Talk:Phi Kappa Psi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Things to add:

  • More on Phi Psi history
  • Images of more symbols (badge, flag, etc.)
  • List of chapters (anyone have a good list including inactive chapters?)
    • List by state or chronological order of founding (a la AEPi)?

Jewbacca 20:17, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC) (California Beta)

I am willing to work on getting some of the information but no way could I wikify it. (MN Delta here) Twofeetcia

---

Added the list of chapters that was posted above (deleted it after adding to the article to save space). Happy birthday. --Bdreams 18:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

---

I'll add all former chapters as reported in the Manual (Oregon Alpha here) R'son-W 04:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

---

So what is the motto? Is it "The great joy......." or "United by Friendship, Sustained by Honor, and Led by Truth; We Live and Flourish."

We really need to decide and stick to it on this page....

-Shaq-Fu... WI Gamma

Contents

[edit] Gang Rape

I've added a section, appropriately referenced, about the known 1984 UVa gang-rape. Too bad that there's no way to identify all of the rapes. —12.72.68.11 11:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC) He admitted to the Rap http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/15/12step.apology.ap/index.html

[edit] Beebe membership issue

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/15/12step.apology.ap/index.html In an attempt to clarify misleading media reports, I have checked various editions of the Grand Catalogue of Phi Kappa Psi, and at no point is William Beebe listed as having joined Phi Kappa Psi at UVA or any other college. Even if he had been forced to leave the university, if he was ever a member, he would have been listed. Edits stating such are not an attempt at "erasure" but simply trying to make sure all the facts are in. (twofeetcia)20:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We have a cited source that he was a member. If ΦΚΨ has actually denied that he was ever member (as opposed to, say, one stricken from the rolls), then please cite the denial. —SlamDiego 19:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.readthehook.com/Stories/2006/01/12/coveriHarmedYou21Years12St.html "Although he lived at the house, Beebe was never an official member of Phi Psi, according to Shawn Collinsworth, executive director of the national fraternity."

As a non-member, and without any other members directly implicated (yet) in the crime, is this section really relevant to the article?

Perhaps. I'd leave it to the discretion of a member personally. Or perhaps a better edited version is needed. Jmlk17 08:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Even in the (utterly implausible) scenario in which none of the perps (such as the bartender) were members, the rape took place in their chapter house, at one of their parties, and has resulted in controversy for the fraternity. If-and-when all of the perps are identified, the title “Controversy” may need to be replaced. —SlamDiego 09:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Replaced with what? I think it has already been set that they WERE members, or at least pledges perhaps. Jmlk17 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure with what, but “contro·versy” refers to a situation in which there are two or more contesting sides. As questions are answered, it becomes decreasingly appropriate for an encyclopaedia to refer to “controversy”. —SlamDiego 23:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Perhaps "legal issues" or something along those lines would be more preferable. Jmlk17 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. We'll just have to see. —SlamDiego 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you seem to have an axe to grind SlamDiego? Regardless of what you believe happened, the members of the fraternity are innocent until proven guilty, and furthermore have not even been formally accused.

While the events that took place were certainly tragic, it was a single isolated incident that took place over 20 years ago, and certainly is not representative of the organization as a whole. ←Unsigned from 128.255.201.127

I would only seem to have an axe to grind to whose own need to grind an axe caused him or her to be unable recognize pursuit of truth. It is a bald fact that there is a controversy, and it is implausible that chapter house could be used in this manner without the participation of some members of the fraternity. Further, I remind you that the legal status of “innocence” is quite a different thing from actual innocence. With the exception of Beebe, all of the perpetrators are legally innocent, but that makes them no less guilty in all but that legal sense. —SlamDiego 03:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
BTW, we will see what is representative of this fraternity in the extent to which it circles its wagons or behaves with real honor. So far, the repeated deletion vandalism is not suggestive of honor. —SlamDiego 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
But without any sort of "legal" determination, how can you assert allegations as fact? Would you edit the OJ Simpson article to state that he was found innocent despite committing the murders? Your personal beliefs on what occurred that night are irrelevant to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.255.201.127 (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
I'm not making allegations that any specific individual (other than Beebe, who confessed) was a perpetrator. If you want to beat-up a straw man, then please go somewhere else to do it. Your deisre to pretend that a crime was committed exactly and only to the extent that the perpetrators are convicted is beyond obscene. —SlamDiego 04:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that the section is poorly written as-is (from a strictly grammatical standpoint)? 128.255.201.127 04:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No. There is nothing ungrammatical in that section. Perhaps you are thinking of something other than grammar. —SlamDiego 05:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the entire "Controversy" section from the page as of 4 May 2007, pending any well-thought objections. Its inclusion is not germane to the page's subject, i.e. the National Fraternity. In addition to the fact that Beebe was never a member of the Fraternity, this event happened in a single chapter house of an entity of the Fraternity. Local chapters own their own property, so it is also not correct to suggest that the rape happened on the property of the subject of this page. This topic would be more at home on a Virginia Alpha page, or perhaps the University of Virginia page (where it is not mentioned, nor is there a "Controversy" section). A random sampling of other National Interfraternal Conference member pages yielded zero "Controversy" sections. It is arguably unfair to represent an entire organization by the conduct of its non-members. As a general example, I sampled a few college Wiki pages, and didn't see "Controversy" sections related to violence that occurred on their grounds or within their dormitories or other campus buildings. HOWEVER, the point raised here is a good one. Despite the ostensible best intentions of the policies and ideals of Greek organizations, fraternity houses continue to be one of the most likely places for a woman to be raped on a college campus. I hope that policies and practices of all organizations, Greek, collegiate or otherwise, can help lower the number of rapes that happen, and I further hope that, if Beebe was not the only perpetrator of this rape, all responsible parties are brought to swift and stern justice. As mentioned above, I will be removing the "Controversy" section as of 4 May 2007 if my objections to its appearance here are not responded to coherently. Rjproie 20:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good arguments; it's hard to object in a way to disagree in any way. Jmlk17 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Were this matter not germane to the page's subject because the gang rape did not somehow take place on a national level, then every other deed and action at a chapter level would, logically, also not be germane. That is to say that any discussion of chapters should be removed. The absurdity of the rationalization process here is palpable! —SlamDiego 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that entries about other institutions are incomplete (or perhaps successfully censored where this entry is not) is no argument for removing the section; it is merely an argument that other entries need work. —SlamDiego 06:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree to some extent with Rjproie. These actions were the actions of a small number of individuals many years ago. Yes, the rape was tragic and horrific, however, blame for the actions was placed on the right people-the individuals that did those actions. I believe in this matter in the context of an organizations article, blame cannot be placed on the particular organization for an incident that 1.) was carried out by individuals (some may or may not be members of Phi Psi, it is still unclear) and 2.)occured 23 years ago. It is indeed a different story when the incidents are more recent, as they bring into question the current practices of the organization. It is obvious that Phi Kappa Psi does not condone this type of behavior today, nor had they 23 years ago. I do hope that victim recieves her justice, but the national fraternity should not be held at fault for the actions of a few. Samwisep86 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, if the fraternity isn't responsible for its chapters, then let's just purge the article of all references to the chapters. The article entitled “Phi Kappa Psi” can be about a suite of offices somewhere, that aren't responsible for much of anything. Of course, this suite of offices is then completely unnoteworthy, so it shouldn't have an article at all. —SlamDiego 10:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think my point is being misconstrued. The National is responsible for its chapters to an extent, and depending on what vantage point from which you're arguing, that extent can change. For example, from a legal standpoint, the National is shielded in many respects from the day-to-day operations of its chapters. Regardless of the vantage point, in this case, there is no "Controversy" for the National Fraternity, as it has no stake in the discussion at present. As mentioned in a previous post by SlamDiego, there are two contesting sides to a controversy. The ΦΚΨ National has no contest; no Fraternity members have been implicated in any source. Again, there are better places for this article. I'm not trying to censor anything - I would be in favor of a page specifically created for this very subject (William Beebe page, perhaps?). The fact remains that the subject of this page is so far removed from this specific incident that it does not bear mentioning on this page.
To respond to the idea that no positive action of any chapter should be included on the National page if the misdeeds of a chapter (which this situation has not proven to be thus far) should not be included, I point to the motto and Creed of the Fraternity as guidelines. When an individual member is "guided by truth" to attain something positive, he has applied the ideals of the Fraternity to the situation. When a member experiences "The Great Joy Of Serving Others" in a public service, he has upheld the Founders' principles. When an individual who is not a member commits an act of violence, he has not upheld or experienced any of the reasons the National exists - and couldn't really be expected to, since he never joined (it's a separate argument that he should have learned not to rape elsewhere in society, one that we don't need to have on this talk page). Succinctly, the National is a collection of ideals shared by individuals, none of which (ideals) have been affected in this situation because of the simple, incontrovertible fact that no members have been implicated, regardless of the opinion that it is "...(utterly implausible)..." that any members were not involved in this incident. This argument is not absurd, as it is grounded in verifiable fact.
If there needs to be a "Controversy" section on this page, I suggest seeding it with actual controversies on a National level. In that sense, this article, and many others, do indeed "need work."
Finally, the continued use of the term "gang rape" is somewhat troubling. There is nothing but rumor and innuendo to suggest that a gang rape occurred. No evidence exists to rationally argue that anything other than a single rape, perpetrated solely by William Beebe, happened. This talk page would feel more like a fair discussion if we all would stick to fact. I'm glad this discussion is continuing, but at the moment, I'm still planning on removing this section on 4 May 2007, again, pending a good reason why it should be on this page. Side note: to be clear, if other controversies are posted on this page, that do relate to the National Fraternity, I won't remove the entire section, just the references to the UVA incident. RJ 18:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that the logical flaw of your point isn't going to be hidden by a flood of words.
  • That point hasn't been misconstrued; it has been exploded. Again: If individual chapters are in no way the concern of this article, then this article has no content that is both relevant and notable. Things such as creeds are notable only to the extent that they do things such as influencing actions or providing cover for misdeeds.
  • Your claim that “no members have been implicated” is simply false de dictu; the state has implicated members. It has not indicted members and has not named members; but it has said that members were accessories and perhaps more immediate participants.
  • A fact is not diminished by calling it “opinion”.
  • Your argument isn't “grounded in fact”; it's grounded in de re/de dictu confusion. You might as well claim that there are no white people in any of the photos of the lynching of Shipp and Smith because the names of those white people aren't immediately available.
  • Your assertion “There is nothing but rumor and innuendo to suggest that a gang rape occurred. No evidence exists to rationally argue that anything other than a single rape, perpetrated solely by William Beebe, happened.” amounts to the perverse claim that the memories of the victim are nothing but rumor and innuendo. Further, it turns a willful blind eye to the fact that Beebe was not the bartender.
  • You'll find that censorship of that section by an editor with an account isn't much more effective than the previous censorship by anonymous vandals. Quite a few editors have the article watchlisted and have been reverting the censorship by anonymous vandals. I'm merely the one who has also been discussing the issue on the talk page. —SlamDiego 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
“I agree to some extent with Rjproie.” In the context that you are Rjproie, your agreement comes as no surprise. —SlamDiego 13:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The very idea that you have cooked up this story and now believe it to be true ("you are Rjproie") is hilarious. I can't believe I have to continue to say this, but I am not a sockpuppet. RJ 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
indeed. One person who happened to be in the house committed the rape, he was verified to be not a member, all other notions to the contrary presently are conjecture and hearsay. If you had a house guest that lived in your house that committed a heinous act in your house, should you be held liable for housing him? I think this is the issue in question, and all evidence points that, at this time, no members of the fraternity, and by extention, Phi Kappa Psi fraternity should be held accountable for a non-members actions. Samwisep86 21:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Again: Beebe was not the bartender.
  2. You are throwing around the term “hearsay” inappropriately.
  3. The article doesn't tell the reader who to hold liable; it reports allegations as such. It reports the response of the national organization as such. The proposed censorship is about not letting the reader have facts. —SlamDiego 03:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If there is a "logical flaw," I would like to see it. Simply pointing out my prediliction for explaining my position in full is a poor example of a flaw.
  • I answered the "individual chapter vs. National" query in my previous post. To abbreviate, individual members acting in accordance with the National Fraternity's edicts, bylaws, etc. are directly upholding the idea of "the National" and are rationally relevant to this page's subject. Non-members acting in any capacity and members acting outside of ΦΚΨ's ideals are not germane to the subject of this page.
  • The state has implicated members to the extent that it has suggested that it is a possibility that others were involved in this incident. Again, the National Fraternity is not a party to these claims, and therefore has no contest to said claims.
  • Agreed: a fact is not diminished by calling it opinion. However, I did not use the terms "utterly" and "implausible" together to describe the possibility that others might have been involved with this incident. That is the opinion to which I was referring. Until names are named, and those names are verifible Fraternity members, the National Fraternity does not have a contest to these claims, and this section is misplaced as it exists on this page.
  • The point about the existence of whites in the linked photo is incindery and without merit. By rational means (sight; unmodified photographic evidence), it is clear that whites are involved in the lynching cited. As sight and unmodified photographic evidence are not available in this incident, you're comparing apples to oranges. Albeit cleverly. No Fraternity members have been directly implicated in this incident.
  • It's not perverse to suggest that the report of a single individual is "rumor and innuendo." To return to an earlier rhetorical rubric utilized by another user, "rumor" is defined as "a story or statement in general circulation without confirmation or certainty as to facts," and "innuendo" is defined as "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or derogatory nature." Both of those definitions are absolutely in line with the case at hand. Is it unsavory to suggest that the victim of a rape is passing along "rumor and innuendo?" Absolutely. In this instance, is it literally correct? Absolutely. I cannot be more clear: if this incident becomes a National issue (National in the Fraternity sense), PLEASE post it here. I am at least as devoted to truth and verifiability and NPOV and everything that Wikipedia stands for (ok, it doesn't stand for truth) as anyone. I'm exceptionally pleased that this discussion is continuing. I just want a standalone reason for this topic to appear on this page for it to exist. "Beebe was not the bartender" does not exist in opposition to my point.
  • To suggest that removing this section is "censorship" is ignorant of this talk page. My experience with Wiki editors suggests that significant opposing points would appear here in this talk page from an editor when an incidence of "vandalism" has occurred, and if this point is correct, I'll be looking for a coherent response on or after 4 May 2007, not simply a revert. I am open to the idea that I'm from another planet in this instance, but I'm not going to believe it just because a user with an account suggests it.
  • If nothing else, I hope this talk page is affecting a few opinions, inside and outside the Fraternity. While I don't believe this incident reflects upon the National Fraternity (see any of my arguments for elucidation), it inherently reflects upon the American Greek system. Anyone who doesn't like what we're discussing (in a civil manner) should take a long, hard look at fraternities and sororities. If a Greek reader doesn't like being automatically implicated as a racist, sexist, rapist, etc., (s)he needs only look in the mirror. Your "brothers" and "sisters" are creating this environment, and until you hold them accountable, this discussion is going to continue in some capacity.
  • The argument that the article doesn't give the reader a liable party is a POV statement. Unless the National Fraternity is enticed or required to take a stand in this issue (other than opposing rape generally), this article belongs somewhere else. RJ 07:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The principal logical flaw is in seeking to dissociate the national organization from a chapter — on the grounds that it is a mere chapter — without applying the reasoning to consistently. A national organization with no chapters for which to take responsibility is not noteworthy.
  • Your answer to this point is exactly equivalent to a claim that the article on the Roman Catholic Church should not have the “Sexual abuse cases” section because the abusers failed to follow the creed of the Church.
  • The national organization Phi Kappa Psi stands in the same sort of social relationships to the allegations of rape as does the RCC to the allegations of sexual abuse.
  • Plausibility claims are either true or false; they do not exist in a nether world of being neither fact nor falsehood. Again: A fact is not diminished simply by noting that it is (also) opinion.
  • The example of the photo is more like scalding water than fire. A confusion has repeatedly been cultivated on this page between knowing the set from which members have been drawn and knowing the specific identities of those members. It is my plan to effect clean-up with such scalding water every time that discussion is fouled in such manner. I make no pretense that cleaning up that confusion is by itself a rebuttal of any other argument given here; the confusion of apples and oranges has come strictly from some of those who would delete the material in question.
  • The point that Beebe was not the bartender likewise refutes a specific point of argument, the repeated claim (in which you have participated) that Beebe acted alone. If, indeed, Beebe were the only one to have penetrated the young woman, still the bartender is morally a rapist and legally an accessory to rape.
  • You want to say that it is “unsavory” to suggest yet not “perverse” to declare that the testimony of a rape victim is rummor and innuendo? Perhaps you ought to have read the definitions of “unsavory” and of “perverse” while you were attempting to trump me with technicalities. You're simply wrong.
  • Likewise, you need to look up the definitions of “censorship” if you want to object to my use of that word. If we were to all agree to remove the material, it would still stand as censorship. As things stand, you propose to act exactly like any other censor who is simply willing to consider appeal.
  • Samwisep86 demanded to know “If you had a house guest that lived in your house that committed a heinous act in your house, should you be held liable for housing him?” If controversy erupts about your liability qua owner then fairness has nothing to do with whether the allegations are to be included in any Wikipedia article about you. It is, however, Wikipedia's responsibility not to present allegations as more than what they are. You now accuse me of making a POV argument in baldly noting that this article reports allegations qua allegations, in reply to Samwisep86's cry for fairness. It should not surprise you that nothing about this discussion pleases me, however much it might gratify you. —SlamDiego 08:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Your example of the RCC molestation scandal would have been a good one, except for the fact that Roman Catholic priests are explicitly endorsed by the Church, and Beebe has nothing to do with the National Fraternity. A better example would be a rape committed by a man who happened to stop by a church being construed as the responsibility of the RCC (though still not perfect, as those local churches probably have a more direct ownership tie to the worldwide organization than a chapter house). It is highly improbable that the RCC would be held responsible in this example, and neither should the National Fraternity. The underlying point that Phi Psi should be held, to some extent depending on vantage point, responsible for its chapters and members, was discussed above and has been consistent from my end. Once again, apples vs. oranges.
  • If examples were found and posted on this page that are actual controversies where the National Fraternity has a side to take, I would not remove them. The argument that removal of any content is "censorship" is only correct to the extent that removal of vandalism is also censorship. The opposite argument to my "censorship" is your "vandalism," i.e. you are like any vandal who happens to sign his work, which is equally valid. I'm asking that a sound argument be made as to why this content is attached to this page, and, particularly in light of examples like the Roman Catholic Church's scandal, that connection has not been made.
  • Plausibility claims may not be true or false, but they certainly exist on a spectrum of validity. Trying to force a party to prove a negative (e.g. Phi Kappa Psi is part of a network of oppression including all Greeks) does not make a claim valid. This particular argument, the possibility that a bartender may have drugged the victim (and would, if true, make him a legal accessory to rape), is not very strong. Presently, no members of the Fraternity have been directly connected to this case.
  • Whether the metaphor is fire or scalding water, the existence of a topic that has at most exceptionally little to do with the subject of a page flies in the face of the point of having an "encyclopedia".
  • My use of unsavory instead of perverse was clearly POV, and was a mistake on my part. Regardless, unverified statements have been made by a single individual, and those statements are the only connection to any Fraternity members. The National still has no stake in this discussion.
  • No controversy has erupted over Phi Psi's liability in this instance, so the argument that this topic should be on this page "if" said controversy erupts is self-defeating, hinging on that "if."
  • I'm not happy that this topic is being talked about, but I am impressed by the candor and intensity of the argument. I apologize if I seem gleeful. RJ 16:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You ignore the fact that the controversy entangling the RCC is not merely associated with proven acts or identified priests.
  • Your subsequent pattern of inference is therefore at best mistaken.
  • No, a plausibility claims must be one or the other; it cannot be neither. And, again, a fact is not diminished by labelling it an opinion.
  • No one is trying to force someone to prove a negative, so your claims about such are waling upon a straw man. Your denial that the bartender was an accomplice relies upon a thorough-going unwillingness to believe the victim on any score — as once even her claim to have been raped was denied. There is, in fact, no evidence that a determined disbeliever could not reject. You could object to Beebe's confession as the delusions of a former drunkard, and insist that I were attempting to make you prove a negative on that score as well.
  • This discussion is not an encyclopedia article, and the argument which I washed away is not the argument of a scholar. Since what was being offered was a bogus principle, it is not necessary for the counter-argument to draw from the immediate subject of the article. Indeed, people are more apt to see whether a principle truly works by attempting to apply it in a different context. My earlier, less ghastly explanations of what was wrong with the specific principle in question were repeatedly ignored.
  • The rule against POV concerns content of articles. Your use of “unsavory” was a mistake exactly in that it gave up the game, by being implicitly honest about the perversity that you wanted to deny.
  • The national organization has the same sort of stake as does the Vatican in the difficulties of various dioceses, even though legal liabilities often stop at the level of the dioceses (and even though in some cases all that one has is the testimony of alleged victims who cannot even always identify which priest abused them).
  • Likewise, an article on Phi Kappa Psi is no more naturally restricted to the doings of the national headquarters and national officers than an article on the Roman Catholic Church is naturally restricted to the doings of the Vatican. (If this article had a section about the national-level structure, and someone were attempting to place the discussion of the UVa rape within that section, then you could make a case against it.)
  • I did not take you as gleeful. But I find no satisfaction of any sort in this argument. —SlamDiego 17:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • While the RCC scandal isn't merely about identified priests and victims, it is principally about a number of verifiable attacks, and is grounded because, as I pointed out above, priests are explicit members and leaders of the RCC. For instance, a Presbyterian minister engaging in abuse should not be held against the RCC. Nor should a non-member's actions be held against an organization.
  • I don't think I'm ignoring any of your points; I'm attempting to use this bulleted response style to address all issues at hand. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that William Beebe, the perpetrator of this incident, is not a member. This page should include information about chapters, and there is positive and negative news to report in every single instance. However, this incident is not a Phi Kappa Psi incident.
  • The wording of this section is problematic. The state of Virginia has alleged nothing of the sort, and certainly not in the linked article. The state is investigating claims made by a victim of a crime, but has not made any sort of decision on where to go with those claims.
  • I'll keep it relatively short this time around: explain why the actions of a non-member of the organization represented on this page should be included in the article. RJ 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Again: The Vatican lacks legal liability, just as does the national-level offices. Allegations have been made agains priests just as allegations have been made against actual members. (If a Presbyterian elder raped a woman at a Catholic function, allegedly' with the cooperation of RCC clergy, then it would be relevant to an article on the RCC.) And the typical accused abuser amongst the RCC clergy has no authority at the level of the Vatican. You have simply attempted to apply ad hoc rules to this article that wouldn't be applied by you (nor my most other editors) to other articles.
  • Nope, you're actively ignoring my points, and your previous response on the RCC is a nice illustration of that.
  • The state of Virgina has alleged that the victim was drugged by the bartender whose existence and responsibility you keep trying to wave away. More generally, the article does not assert that indictments have been brought against specific members; it says that allegations have been made that things were done by members.
  • The actions of a non-member should be included principally because he is alleged and appears to have had one or more accomplices who were/are members. Further, the way in which the fraternity managed the function and the aftermath of the rape contributes to the scandal. (You would even bother to ask if you didn't ignore the real comparisons the RCC scandal.)
—SlamDiego 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys need to stop arguing, stop reverting and then re-reverting (whoever is doing that), and get a mediator in on this issue. Jmlk17 23:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion will almost certainly not be ended by mediation, for the simple reason that those who want the section removed are almost certain to lose, and then the very same people who were anonymously censoring the article before will go back to anonymously censoring it. —SlamDiego 11:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have requested the mediation cabal's help in this, since it doesnt seem were getting anywhere arguing with this, and to get another party's take on this issue. Samwisep86 04:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness...thank you. Jmlk17 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The creation of the request was with the account User:Rjproie. As User:Samwisep86 you now declare that you made the request, and subsequent edits to the request were with account User:Samwisep86. Apparently, I have been made to do battle with a sockpuppet. Why? —SlamDiego 12:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry Slamdiego, but RJ is not a sockpuppet; any IP check will tell you that. I edited the mediation page to make the information more accurate. I, as anyone, want a speedy resolution to this debate. Per the request, I thought I had put the request in originally, but apparently RJ created the mediation page, I just edited it. I also did put up the request tag at the top. Please don't make any accusations about "sock puppets", when I am a third party helping to organize the request. Samwisep86 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Here is my IP:141.164.74.246 17:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) check it against RJ's.
An IP check would prove no such thing; pretty much anyone can edit from multiple IPs. What we have is assertion at 04:43 that you'd made the initial request, when your first edit qua User:Samwisep86 to the request page was made at 06:26. With the more than one-hour difference, you wouldn't then think that you'd made a request if you had merely edited a request made by another. And your edit history shows nothing else that corresponds to any ostensible request —SlamDiego 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please contact me privately. I am willing to work this out with you. If there is a verifiable way to prove that I do not have a sock puppet, let me know. I will give you the information to prove to you that I do not have a sock puppet. Samwisep86 18:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
You've already shot yourself in the foot, as explained above. Demonstrating to me that you can log-in at computers at two different physical locations will not impress anyone aware of how trivial it is for anyone in the industrialized world to do such things. And I too could get friends to drop things in the mails to me from multiple locations. —SlamDiego 18:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

honestly, your assertion that I use multiple IPs is wild and unverified. I am a busy college student, why would I need to argue with you creating proxies to create another account to argue with you in a debate about a wikipedia article. I do not either have the time nor knowhow to operate proxies, or as described by you, edit using one account, and hurridly go to another physical location and login just to spite you. You and rj were duking it on on this page with no end in sight. I tried to help you two by trying to mediate the situation. I sent in the request, which apparently didnt go thru. The next time I looked at it, RJ had filled out the request. I just decided to make beneficial corrections and expand both editors POV's on the matter in question. You assume that I am attacking you by making the accusation that RJ is a sockpuppet, that however is furthest from the truth, WHEN I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT. I am not trying to attack you, I am trying to help you. Samwisep86 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I logged in to Wikipedia, saw that there was a mediation request, and filled out the form. I don't see how this got turned into a massive conspiracy theory, and I didn't make the mediation request. I appreciated the idea that mediation was available, since this argument isn't going anywhere.
  • Furthermore, I reverted the page when an anonymous user removed the section in question. As far as I can tell, everyone involved who is logging in is at least trying to be fair.
  • I'm not a sockpuppet.
  • I'm not going to continue this argument in this space until we get some feedback from the Mediation Cabal. As I mentioned earlier, this argument isn't going anywhere. However, I will extend my deadline for personally removing the section in question, pending mediation, which I wholeheartedly agree to. RJ 20:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no massive conspiracy theory, especially as conspiracy (from Latin for “breathing together”) would involve there being two or more people working together. Samwisep86 admitted to doing something that in fact was done qua Rjproie. Now you are denying making the mediation request, when the request history says that you did.
  • Yes, you reverted the page when it was vandalized, but that won't undo the implications of Samwisep86 claiming to have performed an act of Rjproie (and now Rjproie denying that he performed that act).
  • The evidence says that you are a sockpuppet.
  • If account Rjproie is not suspended, then Mediation can proceed. It's reasonably clear what will be concluded by the Mediators. Unfortunately, the anons will keep removing the secion thereafter. —SlamDiego 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wild about the point that you can use multiple IP numbers, and no need to verify that you do, as you were the one trying to prove something from multiplicity of IP numbers.
  • Mediation will neither hurt nor help me, and I don't see it as an attempt to help me.
  • The end, in the absence of Mediation, was very much in sight, which is why I have been expecting it, as a last-ditch effort. (I wasn't expecting the revelation that came when you leapt in to that last ditch.)
  • You're not even being consistent about whether you sent in a request, or confused something else with a request.
—SlamDiego 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore. I noticed the Mediation Cabal link at the top of the page, clicked the form link, and filled it out, because I like mediation. Any suggestion that anything improper happened is foreign to the truth. In fact, I didn't even know that something like the Mediation Cabal existed until I saw the link on this talk page. I didn't place the link, I filled out the form. I considered the link placement the "request" for mediation, and filling out the form a step along the way to mediation. I'd be more than happy to identify myself with verifiable personal data, if that's the only way to end this completely useless argument about who is who. Additionally, if you don't want to mediate, fine, just say the word and we can continue to argue about the subject at hand. RJ 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I linked you to where you made the request. Perhaps you and Samwisep86 will be able to persuade the admins that you each stumbled around in a way that perfectly mimicked sockpuppetry. We'll see. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
To clear up confusion, I placed the link at the top of the talk page, meaning to submit a request, which I erroneously stated I placed the request, when in fact I didn't. Samwisep86 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you've given inconsistent explanations about what you did and about when it was done. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys, arguing and bickering isn't what this site is supposed to be about. Someone already called for a mediation on the issue, so why not just cool it on here for now? I see the notice as I write this at the top of my page that says This page is 39 kilobytes long. That's pretty damn long, especially for a talk page, but ESPECIALLY for just one topic on a talk page. Wait for the mediation, wait for the result, and then respect it. I've been watching this argument go back and forth for several days now, and while interesting, it's starting to become old. I'm not attacking anyone, nor taking any side in this issue anymore. I just want to see some sort of end to this whole issue, sooner rather than later. JṃŁЌ17 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Meta-arguing doesn't generally put an end to arguing. —SlamDiego 23:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break

After reviewing the article, the arguments here, and the online source article. I must say that the controversy section really does not seem very appropriate here. The 4 page news article only mentions the fraternity once or twice. In Phi Kappa Psi's 150+ year history, this really does not seem all that relevant. A rape happened in a frat house on a college. So? It's [barely] news (or at least it was in 1984). We don't cover every rape at every college; except for the fact that this one had an op-ed piece or 2 written about it recently, what makes this one so special? According to [1], "In a study of 6,000 students at 32 colleges in the US, 1 in 4 women had been the victims of rape or attempted rape." This is not, in the context of the university and the fraternity, a very significant event. According to the study, thousands of women are raped in colleges. Even Duke University (a featured article) has only a couple sentences about the rape scandal there, it does not have its own section or even its own paragraph. It does have its on article though, with 188 references and 14 more external links, showing that it was a much more significant event. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First, you are not listed as a member of the Mediation Cabal, so referring to your comment in your edit summary as a “mediator comment” is somewhat problematic.
Second, if it truly were the case that 1-in-4 women were the victim of rape or of attempted rape, that would be the worst possible excuse to avoid talking about it in any given article. (In fact, the stat in question was generated with a willful combination of bad techniques which I would be glad to labor somewhat on my own talk page, but which would run us on what I regard as a tangent.) I would be shocked and dismayed if this argument were embraced by Rjproie, by Samwisep86, or by Jmlk17.
Third, unless we are to take it as given that every analogous article that you site is in final form, the alternative interpretation of your data is that one of the many ways in which Wikipedia is unfinished is that it doesn't cover this sort of material. —SlamDiego 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I definitely am not going to embrace that argument. Jmlk17 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that you have declared yourself as having taken the role of mediator at the RfM. I have contact the Mediation Committee in general, and the Committee chairperson in particular, to raise an alarm about this. —SlamDiego 04:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the case is with the unofficial Mediation cabal, not the commitee, of which anyone can be a member. Second of all, you accuse me of favoring one side. On the case page, the requested action was: "A third-party recommendation to either leave the post or have it removed and not reverted." That is what I provided. The main point of my reasoning above was that I have seen no evidence that this rape is more notable than any of the thousands of rapes that happen every year or why it is especially relevant to the fraternity, except that it took place in a building they own and the perpetrator may have been a member. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I accuse you of favoring one side, because that's what you have done. Worse, you have offered an absolutely sickening argument in presenting your conclusion. I absolutely will not enter into a formal agreement to mediation by MedCab in this context. I will agree to mediation by the Mediation Committee or we can just take this to Arbitration. —SlamDiego 04:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A third opinion was asked for; I provided a third opinion. The point of my "1 in 4" argument is to be used in conjunction with the "relevancy" argument. This information might fit in it's own article as it did get minimal news coverage, but it really has nothing to do with the fraternity itself. If you are only rejecting me as mediator, I will gladly change the case status back to new (though I would suggest you modify the "What would you like to change about that?" section). If you are rejecting an informal mediation altogether, I will change the status to closed. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I am rejecting the MedCab in toto, because a member of it has done what you have done. As I've said, I will accept mediation by the Mediation Committee, or we can go to Arbitration. —SlamDiego 04:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved anymore, as it seems hard to approach this without getting accused of doing something that I didn't do. I don't know how you can accuse Mr. Z-man of "taking sides" when he provided an honest third party opinion after he said that he "reviewing the article, the arguments here, and the online source article". SlamDiego, I think you need to take a step back and breathe, if you so desire that the Mediation Committee become involved, so be it. Samwisep86 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I accused him of (immediately) taking sides because he did not query anyone before proceeding. For example, the “What is happening?” section is written in a way that is misleading; Rjproie stated what he wanted as a resolution; I was not asked what I wanted as a resolution. We've had a somewhat tangled argument above; no one asked for a structured restatement of anything.
Second, as I have more than once said, Mr.Z-man (premature) conclusion is founded in part on an absolutley disgusting argument.
Third, do not tell me that I need to take a breath. Instead, be glad that I am doing so instead of taking this matter outside of Wikipedia now. Do you have any idea how various other institutions would respond to the fact that a purported mediator claims that rape is too common in some contexts to be worthy of report? —SlamDiego 04:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing anymore. This issue has taken up too much of my time over such a small issue in the context of an online encyclopaedia. If you want mediation, feel free to seek it yourself. Samwisep86 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have told the Mediation Committee that I wish to use them. (Since the subpage is still marked-up, from the earlier, rejected request, I have not been able to just start a fresh request.) I have informed the Committee that you have withdrawn, but I have stated that I would not object to your becoming a party to the mediation. I think that Jmlk17 should be allowed to become a party if he wishes. (Rjproie was originally listed by you as a party, and I would seek to have him be such now.) —SlamDiego 05:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm more than fine with joining a mediation issue. Jmlk17 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to be involved in mediation. As I've alluded to previously, if the MedComm sides with SlamDiego, I will help to ensure the section's inclusion on this page and will revert vandalism (which I have done in the past). I further agree that the way I filled out the Med Cabal request page was misleading, though I assumed (bad practice) that it would be touched by both sides prior to being accepted in mediation. I don't agree with Mr.Z-man's argument, whether the stat quoted is accurate or not. I would also like to archive this discussion once mediation is completed (and miscellaneous other items on this talk page) to make it more readable. RJ 19:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, archiving would be very appropriate then. —SlamDiego 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This controversy should be a free standing article.

This crime is notable/controversial because of UVA's dismissive response to the victim when the attack when reported, the confession of the attacker twenty years later via the ninth step of AA, his unexpected indictment because Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies, his extradition to Virginia, his plea of guilty to a lesser charge after insinuating he could help identity “others involved,” his being wholly unable to provide useful information to such effect, his later release after serving only six months and the suffering of the victim because of the delay of justice. This incident does not appear in the AA article, the rape article, the UVA article or the Virginia article. Why as such should it appear in the Phi Kappa Psi article except under the theory that it is notable primarily because of where the crime took place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.168.149 (talk) 05:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re-Visiting Inclusion of the Elizabeth Schimpf Rape in the Phi Kappa Psi article

This controversy if worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia should be a free standing article.

This crime is notable/controversial because of UVA's dismissive response to the victim when the attack when reported, the confession of the attacker twenty years later via the ninth step of AA, his unexpected indictment because Virginia has no statute of limitations on felonies, his extradition to Virginia, his plea of guilty to a lesser charge after insinuating he could help identity “others involved,” his being wholly unable to provide useful information to such effect, his later release after serving only six months and the suffering of the victim because of the delay of justice. This incident does not appear in the AA article, the rape article, the UVA article or the Virginia article. Why as such should it appear in the Phi Kappa Psi article except under the theory that it is notable primarily because of where the crime took place.

As such I will be removing the article.

I submitted the article as written, with the included reference to the new article page. It was rejected.

74.77.168.149 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue of whether this section should be included went through mediation. The mediation concluded with agreement on 12 October that the section should remain. Having discovered this latest attempt to erase unfortunate history (just a day after that conclusion!), I have restored the section. We can go back to patrolling this article if necessary. —SlamDiego←T 23:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This criminal action does not deserve inclusion in this article. If it even belongs in an ancyclopedia at all it belongs as its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just absurd wiki-lawyering. If this article is again subjected to a pattern of vandalism, then I will again request that it be semi-protected, with a notice that it has been protected. —SlamDiego←T 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong sir. RJP's unwillingness to follow through does not negate the fact that this controversy section does not belong in this article. If you are commited to the controversy you create a new article for it and update the data accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. RJP didn't simply cease to follow through; he reported that after due thought he recognized that the section was appropriate, and expressed the hope that I would continue to monitor the section. And please note that even if there were a separate article, this article would properly link to it. So you wouldn't be able to erase the controversy from this article, only to magnify it. —SlamDiego←T 19:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
You have been warned on your talk page about violating the three-revert rule. —SlamDiego←T 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RJP's capitulation does not negate the fact that this "controversy" section does not belong in this article. There is no controversy, involving the topic of the article, to speak of. There was a rape committed in a fraternity house. It is an isolated incident notable, if at all, for the actions of the rapist that lead to his own conviction two decades later. It is not noteable otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk • contribs)
At best, you are now making a case for retitling the section, and pretending that it is one for deleting the section. (If someone thinks that the section would be better titled something such as “Tragedy”, then that can be discussed.) —SlamDiego←T 13:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not here to play wordsmith. The fact is a man was convicted of the sexual assualt of a woman chiefly because he admitted to raping her decades later. He made this admittion because of his participation in alcoholics anonymous (ninth step). This rape occured in a fraternity house. It does not make sense to include every crime, rape, or murder in an encyclopedia article based on where it occured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.163.251 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it's pretty clear why you're here. The notability of the crime has already been discussed, so your talk of including every crime is a red herring. —SlamDiego←T 14:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
SlamDiego, my argument in chief is that this crime does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 斎 齋 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC) — 斎 齋 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
You conclusion is that it doesn't belong here. Your arguments for that conclusion have been quite ad hoc, inconsistent across instantiations, and characterized by nonsequitur within instantiations. —SlamDiego←T 14:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I note that you were explicitly told that you cannot delete content from an article based on the theory that it belongs elsewhere. You were also told that if you felt (as you claimed) that there should be a free-standing article, then you could creãte one. Instead of doing so, you just asked someone else to creãte one, and when no one did, you used this as the thinnest possible excuse to delete content, thought this contradicted what you had been told. Now, let me again note to you that, if someone were to creãte a free-standing article, this article would still properly link to it; let me also note to you that proposals to merge the free-standing article could be entertained, so that things were restored essentially to where they are now. —SlamDiego←T 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GOOD L_RD!!!! It's even worse than I thought! No, you didn't even ask anyone else to create the article. You tried to create the article anonymously, and when that didn't work, you used that as an excuse to delete the content! —SlamDiego←T 15:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chapter List

Can someone remove the chapter list from the main page and put it as a list on another page. It is way too big and takes the majority of the article. Samwisep86 22:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can create a subpage Phi Kappa Psi/Chapters and link to it from the main page. Just click on the red link to start editing. —SlamDiego 05:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this has been done already. Someone created a list as noted on the main page. Samwisep86 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I guess that it won't make a lot of difference to not make it a subpage, but I suspect that such lists will eventually be consistently made such. —SlamDiego 06:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV for member lists?

I notice that, for Billy Mitchell, it says

Brig. Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, "Father of the U.S. Air Force," Congressional Gold Medal recipient (D.C. Alpha, George Washington University, 1896)

It could instead say

Brig. Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, advocate of indiscriminate terror-bombing in war-time (D.C. Alpha, George Washington University, 1896)

Why should the listing of members be puffery? Shouldn't NPOV apply as much here as anywhere else? 75.30.200.107 05:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think both entries as listed here are NPOV. The first is NPOV becuase of the mention of the uncited "father of the Air Force" comment, while the second is also NPOV, as it imnplies a bias on the part of the writer. Samwisep86 06:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing POV with NPOV. But, anyway, the specific point was that there's more than one way to look at Billy Mitchell, not that the article ought to note him as a foremost advocate of terrorist murder. And the general point is that none of these entries ought to be POV. Let the fratenity brag at its own website, not here. 75.30.200.107 06:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
correct. I didn't write what I meant. My apologies. Samwisep86 08:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the Billy Mitchell inclusion do not address the problem. It is a fact that he is widely considered the father of the Air Force. It is a fact that he was awarded a medal. And it is a fact that he was an advocate of terror bombing. The choice of which of these facts to include should not be driven by POV. His awards should no more be noted than his monstrous viciousness. And the same is true for every other member listed. The listings should all be NPOV. 71.154.208.43 06:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you see as good criteria for making member listings NPOV? I'm open to suggestions. Samwisep86 07:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that someone's personal ideals and/or issues about Mitchell are in conflict here. We aren't asking nor demanding flattery nor condoning it. But truth be told, Mitchell is considered the "Father of the Air Force". Personal and historical issues aside, it does not matter what his ideals were. 08:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is total POV nonsense. The fact that Billy Mitchell won some medal is far less important that his advocacy of terrorism. That doesn't mean that he should be listed in this article as a terrorist. The point is that he shouldn't be puffed (as he is now) or bashed (as he could be) even though facts are being used to puff him and facts could be used to bash him. His listing should be something such as

which doesn't puff or bash him. And, yes, Colonel, because Brig. Gen. wasn't his permanent rank, you puffers!

Moreover, the same standard should be applied to all the other listings. These listings are not supposed to be trophy cabinets. They are supposed to note members who were significant, not make them out as he heroes (which, in the case of terrorists, is stupid and gross). 75.5.174.166 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I sort of happen to disagree. The notable members are supposed to be prestigious members of the fraternity. This means people of esteemed service and notability, not notoriety. Jmlk17 06:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a verifiable fact that Billy Mitchell won the Congressional Medal of Honor, so why wouldn't that be listed in an encyclopedia? Absent opinion (e.g. - awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for bravely defending this great nation), I don't understand the argument that this fact doesn't belong here due to "puffery," when the supposed "puffing" (done by "puffers") is simply true. Regarding the point about his permanent rank, he did end up a Col., but it appears reasonable to list him as Brig. Gen. due to the Air Force's similar claim on the official Air Force website. RJ 19:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a verifiable fact that he advocated bombing noncombatant civilians, and wiping out entire cities with poison gas, to demoralize the enemy. (In one word: "terrorism". See Wings of Judgement by R. Schaffer.) Do you want to focus on the verifiable facts that play in his favor, the verifiable facts that play against him (which in this case are more important than a gold medal, because of their effect on subsequent policy), or do you want to adopt NPOV? The Air Force is obvious going to want Mitchell "puffed". His permanent rank (as the WP article on him notes) was Colonel. 12.72.70.42 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That position is a complete violation of WP:NPOV. 12.72.70.42 20:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The position I took above is NPOV. It relies on a verifiable fact that is significantly held (i.e. Billy Mitchell was indeed awarded the medal). I didn't take a position on the so-called "terrorism." The listing does not misidentify Mitchell as a Brig. Gen., as he definitively attained that rank during his career. Anyone who wants the full history of Mitchell's service can click the link and learn all sorts of fascinating facts about the man, but that's not the point of a "Notable Member" listing. As far as the charge of advocating "terror bombings," again, that information should be fully digested on the Billy Mitchell page. Every mention of a topic does not need to include every single piece of information - that's why WP is separated into topical pages as opposed to being one huge page of text. Mitchell is notable because he attained the rank of Brig. Gen., was awarded a prestigious medal and is a member of the organization that is the subject of this page. He's arguably notable for many other things he did, but those can (or should) be found on his page, not within a list of "Notable," not "Notorious," members, as proposed by Jmlk17 above. RJ 21:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You are not handling threads right. You are replying to what I said to Jmlk17 as if it was said to you. Indents show the threads and subthreads. I know that some people don't get that, and that their bad habits make things hard for other people to learn.
The Mitchell article could probably be improved, but his advocacy of terrorism is more important than any medal. WP:NPOV isn't simply about sticking to facts. It's about thing like not trying to hide facts of one sort behind facts of another sort, and it's about letting the reader be the judge of things like good and bad. Calling Mitchell a "noted advocate of military air power" is factual and NPOV. The other suggestions have been POV, one way or another. He is a lot more notable for being an adovcate of military air power (NPOV) and of killing whole cities than for winning a medal. If the only issue was room then his advocacy of terrorism would be the thing to put, not the medal.
I don't see his rank as a very important issue here, but his demotion to Colonel was actually more significant than his highest temporary rank, and his highest rank was actually Major General (he was promoted from Colonel to that after his death). But listing him as a Brig. General make his rank seem comparable to that of one who was given that rank on a permanent basis, which Mitchell never was. (The after-death promotion didn't have a stop at Brig. General on the way.)
If a list of Notable members had to be a list of Prestigious members, then a list of Notable members would be forbidden under WP:POV. If Lee Harvey Oswald or Ted Bundy had been in a fratenity, they would belong on the list of Notable members for their fraternity, alond with any heroes and with people who weren't heroes or villains but were still important. And the list should tell the reader who was heroic or who was a villain. That's for the reader to figure out... without getting nudged one way or another by selection of facts. 12.72.70.42 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" revisited

As a member of Phi Kappa Psi, I'm using my discretion and agreeing with everyone that it is irrelevant to the article. At my chapter, there was a rape back in 1990 that has all sorts of haziness and ambiguousness surrounding it, yet it's not included in this article either. These happen all the time everywhere, and as someone said above, we just don't have the resources to report every one. This is an article about Phi Psi's history, statistics, and ideals, and not the place for one random, disputed incident that happened years and years ago. Imagine it this way... can you see this part showing up in Enyclopedia Britannica? I don't think so. If need be, as stated before by someone else, create a new article if you're dying to get this out to the public, or even add it to the UVA page. But there's no need for it here. Amici ~ Triberocker (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to claim that anyone is agreeing with everyone. It's impossible to agree with everyone here, since there are a couple of people who think like you, and a bunch of people who don't want this article censored. That rape is part of Phi Kappa Psi's history, just as the controversies concerning the Roman Catholic Church and US Marine Corps are part of the histories of those organizations, and are reported it the articles about those organizations. This article is not supposed to be a PR piece for Phi Kappa Psi. —SlamDiego←T 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall saying it was a PR piece? I'm just saying that until you can write-up and cite every single incident like that's ever occured at every chapter, this one random piece is completely and utterly out of place and irrelevant. This is not censorship for God's sake, this is for the sake of enyclopaedic standards and proper reference. I will relocate this to the UVA Greek Life section. ~ Triberocker (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't recall anyone openly advocating that it be a PR piece, because that would be letting the cat out of the bag. No, we've already discussed the rapes-are-too-common-for-any-to-count theory. This rape was notable. There has already been a mediation on the section. You'll just have to accept that your fraternity was entangled in a notable rape. —SlamDiego←T 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If this is a noteable rape then it should have its own page as was pointed out previously. SlamDiego, is intent on smearing the subject of this article with this horrible incident as if the fraterntiy as a whole was to blame. Methinks he is biased for. Clearly a wikizealot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.142.29.125 (talk • contribs)
Nonsense. According to your line of reasoning, anything that is notable belongs in its own article, and not in any other article. The logical result would be no articles. Anything in an article that were not sufficiently notable to stand on its own would be removed for lack of notability, and anything sufficiently notable to stand on its own would be removed to another article. Of course, the new article could then be similarly analyzed into parts, each of which would be discarded or given its own article, until the content had dissolved into discarded bits.
Now, as I have repeatedly noted, articles on the Roman Catholic Church and the United States Marine Corps contain references to and discussions of controversies involving the behavior of some of their members. These articles do not thus claim that every member of those institutions is to blame for the behavior. For some reason, you believe that ΦΚΨ should enjoy a greater level of privilege than other institutions, but it will not be given that. —SlamDiego←T 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)