Talk:Pi Kappa Phi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Award Winning

"The original Pi Kappa Phi newsletter was titled The Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity Journal. The title was changed to The Star and Lamp, which is currently an award-winning quarterly journal."

Is it really award winning? Iheartwiki19

Good question. I'm not sure that I recall, but if it can't be verified then it does seem a bit POV. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 12:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it for now.. Iheartwiki19 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's award winning. It has received awards from the College Fraternity Editors Association (CFEA) among others, for content like the poster featuring The Rape of the Sabine Woman, which the Fraternity made into the "Today's Greeks Call it Date Rape" poster.KenCribbs 15:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Note from Timlee

I added in "Adrian Heideman's Death" and "Hazing" section per Ilovewiki19's comments. Please edit and revise this section as you see fit. Timlee 20:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Timlee, thanks for your note on the Talk page. However, please do not remove other discussion from the Talk page, but please do feel free to add your discussion to the Talk page under a new heading by using the small plus sign tab next to the "edit this page" button on Talk pages. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't remove Heideman section

Don't remove the Adrian Heideman or other sections without discussing that here first. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. I posted on Timlee's page but forgot to post here. This is what I said.

Timlee, you disagreed with my comments. Why are you referring to them as fact now? I added the Berkeley incident as a link. The relevance of Kenny Luong's death is especially important because of how recently it happened. No one (thank goodness) died at Gamma chapter. The Chico State incident was monumental and terrible. Pi Kappa Phi nationals addressed this tragedy immediately, suspended the chapter's charter, and still addresses it today. The national's website has the Chico tape on it. [1]. -Iheartwiki19 10:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The links are still present on the page. This helps the "flow" of a page as you cited and neither incident was extremely remarkable in the Greek community. Death by alcohol is sadly somewhat common, and so are some hazing incidents. Death by hazing is uncommon, however. -Iheartwiki19 10:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering that you have made a point on insisting that information that portrays a fraternity in a negative light be added to Lambda Phi Epsilon, it seems a little unfair that you would remove similar information from the article about your (and my own) fraternity. While the editor who added the information may have had an agenda going on, the information is still valid. As an alumnus of Pi Kappa Phi, and therefore somewhat inherently biased towards the fraternity, I feel uncomfortable allowing the material to be removed, as it is fairly NPOV and is well cited. I would feel there needs to be a greater consensus from other editors to remove the section before it could be removed. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

All (especially Evilphoenix and Iheartwiki19)... it is untruthful for me to say that I did not add the sections without an agenda. It was specifically out of frustration at Iheartwiki19's inexplicable one sided actions by adding sections that defamed my fraternity. I have long known about the incidents I have added to the Pi Kappa Phi page but refrained from adding them in because I did not have any first hand experience with them, therefore I did not feel qualified to make the edits. Thus, I edited the Lambda Phi Epsilon page to fit the format in which Pi Kappa Phi addressed similar issues. However, when it became evident to me that Iheartwiki19 was not relenting his personal war with Lambda Phi Epsilon (yes I realize that I'm making an assumption here, but it needs to be stated) in the interest of fairness, I decided that the same issues needed to be addressed here as well. I do not believe this is fair on my part. I do believe it is neither ethical or constructive to go on another fraternity/sorority/organization/individual's Wiki page to try to edit something I have no first-hand information about against community agreement. This was the only way (it seems) that I could open Iheartwiki19's eyes to this fact. To me, it seems that the Pi Kappa Phi wiki community has chosen to address their issues via external links, which seems fair to me. I'm making a show of good faith by reverting my edits. Please think this over and consider letting community concensus prevail on Lambda Phi Epsilon's Wiki page as well. As a final note, all of these incidents are tragic events, whether there was a death involved or not. I find it even more tragic and petty that both Iheartwiki19 and most recently I have been exploiting them for a personal agenda. Sorry it had to come to this. -Timlee 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, regardless of your intended agenda or not, the information is true, and I think the question that we have to ask about both articles is: does including the information make the article more complete, more accurate, and more encyclopedic? Anyone involved with Pi Kappa Phi knows about Adrian Heideman, and I don't think it's a poor idea to discuss that event, and also discuss the National's response to the event. As far as first hand experience, I don't have a huge amount of it either, being as Chico State is across the country from me. Besides, first hand experience is not a requirement for adding content to the wiki: one of our guiding policies is that of No Original Research, so first hand experience by itself won't neccessarily qualify as information to be added to the encyclopedia (but it might help you spot factual errors in other soures of information added, for example). Personally, I think it's worth having a discussion of those issues in both fraternities articles, and any other fraternity articles as well. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to go out and dig up dirt on, Sigma Chi, for example, but if someone makes a factual, referenced, NPOV contribution to the encyclopedia, it should stay in unless there's a strong reason not to have that information. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Iheartwiki19, you might also consider adding the information you just mentioned (the response to the incident by National, and that National continues to address the incident (which is true, I saw several videos about that incident while still an active, it was definitely something National made a point of discussing)) to the section itself. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a mandate that this type of information be in these articles. i have looked at severalother fraternity pages that have had similar incidents and they were not present. Sigma Nu recently had a member die at Clemson. What is the standard on this material? Storkpkp (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues Edit

I moved the Adrian Heideman/Chico State and Berkeley hazing incident sections into their own section, included some more relevant information of these incidents and the national fraternity's response/involvement with them. This is important because these events were in no way the result of condoned actions by the national organization. Please respond here if doing any major edits. I removed one of the Cal State Chico's newspaper (The Orion) references because I found discrepancies in its information from other things. I've seen Chico's newspaper and it's not that well-written. Iheartwiki19 06:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 18:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A small question for whoever administers this page. Why is the Gamma Chapter "incident" in the "legal" section? Since no charges in this matter were ever filed with any law enforcement agency, since no arrests occurred, since no judgement was ever issued by a court of law, I am wondering what the heck it is doing in the "legal" section. Also since no legal record exists of what actually transpired, isn't it inaccurate to portray what happened based solely on non-sworn information? Please explain why this is here and if you plan to list in this section every chapter that ever goes on any sort of university probation absent involvement by legal agencies.

Grammar and Spelling

It is interesting to note the confusion about Nil Separabit. It appears as NIL SEPAR ABIT on the ribbon below the original coat of arms. This was obviously done as an aesthetic to make it a balanced three-fold ribbon. It was probably assumed that succeeding generations would still have a basic understanding of Latin (as did our Founders) and understand that it was a word divided in syllables. It is most unfortunate that the motto was transcribed literally as it appears on the ribbon in recent editions of The White Diamond. One can only hope that this will be corrected eventually.KenCribbs 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni Vandalism

I have reverted to revision 65823691 by Merope, removing several silly notable alumni, including a 'Hat Integrity Tester' and and 'All Male Adult Film Star.' Most of the linked names did not correspond to articles, and the two that did were not the people mentioned in the list. All 'notable' alumni added were from Gamma Iota chapter, Louisiana State University. Non-vandal changes made during and since the run of vandalism have been saved. The two vandals were 204.196.254.33 and 137.30.102.84. Both IPs are from the Louisiana area. --J Morgan^(talk) 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reason for removing Alpha Delta incident

For one, this is hardly a legal incident. The family and Pi Kappa Phi eventually settled out of court but no wrongdoing was acknowledged [2]. Furthermore, we can't stick in every freak accident that has happened to a member of Pi Kappa Phi. Should we start doing the same to any individual that comes under harm at a university? Why isn't this posted under the University of Washington page? Isn't UW as responsible as Pi Kappa Phi for this incident? I don't even think the Gamma event should be listed. The only reason it's relevant is because of timeliness and making national news. I'm sure there are events all over the US like this that don't make it into wikipedia articles. Iheartwiki19 06:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It made pretty significant headlines locally, including follow-up stories by local television and print media 12 and 18 months later. Since the even did not happen on University property, the UW would not be considered (as) responsible as the Alpha Delta chapter organization was. If the section regarding the Chico incident remains, I don't see why the death of Brett Jensen at the UW chapter should not be included as well. He died as a Pi Kapp, on Pi Kapp property, during a Pi Kapp event. There're enough outside sources (Seattletimes, Seattle P-I, Everett Herald, Seattle Weekly, The Stranger, The Daily, KIRO-7, etc...) to adequately cite. Also, since no criminal charges were were filed, and since the parties settled out of court, there's no reason to assign 'blame'. I believe these anectdotes are significant as they are linked to the organization and its reputation - what other events are more widely known or disseminated than the death of a student/brother? I considered writing an entry in this regard, but I am too personally involved with the incident to trust myself with NPOV language. However, I think it is significant enough to include, as other such incidents are included in other frat entries. More specific to this case, though, is that the Chico incident is included - the exclusion of other incidents is arbitrary. Joe in Seattle 140.160.66.83 22:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information

All information concerning the UC Berkeley chapter has been removed and should be replaced.

Push America

shouldn't there be a section talking about PUSH America? Liquidvelvet 19:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Nevermind, I see it has it's own page. Liquidvelvet 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a Pi Kappa Phi, and as proud as we all are, PUSH is not the only philanthropic project started or wholey owned by a greek letter organization. Several others pre-date PUSH.65.126.180.254 22:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, it's Push America. (Note the mixed case.) The ALL CAPS was dropped when the acronym (People Understanding the Severely Handicapped) was dropped and PUSH became Push America. See the Push America website. KenCribbs (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nu Phi

While the original group was Nu Phi, standing for Non-Fraternity, this was in the context of Non-Fraternity slate in a school election. After being defeated, the original members realized they needed to form a fraternity. They did not found a group with a non-fraternity spirit.65.126.180.254 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

So many errors even on a quick read through,eg

1. National? this is a global encyclopaedia, need to mention the country
2. Non-MoS capitalisation of headings
3. Lack of independent verifiable sources - most refs are to the organisation web site, not independent - the article comes close to being spam
4. I only checked the first two refs, neither contained the claimed information, just spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
5. quotes not formatted, in-line refs in non-Mos style (mainly because not proper refs)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Jimfbleak (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

What is the definition of notable alumni? There are some questionable entries on this section. Many do not even have a wikipedia reference or are not referenced at all. Storkpkp (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Start pre-assessment

1.) The history section has few references.

2.) The images ARE NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are fair use. Replace tag with {{logo}} and a fair use guideline.

3.) Interesting facts sounds like trivia which are discouraged.

4.) Dates like January 14, 1904 are hyperlinked due to MOS

5.) Refs are after the period and don't have spaces. [i.e. x.^[1] (correct) versus x ^[1] (incorrect)] per MOS. If changes are made, this can at least be a B, but more sources need to be added. Miranda 05:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Crest needs fair use rationale. All of the fair use images need sources (links) to show where they are from. Most importantly, DO NOT RE-NOMINATE THIS ARTICLE FOR GA BEFORE ACQUIRING A PEER REVIEW! Refs need dates, per MOS. I have placed maintenance tags on the article, and that should help you. At this point the article to me is still a start due to 1.) lack of sources, 2.) prose, 3.) lack of image rationale on crest and link sources om images. Miranda 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, I will work on those things. This article was not resubmitted for GA review. That was a mixup.Storkpkp (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Pointless putting this up again when essentially none of the concerns especially wrt independent verifiable references have been addressed. Supposed refs mainly just link to spam pages. Jimfbleak (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This was not put up again. You removed it from the nominations list and then undid it: [3]. Then you removed it again a couple of hours later:

[4] ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, what Dyspepsions say is correct, but this articles was nominated some days ago, failed at GA yesterday, and was then renominated again today with no significant changes. The stutter you picked up was because I thought of leaving it for someone else, but it's so far from even B grade that there's no point Jimfbleak (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This was not renominated for your review. It was put into the Fraternity and Sorority wiki project. This has nothing to do with your review. It was not renominated after your review two days ago. You undid its removal so you are to blame for this. Go ahead and find one independent source on the history of this fraternity and I will gladly use it. The history of this fraternity is contained at one place and one place only. Storkpkp (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

If nothing, apart from a couple of trivial legal incidents, can be verified from independent sources, then the article should be deleted as non-notable and/or spam, since it also makes unsupported POV claims eg It is one of only a few Greek letter organizations with its own charitable organization, Push America, which integrates tightly with Pi Kapp chapters to serve people with disabilities. Push America also holds many renowned national events including the Journey of Hope, a bicycle ride across the continental United States.

Also, what is stated is not supported even by the claimed references to the non-independent source. Eg, the first para says Pi Kappa Phi is a US social fraternity. It was founded by Andrew Alexander Kroeg, Jr., Lawrence Harry Mixson, and Simon Fogarty, Jr. on December 10, 1904 at the College of Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina. Pi Kapp has 129 active chapters and 11 associate chapters, with over 98,900 initiated brothers. It is one of only a few Greek letter organizations with its own charitable organization, Push America, which integrates tightly with Pi Kapp chapters to serve people with disabilities. Push America also holds many renowned national events including the Journey of Hope, a bicycle ride across the continental United States.

The claimed ref supporting this statement is this, which actually says For more than 100 years, Pi Kappa Phi has been building better men on college campuses across the country. From our humble roots at the College of Charleston in South Carolina to over 130 campuses today, Pi Kappa Phi stands for a commitment to fundamental values. We are a first CLASS fraternity who firmly believes in the tenets of Character, Leadership, Academics, Sportsmanship, and Service. These principles are not only valued but instilled through leading-edge educational, service, and leadership opportunities. We are "Leaders by Choice." This supposed ref is just a spam page, and contains nothing to support what was said in the opening paragraph.

The second ref is similar, and the third, although accurate, is just to a mission statement (ie more spam)

Hope this helps, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be worked on which I believe Storkpkp is in the process of doing. The nomination for this to be a good article was very premature. However, to even suggest deletion is borderline trying to prove a point; something which has been tried several times (e.g. Sigma Alpha Mu). You might as well try and delete almost every student organization on Wikipedia including this entire project : Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the policy you refer to says that actions should not be used to prove a point - I can't see why why expressing an opinion on the notability or spamminess of the article breaches that rule - I haven't even listed it at AfD. I have to say that I find it rather disheartening that the responses so far have been to my alleged faults, rather than addressing the major problems with this article. You will note that I've implicitly assumed that the fact that the alleged refs actually link to promotional material was done in good faith, but is just poor editing. I have no axe to grind with this article, it was put up for GA review, so I reviewed it. Please try to assume good faith in my comments too. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked at Sigma Alpha Mu. That article has proper independent references, a sensible list of notable alumni, all with their own articles, (rather than half the population of the US) - I can't really see what the comparison is. The fact that one college article is notable and non-spam doesn't automatically transfer to all fraternities Jimfbleak (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When Sigma Alpha Mu was nominated for AfD it was in a similar if not worse state than this article so what you see now in that article can't really compare to what it was before. There have also been other articles such as this where the argument of deletion was presented even if it didn't go to AfD. The point is, this organization is clearly notable which you imply is not because of non-verified sources. That's one of the problems with articles such as this and which really does need to be corrected. I bring up the idea that your argument can be brought up to all fraternities is that almost all organizations of this kind such as: Phi Sigma Kappa, Alpha Gamma Rho, Phi Delta Epsilon, Phi Mu currently don't have verified independent sources. The fact that this article has two independent sources aside from the fraternity publications itself, albiet in the Legal Issues sections, is two more than the examples I just listed. These are just some examples, the list goes on and on. Believe it or not, I tried to assume good faith but the line kind of blurred when you insist it was re-nominated for the GA list when it wasn't and you bring up the argument that organization is non-notable. Storkpkp was already in the process of taking your suggestions from the GA review to improve the article. Notability and spam are not the same thing. There have been many articles that are well sourced yet are not notable and are subsequently deleted. However, there are others which are notable but are poorly written. In this case a cleanup is in order or "advertisment" tag is placed, but rarely do you come across the idea of deletion of an article whose subject is notable but is written like spam unless there is a copyvio. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dysepsion. You stated it just as I would have. I am working very hard to get this article cleaned up and a lot of work has been done just in the past few days. It will take a lot of work, but I am doing the best I can. I am not a professional editor and I am learning wikipedia's policies. I will do the best I can, but to say this article is not notable is just flat out silly. You won't even admit it was not resubmitted for GA review. Seems you have a real problem realizing you might not be right. Anyway, I will continue to work hard to make this article better.Storkpkp (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's best to just move on and work at the article at hand. Storkpkp, you should take a look at Alpha Phi Alpha which is a Featured Article or Phi Delta Theta which is a Good Article and currently nominated for a Featured Article but more than likely will not pass yet, for some ideas in developing this article. The Sigma Chi article is also a nice one to reference. Finding independent sources is hard for any fraternity and sorority especially if the particular organization has not made any national headlines. However, you may want to search the "news" section or even "book" section at google. That's how I found some independent sources for Phi Delta Theta. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will definitely look at those sites and try to get some more sources if they are avaialble.Storkpkp (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Jim, thanks for your latest revisions. They all look to be nice improvements.Storkpkp (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, since I seem to have caused some upset, I went through the article and made some changes, most of these were MoS issues - note in particular than items should be linked only on the first occurrence, headings should not be capitalised unless proper names, and should not include the article name, and in-line external links (like the Edualcohol one before I fixed it) should not be used. I've not fixed all the style issues, and I've only replaced one ref. There is still a great deal to do, but if a some future date you feel that it is really ready for GA, let me know and I will give it an informal run through.

I find it amazing that US colleges have alcohol policies, but of course the legal age is much higher than anywhere outside NAm Jimfbleak (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

alumni

There are a fair few multiple links in the alumni sections. The first section is fine, since the national HQ is a clear criterion. The second section is more dubious, since there is no clear basis for selection. I would be inclined to chop most of the red-linked ones, since if there is no Wikipedia article, they can't be that notable. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I seperated them out. Nationals is a little behind on recognizing some of them, like a nobel prize winner so I just seperated them for now, but I plan to research that second section and take a lot of those names out. Many seem to be inisgnifcantStorkpkp (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Chapters

needs some text, if only "there are x chapters and y associate chapters spread over z states" Jimfbleak (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I added some text to this section. Littlealien182 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing "Foundation" to "Founding"

Traditionally, the term "foundation" is used to refer to the tax-exempt educational entity that handles a fraternity's endowment fund and scholarship money. I suggest that we change this section to "Founding." If there is a general consensus from other editors of this page, then I will change it. Also, on a related note, it may be beneficial to add a "Foundation" section that actually refers to the aforementioned organization (and add a "Pi Kappa Phi Properties" section, as well). Littlealien182 (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add a "Foundation" and a "Properties" section to the article. If anyone is opposed to these changes, please respond here and state why. LittleAlien¹⁸² _{--talk trash--} 03:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You have changed "founding" to "foundation" for a section on the founding of Pi Kappa Phi. This does not make sense. If you desire a section on PKP Foundation (the fundraising entity) then create a section for that. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. The change you made -changing "foundation" to "founding"- was the edit that I was talking about when I started this discussion (though I never actually made it). Your edit (i.e. changing "foundation" to "founding") was the one that I was planning to do. Now that this issue has been resolved, we can continue to improve this page by creating a new section for Pi Kappa Phi's "foundation." LittleAlien¹⁸² _{--talk trash--} 09:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad. Don't hesitate to change obvious errors like that. (Foundation is obviously the incorrect word in this instance.) As far as adding pi kappa phi's foundation, perhaps we should consider a new structure for the article. Some things to likely include, not necessarily in their own section: endowment, pkp properties, pi kappa phi foundation, push america (with link to push article), history (this seems to the best section so far), programs, symbolism?, national structure--hq,supreme council,leadership consultants,regions, etc. Also, you need only use a single colon (:) to indent a level, not two. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraternity Infobox

Converted the page to use this. There are issues. Specifically:

• calls the coat of arms a "crest"
• has one symbols field, whereas Pi Kapp seems to have multiple symbols. Before there were images displayed but I've removed these until an elegant solution can be worked out.
• distinguishes between lifetime members and current members, which should be added Iheartwiki19 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Iheartwiki, I like what you were going for with this change, but I feel like the original table is much better than the current fraternity infobox template, both aesthetically and informatively. Actually, one of my goals was to make the fraternity infobox template look more like or old infobox and use this to create the "unified look" that is stated in the 4th project goal of the fraternity and sorority wikiproject. Let me know what you think. LittleAlien¹⁸² _{--talk trash--} 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make some changes to the Fraternity Infobox. If you can put me to resources or someone I can contact about making said changes, then I'll do it. I agree it could be somewhat more attractive but most infoboxes look similar to the current one, though the font sizes are bit screwy. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be reverting to the old infobox. Goal 4 of the Fraternities and Sororities project is a unified look for fraternity and sorority projects. I think modifications should be made to the template, if anything. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the old infobox for a number of reasons. First of all, it presents the information in a more logical and appealing manner and --to put it simply-- it looks better than the old infobox. Secondly, other fraterntiy pages use this old style (e.g. Kappa Sigma and PIKE). Thirdly, the Fraternity and Sorority wikiproject has been stagnant for a long time now. Adhering to the old, outdated goals of this project is hindering the progress of this article. We need not wait around for these goals and templates to be modified. Especially, if the quality of this article is at stake. — ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 09:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I'd like to propose that we use the cite __ templates moving forward. This way we don't have to worry as much about formatting references correctly. For example, here's more info on Template:Cite_web. -- Iheartwiki19 (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Are you going to reformat the existing citations? Or would you like me to do this? LittleAlien¹⁸² _{--talk trash--} 00:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Major revision

I am in the process of rewriting the history section and completely doing away with the existing material. The new history section is going to be loosely modeled after The Brotherhood, and will look something like this:

• The new fraternity (1904-1928)

• Nu Phi
• National Foundations
• Extension and Stabilization
• The Fraternity and the World War
• Growth and National Consciousness
• Establishing Administrative Efficiency

• The developing fraternity (1929-1953)

• The Great Depression
• The Years of World War II
• Post-war Rehabilitation
• Modernization
• The Korean War and Social Conflict

• The growing fraternity (1954-1978)

• Happy Days (1955-1960)
• Growing Pains (1960s)
• Tomorrow's fraternity today

• The modern fraternity (1979-2004)

• Old traditions and New Style (1980s)
• The Journey (1990s)
• America's leading fraternity (2000-2004)

• The fraternity today (2004-present)

• The Second century vision
• Unparalleled growth

This is a preliminary outline; the final draft will likely contain new sections (and subsections) and, likewise, have certain omissions from the above outline. If you think I am missing something or feel that something should be omitted, please respond to this post. Also, if you would like to help, you can message me on my talk page. Thanks. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Evidence of Founding Date: 1904 vs. 1894?

Hey all, another alumnus here. We were all taught that the fraternity was founded in 1904. However, just today I came across something peculiar –– a book, published in 1896(!), with the following passage:

"In the fall of [1894] a chapter of Pi Kappa Phi was established and then in the spring of '95 our chapter of Sigma Nu was installed.... Although Pi Kappa Phi has more than twice our number, yet we will fight to 'count her for game'. "

The book is The Delta of Sigma Nu, Vol. 13, which is an annual history published by that fraternity. The article in question, "The Founding of Beta Tau - N.C. A. & M.", about their new chapter on the campus of the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts in Raleigh, NC, can be found in Section 13, pages 9–11. You'll find it here on Google Books.

Can anyone shed light on this anachronism? Might the author have actually been referring to Pi Kappa Alpha? Or perhaps to an unrelated, now-defunct fraternal organization that existed 10 years earlier and 260 miles away? Thoughts? Grolltech (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

My thought is that the author made an error and meant to name some other fraternity such as Pi Kappa Alpha (PIKE was around back then) or some other unrelated organization with the same name. I highly doubt so many people, including nationals and publishers of The White Diamond would have the Pi Kapp founding date wrong for so long. --Another Pi Kapp alum, LJ ↗ 09:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you that 1904 is correct, but I'm skeptical that the author mis-named Pi Kappa Alpha. There weren't that many organizations around back then, and I'm sure that an undergrad back then, just as today, would clearly know the names of their rival fraternities, especially when writing a report to their national organization. That leads me to conclude that there must have been another Pi Kappa Phi that preceded our own; whether there was any linkage between the two remains an intriguing mystery.... Grolltech (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pi Kappa Phi CoA.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mission/Vision Edits

As an representative of the national office, I have just updated the mission and vision section to be in line with our updated branding which took effect this past August at Supreme Chapter.

source

Thanks, John A. Andrews Jandrewz7 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added the link as a reference. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Removed the "Hazing allegations" section.

I have removed the "Hazing allegations" section. According to Wikipedia.com "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." The 2 citations contain no links to arrests or official statements.

Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude constitute defamation and are subject to legal action. Allegations should only ever be included if they are part of a substantiated report.

The Pi Kappa Phi Chapter at Cal State - Northridge voluntarily closed their chapter. (http://pikapp.org/contentnomenu.aspx?id=5092&terms=Armando%20Villa)

The latest report about the investigation I found was here: http://sundial.csun.edu/2014/09/lasd-completes-villa-investigation-awaiting-coroner-report/

Not a single person has been charged with any criminal activity. Listing all allegations made against organizations is trivial and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSyntonyx88 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, TheSyntonyx88. I'm going to paste the paragraph you removed below so we can all be on the same page:

A student pledging the California State University, Northridge chapter of Pi Kappa Phi died in the summer of 2014 in what his family alleges was a hazing ritual. Nineteen-year-old Armando Villa died during a hiking trip in the Angeles National Forest. Villa's family reported that other boys on the hike said they were "left barefoot with very little water to share between the boys, and no cellphones, and to find their way out of the forest." The police reported that the fraternity was cooperating with the police investigation and that chapter activities had been suspended until the investigation concluded. In September 2014, the University announced that the national and local chapters of the Pi Kappa Phi fraternity voted to withdraw permanently from the university.

You'll note that there is nothing in that paragraph that mentions any person's name other than Villa and you'll also note that the only allegations (that the 'other boys on the hike' said something) is in a quote, showing that this is something said by Villa's family, not something that Wikipedia is asserting. I've added a couple more cites with links to more articles with that quote to help you verify what's there in the paragraph is there in the source. Wikipedia is essentially a repeater of what other sources say and these sources are definitely backing up what is in that paragraph. However, if this article is saying more than what is being reported in the press or other sources, then that claim should be removed. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More links that show the hazing allegations

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pi-kappa-phi-sued_55945390e4b05fcdf274c787) (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-csun-student-wrongful-death-suit-20150701-story.html)

Since a lawsuit has been put forward, this should be mentioned at least. We should be wary of Pi Kappa Phi members deleting this since it tarnishes their image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.42.237.185 (talk) 09:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Single source

I have added a single-source tag to the 'history' section. This is really three different issues, however. This section is written based on a single source, and that source is non-neutral. There's nothing wrong with using such sources to fill in details, but this is fairly extensive and detailed account, and an outside source would help establish due weight and appropriate context. The third problem is that the source is an archive.org version of a SWF file. This is inaccessible/inconvenient for many browsers, especially mobile, and this will probably get worse with time. This doesn't mean the source is unreliable, of course, but it's still worth replacing if possible. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)