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)

I don't understand why the Controversy section is included. In just about every Wikipedia article talking about a greek organization, any controversy section (or similar) has been left out on the grounds that it "shines a negative light" on the organization, therefore is construed as biased (reference the SAE article). Can someone give me a compelling reason why the section remains on the Lambda Phi Epsilon page? Timlee (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Omitting something factual because it casts a negative light on a subject isn't biased? That's bias by omission. Wikipedia articles are supposed be written from a neutral point of view. If those articles are missing negative topics simply because it shines that negative light, that article is in violation of the NPOV policy. Now...if those topic aren't notable in relation to the subject, that's another matter. In this case, the controversies listed appear to be notable and significant. Now...the Controversy section also needs to be written from neutral point of view and, as with everything else on Wikipedia, it must be properly cited using verifiable sources. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok seriously I don't understand this at all. Can someone please explain why every single negative thing about Lambdas is in this article and yet other greeks don't even have such a "controversy" section as timlee pointed out (just as some random extreme examples, deaths in kappa alpha psi at Southeast Missouri State University or in Sigma Chi at Oklahoma University aren't even mentioned on their wikipedia sites)? They certainly appear to be "notable" and "significant". And where do you draw the line? When is it not notable anymore? Is the suspension of the chapter in Northwestern University really that significant? So then every greek organization needs to have *every* incident of suspension (in every single chapter that has been suspended) listed on their wikipedia sites? That would be absolutely ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles 2k4 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

well like somebody said earlier, if you want to place a controversy section on other fraternity's wikipedias like they have done with lambda phi epsilon here. I don't think if the incident is notable that it would be neglected. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

yes agreed, there a lot of biased possible lambda phi epsilon members here crying foul about the negative light this Wikipedia shines on their organization, but yet doing nothing about adding controversy sections to other fraternal wikis. If there is a significant events with a verifiable source feel free to take it upon yourselves to contribute to Wikipedia. Ceasing to kill people every now and then would help too, from what I can see in the controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ceasing to kill people every now and then would help too" Thanks for that absolutely unnecessary flamebaiting remark. I'm sure that will make you look like a very neutral wiki editor here. How exactly do two incidents allow you to condemn all of us? For almost any major greek organization that has grown big enough, unfortunate incidents happen. And it's a tragedy. But it does not mean you can just generalize the remaining thousands of us based on the actions of a few minority. And why should we add controversy sections to other fraternal wikis? We have nothing against them... but if you guys are *truly* unbiased, neutral, and are really just anti-hazing and want to denounce greeks in general that have a few negative incidents associated with them, maybe it's your job to do so. Be fair about it. But I'm sure, you want to just keep writing about us, and us alone, because clearly you have something just against our organization. So much for NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles 2k4 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The "ceasing to kill people" remark was a joke. I've updated many Greek wikipedias, not Lambda Phi Epsilon alone. The illusion of bias is yours alone, and you've made it clear you don't possess a NPOV by your affiliation with this fraternity in question. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also find it surprising that, as of right now, the same controversy regarding the fight in san jose university is only on our page and not on pi alpha phi's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles 2k4 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It's still there, although I don't think a member of Lambda Phi Epsilon should be concerned about a specific wikipedia entry where there is a conflict of interest. Clearly, being a member of your organization gives you that bias. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a serious lack of relevance on all the issues listed under controversy. Some of the stuff is just not relevant, the rest are not found in any other fraternity's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifedaffyduck (talk • contribs) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I just went through every single fraternity page in NIC and this is the only fraternity with a Controversy section. It is either we have to update every single incident, including those of personal conducts and suspended chapter functions, to every single fraternity page; or we take off the Controversy section as following the standard. I do not think personal grudge or rivalry can improve the quality of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rommeltw (talk • contribs) 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly the only fraternity with a controversy section, you must have no been looking very hard. Have you checked Pi Alpha Phi? If you want to add a contraversy section to a NIC fraternity you can start with Delta Tau Delta right here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28wabash.html

That is a SIGNIFICANT article right there, and I'd like to see you take the initiative instead of complaining. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how this conversation is going anywhere so I am just going to keep deleting the Controversy section until I see one in every single fraternity page or until some people with malicious agenda stop doing it. Also I propose the removal of some of the flagged issues (I am not going to do it though). As a fraternity member myself, it is understandable to me that certain rituals and operations we perform are secretive, as traditions cannot survive if they are exposed to the general public. So there go the citations and references. This is especially true for a young fraternity such as Lambda Phi Epsilon. I seriously doubt if any organization, with not even 30 years of history, and with a weak national governing body (as shown in UC Irvine case), can come up with any type of the references that some people seek for. This will remain the same until the organization grows more mature and start having its own publications. But until then, I think it is utterly unfair for us to wreck an organization's reputation just because it is still immature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.151.56 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. Just because other articles don't have controversy sections doesn't mean the section should be deleted from this one as well. Also, this is hardly the only article on a Greek letter organization to have a controversies section. Repeatedly deleting the section from this article without discussing the matter is not going to help the situation, either. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

"Wrecking a reputation" and "fairness" to the organization's reputation has absolutely nothing to do with any portion of this wiki and is an irrelevant argument for deletion of content. All notable events backed by sources are documented appropriately. As C. Fred stated, this is hardly the first Greek organization with a "controversy" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added in some additional information and corrected a citation for the UC Irvine "controversy piece." The previous entry cited an article verbatim without a reference. I also added in additional information that was found in that article and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.194.19 (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to speak out of turn, but I was wondering - in the midst of this controversy discussion - would it be out of turn to ask for the information on local fraternity absorptions as it is explicit fraternity action? Specifically, in the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenSugar (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in over a year, but I just stumbled back onto it and notice that there continue to be the exact same problems. It remains little more than biased recruitment piece for the fraternity. I have nothing against the Lambdas...have friends who were once Lambdas. But this piece currently violates a bunch of Wikipedia policies, which I have noted by adding the multiple issues template to the article. -- 99.98.1.89 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2010 (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)

I see nothing in the article stating anything you've claimed. All it says is that the people involved in the car accident were members of the fraternity. Pinto A (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

editing/removing "Ann Arbor" in controversy

Seriously, this is under the same category as the car accident. This isn't even in the same league as a fatal stabbing or hazing-related deaths. Even some of these can be contested due to, as mentioned above, a lack of controversy sections for all the other fraternities who have done the same thing. Given the clear discrepancy and the tendency of people to put every little thing in this section, I think people are being a little biased. The car accident? A young man who happened to be a Lambda DIED, show him some respect. And as everyone who has gone through college knows, stupid incidents occur when many people drink together. Are we to take note of every little incident and use it to reflect an entire organization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.237.169 (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

My take is that nothing says it's related to the organization, other than that the person involved was a member, so it's not significant to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

the article states that it was a lambda phi epsilon fraternity party held at the lambda phi epsilon fraternity house, therefore I do not feel it falls into the same category as a member passing away from a drunk driving accident. it is an irrelevant arguement to state that we should not take note of "every little incident"? Do I sense a conflict of interest here between maintaining an accurate and comprehensive wiki and that interests of a possible member of Lambda Phi Epsilon? The fact is that a innocent bystander was stabbed by a samurai sword by a fraternity member. How is this the same as a drunk driving accident? - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues in play. The first is that the text was lifted wholesale from [1], so I've removed it for infringement of copyright. The second is whether it's notable. I'll agree that getting stabbed with a samurai sword meets the "man bites dog" guideline for whether the event is newsworthy, but I'm not convinced it's relevant to the fraternity. I also note that the article says that a "resident" stabbed him with the sword and not a fraternity member. Are we sure it was a fraternity member and not a non-member living in the house? —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll address all your issues: 1) The blurb does need editing to fall under fair use, fair enough. 2) It is relevant to the fraternity because a "resident" of the house stabbed another person. 820 Oxford Road is a house zoned fraternity (http://www.michiganhousinglocator.rentlinx.com/Property.aspx?PropertyID=1767). Non-fraternity members do not live at designated fraternity houses, as per usual fraternity policy. Futhermore here is an update confirming that the stabber was indeed, a member of Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity (http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2009/01/swordwielding_fraternity_ninja.html). So now that we have the identity confirmed, your last statement was 'relevance to the fraternity', and the real question is if it follows "man bites dog" journalistic guidelines... does every controversy with the Lambda Phi Epsilon wiki have to be related to a death in order to be properly chronicled? Are we saying a man lunging at another man with a samurai sword isn't worthy of being in this wiki? I supposed that's the real question, but irregardless I believe this article (and we should cite both links for clarification) is relevant to this Lambda Phi Epsilon wiki if we are to be followed, and we wish to maintain the most up-to-date accurate wiki. I'd like to note on a sorority's wiki, alpha kappa delta phi in lieu of a controversy section (which I believe should have one as well), they detail a "fish rap live" incident with UC santa cruz spoof newspaper "Fish Rap Live". If an article from a gag newspaper is relevant to alpha kappa delta phi sorority, why wouldn't a samurai wielding fraternity boy be for lambda phi epsilon then?75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little annoyed by all the talk on this discussion page. So you say that people who fail to see all events as "relevant to the fraternity" are "possible members of Lambda Phi Epsilon" and "biased"? How about I use the same argument? Those who are trying to put every incident about this fraternity are biased and possible members of rival fraternities. Get it? In any case, this incident is not relevant to the entire fraternity, especially since the victim walked away from the incident with just a scratch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.254.151 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is an update i believe confirming the previous news article: http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2009/01/swordwielding_fraternity_ninja.html. And if said resident does live at 820 Oxford, it is zoned fraternity residence in Ann Arbor. Furthermore, I don't believe it's relevant that it's "just a scratch". A fraternity member lunged at somebody with a samurai sword at a party - that sounds rather controversial and noteworthy to me (see my "fish rap live" comment in previous comment). The fact that you bring up the severity of the man's wounds into question as being of relevance to the importance of the article brings into question your particular bias. A "scratch" from a samurai sword counts as ASSAULT AND BATTERY in most places of the world. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, can we accept that this person was arrested for what he did which I think puts it over the top for relevance... It's not like he was given the stern finger by the police officer and sent about his business. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

After review of the blog post, I don't see that adding anything source-wise, as blogs aren't generally reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though it's the exact same news source as the the original article, it's not reliable? I think we're arguing semantics rather than the facts. Fact: The address is zoned fraternity, Fact: If using google maps, there is clearly lambda phi epsilon on the front of the address in huge greek letters, Fact: residents of a fraternity house are more than likely, undoubtedly fraternity members. If the identity is such into question, than we can use the term "resident" of Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity house because this is a LEGALLY ZONED AND RECOGNIZED FRATERNITY HOUSE ADDRESS IN ANN ARBOR! I would like to point toward the aforementioned Pi Alpha Phi wiki that the stabbing of the lambda phi epsilon was not done by a member of EITHER FRATERNITY, but a man named Long Duy Tran as cited in the article. I look at this incident in the same light that if a stabbing happened at a fraternity party EVEN if it was done by a "resident" and not a fraternity member (which it is 99% likely) we cannot ignore the precedent set by the Pi Alpha Phi article! I would like to state that I don't believe somebody has to die for a stabbing incident on fraternity property TO BE RECOGNIZED AS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO PUT ON WIKI. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise like I've seen on the Alpha Kappa Delta Phi Fish Rap Live incident and create a different section, as I believe from edits previously it used to be under "Controversy" but now is under an "See Also" section. One could argue the insignificance of said Fish Rap Live Controversy, I for one would like to see some continuity, consistency, and integrity in these fraternal wikis, and I believe it should begin now. There have been numerous other articles and events of note I believe DELETED and endlessly ARGUED over by BIASED members of Lambda Phi Epsilon. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This right here, seems to me very professional and having a very good NVOP standard. I went over your history and you seem to have a genuine, and sole interest and concerns about Lambda Phi Epsilon. If you want what is fair, then start putting on some arguments on any other, ANY, fraternity page, including Pi Alpha Phi, since they were involved with the San Jose incident as well, which should be pretty easy to you since you know all about Lambda's dirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.151.56 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You want consistency and continuity? As said before, create a controversy section for every fraternity and put every little thing about them in it. I don't even see one thing for most fraternities when there have been news stories about them as well. And if you want to include that someone got scratched and barely injured here, you're going to have to include every minor incident everywhere else, because apparently stories that make it to a couple local websites reflect an entire organization right? So before you call other people biased for not thinking a scratch is important, try enforcing your consistency and continuity elsewhere, where there isn't so much as a controversy section to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.237.169 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I've said before, assault and battery is usually illegal. The said member was arrested. I hardly think it's a "scratch" if the police arrested him for attacking the partygoer with a samurai sword. I've yet to see a really good point in why we should NOT put this article back up. Why does the scope of the injury matter? Does somebody have to die in order for an incident to be of notable? CFred already mentioned that it passes the 'man bites dog' test for being a bizarre notable story.. should we put this story in another section then? I believe its worthy of note.. if not Contraversy than oddities, or "see other" as on the alpha kappa delta phi's wikipedia 75.142.201.185 (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The reasons the sword incident should not be on the page are as follows, if you had paid attention: 1) It is a very small incident that does not reflect the fraternity as a whole. 2) It WAS just a scratch if you read the articles. 3) You say it is notable if someone was arrested? You can get arrested for just threatening somebody with a sword, you don't even have to scratch them with it.

As for the gunshot incident, I fail to see how that should be on here as well. 1) It does not reflect the fraternity as a whole. 2) The person who did the shooting was NOT a Lambda. Thus, it is out of place in a Lambda Phi Epsilon Controversy section. 3) All the members did was get in a fight, the only real controversy is the shooting done by the other person. I would love to see how many fights would be posted up on every single fraternity's wikipedia page if we were to log every incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.237.169 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please include the Texas incident in its own discussion thread instead of putting this in Ann Arbor? Can you at least show THAT much courtesy before deleting my article? I will address your concerns one by one

Ann Arbor 1) Was the selling of drugs and subsequent arrest in Riverside small? Did that reflect the fraternity as a whole? The Ann Arbor article is STILL notable 2) If it was a scratch, why did the police officers bother to ask him? 3) It is notable because it passes the "man bites dog" test for notability as stated earlier.

Texas 1) Same arguement 2) It does not state that information in the article, so you are mistaken. Are you inventing facts? Re-read the article 3) Oh... ALL the members DID was get in a fight? Isn't that what happened in the San Jose controversy incident? Again I've stated this many times: does somebody have to die from an incident to be notable to the fraternity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

editing/removing "UC Riverside" in controversy

Can you guy monitor this wiki?, somebody keeps removing the UC Riverside drug bust article which is a relevant controversy... person with the IP ADDRESS: 198.188.152.234 75.142.201.185 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

editing/removing "UT Shooting" in controversy

This article keeps being vandalized, discuss the merits before you edit the wiki with this IP ADDRESS: 198.188.152.234 75.142.201.185 (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this should be here. It's not really a "Controversy" so much as it is just a "incident" (couldn't think of a better word to use, but you get the picture). "Controversy" implies that it involves the practices of the organization or high-ranking members. This is some random kid who just goes to the parties. The only way you could say the members are involved is that it was their house that the incident took place at. The residents/members did nothing. The article doesn't even confirm that they were involved in the fight that the shooter was involved in; just that it took place in their house. Location isn't enough to warrant affiliation, or this article being here.

However, the hazing incident at UT is related to the fraternity. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

no argument here

the hazing incident certainly, but not the shooting

ps, i wrote the comment preceding yours (C.Fred's)

sorry for no signature

and i'm not the one editing the hazing incident out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lshutfupe (talk • contribs) 08:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

fair enough, I agree with the UT Shooting being removed and the hazing definitely kept in light of discovering it was a random person at a party 75.142.201.185 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

editing/removing "SUNY Buffalo" in controversy

Someone is removing the SUNY Buffalo article from this wiki without discussion 75.142.201.185 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Happened again today. Reverted with a note to give reason. danno 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit today was from a University of Buffalo IP address. I've also given a conflict of interest warning to the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio reminder

Text in the article must be original, based on information gained from reliable sources. The text from the sources cannot be copied to the article verbatim. —C.Fred (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

This entire section seems to me to be questionable. Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. That means balanced coverage of a given topic, "representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias." The actions of particular individuals are rarely indicative of anything about an organization. The citations I've checked do not say anything about the policies or actions of Lambda Phi Epsilon, but rather about the actions of individuals. Would someone be able to explain why we should have such a section in this article? Sunray (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, thanks for asking the question from the NPOV perspective. Speaking for myself, I've zeroed in so much on the reliable sourcing issue that I've lost sight of the big picture. Thank you also for opening discussion on the issue; there have been a number of hit-and-run deletions with no edit summary, no discussion, just one edit to delete the section or a part thereof.

I'm going to focus on the "proportionately" part of that guideline first. I do think the controversy section has grown to the point where it gives undue weight to the controversies. I know, other stuff exists, but of the five fraternities mentioned in Operation Sudden Fall—which garnered national news coverage for drug charges at San Diego State's fraternity houses—it's mentioned in only one of the five fraternities' articles. The others have no controversies section at all. By contrast, the controversy section of this article is, at my monitor's resolution, roughly the same length as the history and philanthropy sections combined. Based on that, if the section can be condensed without omitting necessary details, it should be.

Having said that, the next question is whether all of the incidents are indicative of the fraternity or of the individuals involved. Here's my two cents:

• Riverside: Possession charges against two individuals. Not notable on its own merit. In comparison to Operation Sudden Fall, this is less of an event. Remove.
• San Jose State: The fight involved members of both fraternities, the victim was a Lambda, but the assailant was uninvolved. Unless context of a wider rivalry between the Lambdas and Pi Alpha Phi is demonstrated, remove.
• Irvine: Since this involved a chapter and a colony at two different campuses, this is a little wider in scope. I think this story is also incomplete, in that it doesn't address what become of the potential chapter at Cal Poly Pomona. I'm borderline on this one.
• Texas: Incident restricted to a single chapter. Remove.
• Northwestern: As a matter of fraternity practice, hazing is wrong. As a matter of notability, the incidents here aren't notable. Remove.
• Buffalo: Same analysis as Northwestern. Remove.

Now, the last three incidents are all alcohol-involved hazing. Other than the alcohol, there is no pattern linking them. If there were some other common element to all of them, then they could be combined to show a pattern of multiple chapters all engaging in the same specific behavior. I dare say that alcohol is not a specific enough behavior to show a link. (In other words, fraternity drinking is a "dog bites man" type of story.)

In summary, I endorse without reservation the deletion of the entire controversy section except for the two paragraphs about Cal-Irvine. I'm not convinced the UCI section should stay, but I'd like wider consensus on that one before taking action. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, C.Fred. I've gone through the sources listed and, even in the Irvine case, am not clear why these news stories are cited in an article about the fraternity. Even though the incident of the football game was suspected to be hazing -- even if it was hazing, how does that relate to Lambda Phi Epsilon as an organization? Furthermore, while it certainly was news, how is it encyclopedic? I've seen no evidence that supports keeping the section. Sunray (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The news stories are cited because they are independent, journalistic accounts of the events described. On the other side of the coin, I would also accept news stories as reliable sources for claims about a philanthropy activity or award earned by the fraternity. As for whether it's encyclopedic, I think the question is whether there's long-term effect. If—and this is pure speculation here, I am not asserting any of these are actual results—if other interest groups backed away after the incident, or if California's university system banned new chapters at any of its schools as part of a punishment after the incident, then there would be enough impact on the organization to make it relevant to the fraternity as a whole. If the coverage were so widespread that the average person likely had heard of the event, it would be notable enough for inclusion (my comparison point here is the DePauw University Delta Zeta controversy).

I'm trying to reconcile how the notable alumni section can be allowed to remain but the controversy section should be removed. Arguably, the coincidence that Yul Kwon joined the fraternity and then won Survivor doesn't relate to Lambda Phi Epsilon as an organization. However, it's presented in an encyclopedic manner: this person, who is notable, is an alumnus. The way we're presenting it here, the header implies there is a controversy involving the fraternity for this incident. There isn't demonstrated ongoing controversy—and that may be the missing ingredient to get it included. —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The events described are the unfortunate by-product of poor judgement and substance abuse by college students. While they may be deemed newsworthy by local news media, the question was: "Are they encyclopedic?" I see that the controversy section has been cut, but an account of the Irvine incident remains. That was a national news story because of the death. The hazing angle gave it a "hook." However, when one reads the sources, it is not really about the fraternity at all.

As far as the "notable alumni section, I certainly agree with C.Fred that it is questionable. But two wrongs do not a make a right. Let's deal with one thing at a time. The "Incidents" section should be removed until someone can: a) show that it relates to Lambda Phi Epsilon in some important way, b) support that with appropriate sources, and c) write it in a neutral manner. Sunray (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If neutrality is the issue with the Irvine incident, what is the other viewpoint missing? The defense's side of the events? The assertion that this was a group of college kids, and their association with a fraternity is secondary to the events?

I don't mean to call the notable alumni section into question. I think it is useful knowledge, in the same way that notable alumni of a university belongs in the article. My point was that it's an inherently more neutral label than controversies - and because of that, maybe there should be a bigger hurdle for controversies to clear before they go into articles. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If for example, the sources stated that this football game was somehow sanctioned by the organization itself, or that the organization lacks a clear hazing policy and these incidents are a direct result of that, then there may be a case to keep this incident up. The sources do not discuss anything of the sort. The only part relevant to the organization is the sentence in the wiki article that there is "no body capable of formally dissolving a chapter." This is not mentioned anywhere in either referenced source, so I'm not sure why this was written. As Sunray has mentioned, the sources do not discuss how the events are related to the organization as a whole. I don't think the neutrality is even the main issue for removal.Countlphie (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A person with the online wikipedia handle "CountLPHIE" as in Lambda Phi Epsilon should NOT be making comments about NPOV. 74.51.156.108 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, check this out http://mustangdaily.net/BREAKINGNEWSAlcoholpoisoningandhazingdeterminedtobecausesofStarkeydeath/ An other death due to hazing in this sad sad world; however, this incident has been investigated, yet i see nothing on SAE's wiki. IF wiki is trying to be fair and report everything that is NOTABLE, then George W Bush and DICK Chaney would have very nasty nasty wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.229.18 (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good points by all. I don't believe that hazing is permitted by any fraternity. Thus, if "hazing" occurs, the individuals involved are acting on their own, not in a fraternity-sanctioned event. My concern about NPOV is based on two aspects of the policy: bias (i.e., against the fraternity / against fraternities in general) and undue weight. I still do not see any justification for including the Irvine death. As Countphie says, if the incident were related to the policies of the fraternity or due to negligence on the part of the fraternity it could be included. However, the sources do not say that. Thus any weight given to the matter is undue. C.Fred points out that controversies must be held to a higher standard than other types of information. So far, I believe all those who have spoken are either neutral or have argued against keeping this information. Have I got that right? If so do we agree that the "Incident" section should be eliminated as well? Sunray (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On further review of the UC Irvine incident, I can see that it differs from the other incidents in some important ways. The banning of a chapter by a university body is significant for the organization, and judging by the coverage of the event, it was notable. I think that C.Fred's edit of the section was sensitive to these points. Sunray (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point in deleting everything but the UCI controversy, you should either delete it all or keep it all. In terms of relating directly to the fraternity the UT incident was covered by NPR on national radio and spoke of how the fraternity itself had these same problems, not just the chapter. Further if being punished by a University is enough of a reason to remain on the list, then UT, North Western, UCI, and San Jose state should all remain since these chapters received disciplinary actions from their schools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheilin (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. C.Fred went through each of the entries that had been listed in the "Controversy" section (see his comments, above). I will also take another look. Sunray (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons given by Wheilin, I think we should remove the Irvine incident as well. Any contrary views? Sunray (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Section removed. Sunray (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

The contraversy section should not be removed. It doesn't matter that the national organization does not condone hazing. NO NATIONAL ORGANIZATION CONDONES HAZING. These events are NEUTRAL, NOTEABLE, and ENCYCLOPEDIC from VALID SOURCES.

• Riverside: Yes, possession charges against two individuals. It IS notable on its own merit being that the CHAPTER condoned the sale of drugs which is why the chapter was banned from Riverside in the first place by the school. If the sale of drugs were perpetrated by only TWO members acting INDIVIDUALLY why did UC Riverside BAN Lambda Phi Epsilon from campus. This is an event chronicled both by the SCHOOL newspaper and the CITY newspaper. In the same light of the fraternity drug bust in San Diego - THIS IS NOTEABLE.
• San Jose State: The fight article REMAINS on the Pi Alpha Phi Wikipedia. It is an EXTREMELY notable event that is recognized to this day as integral to the interactions of Pi Alpha Phi and Lambda Phi Epsilon. Until the Pi Alpha Phi one is removed, I do not see his one as one to be removed otherwise it is not NPOV
• Irvine: A chartering resulted in a death, its obvious what became of the potential chapter - the cease and desisted. There are follow-up articles that have no been posted. The perpertrators went to jail.
• Texas: This is not notable? Jack Phammorouth's sister was on national public radio crying her eyes out, and a memorial fund for anti-hazing was started in Jack's name. It is a DISGRACE to his death to cover this up. DO NOT remove!
• Northwestern: Agreed
• Buffalo: Agreed

I see Northwestern and Buffalo as not extremely notable, but do not engage here in revisionist history by covering up the deaths of a san jose state lambda, irvine lambda, and texas jack's death. You are insulting THEIR LIVES. THEIR LIVES were taken by the fraternity. THINK about what you're doing here by covering it up 76.231.11.79 (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, well, the "Controversy" section was discussed for quite some time and the decision was to remove it. Now 76.231.11.79 is making a case to put it back into the article. Such decisions are made by consensus on the talk page. There is no reason not to review the matter further, but until there is a clear consensus the section should remain out of the article. We could continue discussing whether each of these incidents is notable or not. If we do, it likely would be a good idea to establish criteria to gauge "notability." However, some time ago, I mentioned the importance of a neutral point of view. One of the considerations in that policy is the weight that should be given to a particular subject. When the section was restored to the article, it again struck me that this is a case of undue weight. Sunray (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Where was the consensus to remove it? It seems like members of Lambda Phi Epsilon have taken matters into their own hands and removed the controversy themselves, and then defend the removals. The article about the UT Lambda who died is notable, significant, and it is an insult to his death to not have it removed. This matter was discussed on NPR, he has a foundation in his memorial, THIS SIGNIFICANT DEATH SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SILENCED! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. THE UCI incident resulting in death should remain as well. 74.51.156.108 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You all are talking like the nearly DOZEN items on controversy are isolated incidents. They are not. This article just came out: http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/police-arrest-seven-in-stabbing-102656.aspx YOU ARE COVERING UP THE TRUTH AND PUTTING HUMAN LIVES IN DANGER BY IGNORING THE TRUTH LIKE THIS. JACK DIED BECAUSE OF THE FRATERNITY, THE STUDENT FROM CHICO IN IRVINE DIED, AND MORE PEOPLE ALMOST DIED AT UCLA. PUT YOUR FRAT EGOS ASIDE AND REALIZE THIS ORGANIZATION NEEDS TO HAVE THE TRUTH DOCUMENTED ON WIKIPEDIA. STOP HIDING!!!!!!!!!!!! 74.51.156.108 (talk) 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All that source says is that the incident happened at a complex where a number of fraternity members live. That's a weak link to the local chapter, not to mention that nothing in the article suggests that national sanctioned or was involved in the incident. It's an unfortunate incident, yes, but it gives undue weight to mention an incident that local in the national article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it really still a weak link after it's in the LA Times? http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lambdas12-2009oct12,0,3206607.story

It would appear to me that the constant deaths associated with Lambda Phi Epsilon IS NOTABLE, and CONSISTENT FROM 2003-Present. I believe these articles should be left in the Wikipedia because there is a CLEAR pattern of negligence and deaths associated with Lambda Phi Epsilon fraterniy 74.51.156.108 (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this is not undue weight in the wikipedia article if this is a pattern of behavior established by more than one chapter of the fratenity. You should put some of the contraversy sections regarding death back in. 148.87.1.167 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I FIND IT SUPRISING THAT WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CONSIDER HAZING DEATHS CAUSED DIRECTLY BY THIS FRATERNITY, AS RELEVANT INFORMATION. - AFTER REVIEWING THE DISCUSSION PAGE, IT SEEMS EITHER WIKIPEDIA HAS A LAMBDA PHI EPSILON INSIDER OR WIKIPEDIA SIMPLY DOES NOT CARE TO DISPOSE OF THEIR WRONGDOINGS AND ALLOW THEM TO PERPETUATE THE LIES OF THEIR FRATERNITY. - - ACCORDINGLY, MORE THAN 4 PEOPLE HAVE DIED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF HAZING/AND OR INITIATIONS. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, would you be willing to cease yelling (i.e., using block caps)? Secondly, statements such as "THEIR WRONGDOINGS"and "ALLOW THEM TO PERPETUATE THE LIES OF THEIR FRATERNITY" need to be supported by facts. What wrongdoings are we talking about here? What has the fraternity done that is in anyway connected to the deaths you refer to?

Wikipedia cannot make statements that are unsupported by reliable sources. As C.Fred says, above, there is nothing in the UCLA Newsroom article that links the fraternity to any criminal act. In fact, the suspects were "uninvited guests" at a fraternity party. We must be careful with allegations that would incriminate someone or some organization. Would anyone who believes that there is a connection, be able to state it clearly here? Please use sources and give direct quotes from those sources. Sunray (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

20 September 2014

The original issues brought up about this article years ago seem to have been finally laid to rest.

"#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.

1. It is mostly unreferenced.
2. It was obviously written by members and/or alumni of the fraternity, so there is a problem with conflict of interest.
3. Because of the problems mentioned above, it is in desperate need of clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards."

Every other sentence has a reference, all personal biases have been diluted away as they should be. Discussion should always continue on the quality of Wikipedia articles; however, this NPOV dispute hasn't seen action in several years. Isn't it time to lay it to rest. (Elgentleman (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

Agreed. The NPOV template was added one year ago, and while bits and pieces still need work, it seems like it's worth setting it aside for now. We can always re-add it if needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have reformatted this discussion by moving it to its own section. This will help to keep the talk page's archives clean and readable. If this isn't okay, please don't hesitate to revert. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

• http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2009/02/19/one-woman%E2%80%99s-plight-shows-minority-woes
• http://www.redandblack.com/news/fraternity-pirates-host-marrow-drive/article_d20fce56-4575-581f-9389-939a62b416c7.html
• http://www.dailytargum.com/bone-marrow-drive-aims-to-increase-minority-base/article_82a78d60-6143-53fb-9d9c-68bc37bb4457.html
• http://dailyuw.com/archive/2001/01/24/imported/bone-marrow-drive-adds-asian-americans-national-registry
• http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_5a2076f7-f308-5cf8-86c0-45f7cbce361f.html
• http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6264878
• http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/survivor_winner_yul_kwon_joins.html

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hazing section revisited

I don't think we should include the SFSU incident under "hazing incidents", as neither source states that the death was caused by hazing. I have no proof of course, but I personally know that the crossover celebration was after pledging was completed and the incident was not caused by hazing. Either way, the sources don't confirm hazing, and no source on this issue ever will. One source said the fraternity was suspended and investigated for possible hazing, which is a no-brainer and does not prove hazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.170 (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015‎

I don't know what you mean by "confirmed". The sources both specifically mention that the chapter was closed following a hazing investigation. As you may already know, your personal experiences and knowledge are not usable, as they're original research. Blanking the info seems inappropriate, so I have restored it pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Truth be told, not super familiar with Wikipedia. If we can't find any follow-up articles about the University concluding hazing was involved, do we continue to keep the allegations under a section titled Hazing Incidents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C500:F535:98FF:5BB4:5988:8F15 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You can read the Wikipedia:Introduction if you would like to learn more. The article has two sources that clearly indicate that the university expelled the chapter after a person died in connection to hazing. Peter Tran's death from alcohol poisoning occurred in April, and the chapter was expelled in late June "...after a two-month review into alleged violations of SFSU's hazing policy."[2] A quick search shows that there are plenty more sources where that came from. If you know that's not actually the case, you need to find a reliable source explaining what happened. A reliable sources in this case usually means a newspaper report or an academic work. Things like court documents or press releases may be usable, but there are some common pitfalls, since they're WP:PRIMARY sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. This whole thing was very unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that the school ruled it was due to hazing. With that being said, there's not much left to say about the matter, even if the university's ruling isn't accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.170 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting article in 2021

Have changes from above simply been reverted without further discussion? There is a very glaring difference between how this page looks and how the Pi Alpha Phi page looks. The latter focuses primarily on mission statements and other seemingly non-neutral "facts". It seems excessively detailed, especially compared to how brief these same sections are here. Also about the controversial sections - on this page they take up almost half the article. On the Pi Alpha Phi page, there are zero incidents mentioned, which is odd considering the chapter list says half of all chapters are currently suspended.

Also, the following doesn't seem necessary: "Lambda Phi Epsilon has experienced the most hazing incidents among Asian-American fraternities, including three deaths. All deaths occurred in the last 13 years.[14] As of 2019, 18 chapters have been closed.[15] Hazing activities include (but are not limited to) knuckle push ups, consumption of large amounts of alcohol and miscellaneous condiments, tackle football, and calisthenics."

Do we include such descriptions for other fraternities that are, by far, the largest populations in their sectors? I don't doubt Lambda Phi Epsilon has the most hazing incidents brought to light - they have the largest membership. The hazing activities, even if proven in some of these specific incidents, is uncited and given its own focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C900:50D0:F9FD:B0D2:4B1A:4766 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)