually gets deleted, I think the leaks article should stay. - Koakaulana (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I object to the wholesale restoration; at the very least I think the content needs to be trimmed significantly. My objections to the restored content are two-fold. First, there's the quotations of the released texts, which I strongly disagree with. There's no confirmation that the material was actually from USP members. It's all "supposedly" or "allegedly" from them. So we're quoting this huge swath of nasty insults that a bunch of USP people apparently said, without having any reliable confirmation that it's legitimate and not a smear job. (Whether or not someone would go to the trouble of that I have no idea; I'm a white girl from Canada so I don't particularly have a pony in this race except a desire for WP to adhere to NPOV). I really don't think we should be quoting all that stuff in WP's voice unless or until there's more reliable confirmation as to whether the material is legitimate.

Second, the responses portion is unnecessarily huge. We're not a newspaper, we're not here to report on and extensively quote individual peoples' responses to controversies unless there's some importance to them or their opinion. If the president of the Philippines had an opinion on the matter, it would be encyclopedic and possibly worth quoting at length, but the opinion of random USP members is not particularly encyclopedic. At the very least, that section should be significantly reduced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Upsilon Sigma Phi leaks scandal was deleted on 15 September 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upsilon Sigma Phi leaks scandal, making this discussion moot. wbm1058 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Recent edits show a pattern of edits from a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, including removal of well-sourced material. Article is tagged for now per WP:SOAPBOX, and must be rewritten to conform to WP:NPOV. Wikpedian8888 (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Cavalcades.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Massive reformat

I've just come across this article and it honestly reeks of WP:NPOV and WP:N. Fleshing everything out, like single-take inclusions of members without any significant contributions to ΥΣΦ. The entire history section doesn't even describe ΥΣΦ's history, but rather the history of their members. If I removed all of the contributions that ΥΣΦ themselves made (not their members), I might cut out a large majority of the article. So I'll be reformatting this page to cut out all things that aren't needed or conflict policy, and I'll also edit by change to make everything clear. If I cut out something per WP:N or WP:NPOV, please give me a proper reason why I should bring the part(s) back. If you have any comments, leave it here or on my talk page. Chlod (say hi!) 04:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like this is just a collection of the member's achievements, not achievements of the fraternity itself. I might put this up on AfD for a second nomination, but I'll have a look at other pages to make sure. Chlod (say hi!) 04:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)