Talk:Psi Upsilon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation

Todo: list the latest edition of our tablet as a citation for this entire page--Htmlism 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Recent Large Edit

I've removed the text from the recent large edit. Despite being potentially useful, the contributor made zero attempt to localize it to the wiki, making it sound more like propaganda than actually useful information. --Htmlism 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Barnard

The link in this wiki entry points to the wrong Robert Barnard. --SilverWoodchuck47 23:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)silverwoodchuck47

Thanks for bringing it up. I've since unlinked all of the founding fathers. They're probably not that important, in the entire scope of the Wikipedia, that is. Otherwise, we'd have to set up a disambiguation page or note for Robert Barnard. Probably not necessary. --Htmlism 04:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion

This article is badly in need of a good expansion. I have added a tag, hoping a Psi Upsilon brother will be able to expand with more information. Jmlk17 09:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Omicron of Psi Upsilon, Secretary of my chapter. I'm ready to start updating this page, though I noticed that you removed the information about founding fathers. I'm not sure if you're a brother, but I assume you're not, because that sort of information is very important to the Brotherhood. I plan on updating it in my spare time (I am obviously, a college student), but if you've any advice to give, please let me know. It is the first time I'm doing any editing on Wikipedia, so any advice would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factorial56 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective of how important the founding-fathers information may be to the Brotherhood, that's not Wikipedia's place. It is more appropriate to the work of chapter and national-organization historians, perhaps for the fraternity's web site(s), if applicable, to prevent the information from fading away. You also would be wise to step carefully in adding material; Wikipedia does depend for contributions on those of us who have most interest in a subject, and that's often those in close connection with it, but by the same token, the policies are clear about making sure information is neutral, verifiable, etc., and that there are expectations that articles won't be edited by their subjects (e.g., a biographical article by the person it's profiling, a company article by that company's employees, etc.). Presumably the person who wrote the 2007 note is no longer an undergraduate, but fraternity members must be careful to edit dispassionately (just as I try hard to do when editing the article on my alma mater :). Lawikitejana (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

New Changes

I'm having trouble citing the College Tablet correctly. It's the College Tablet: Psi Upsilon's Member Education Guide. Copyright 2001. Third Edition. Editors Mark A. Williams and Jean Gileno. No author listed. Publisher is College Fraternity Editors Association. Every time I tried to edit it, it just didn't work. Any help is much appreciated. Also, if there are any problems, please don't delete it. I'll try to fix it if that's possible. Let's talk it out if needed. Factorial56 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Any such section will need to be sourced in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Please insure you do so before adding any more names, or else they will be removed. Thanks. --John (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

It appears that a good amount of material has been pulled from here. I've cleaned up a ton of these copyvio articles, but I just don't have enough energy for this at the moment. Dawnseeker2000 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that's the source of the line that makes reference to "our undergraduates" (emphasis mine)? Definitely there should be at least a little paragraph about the Sherman Wu incident at Northwestern, since that made national news at the time. I'll work on it. Lawikitejana (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fraternity Firsts

If you look in the history, there are two fraternity firsts, one about women being accept and another about housing, that I've never heard of before.--Htmlism 21:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

2016 Chi chapter mess

Zealous Wikipedians have rushed to show that Psi U's Cornell chapter, Chi, is inactive, misinterpreting the actual status of Suspension, and to note the issue with a 'controversy' subheader to the article. This shows a rush to judgement which is inappropriate. I'm disinterested, and neither a Psi U nor Cornell grad. I think a notation may be useful, but should be pushed down within the article to a lower status, and will do so now.

This event is notorious especially due the the visibility of the Cornell chapter as one of the premier "frat castles" in the US, and also because the alleged perpetrator of the assault was the president of the chapter. The courts will sort it out. Meanwhile, the chapter, according to University and national fraternity press releases, is suspended (not inactive, in the sense of being closed). Members still live in the house; social events and pledging activities are in suspense. A portion of a summary from People magazine on 6 February, 2016 states:

On Monday [5 February 2016], the fraternity was placed on interim suspension by Cornell as a result of the accusations, the university said in a statement.

"Interim suspension is a pause in the operations of a chapter during which the chapter may not engage in any activities other than operation of its residence," Travis Apgar, associate dean of students, said in the statement. "Interim suspension is used when details of a credible report compel the university to cease activities of the organization for the safety of the members, those joining or guests."

In a Friday statement,, Psi Upsilon said it was cooperating with the investigation, has suspended "all activity of the chapter" and that fraternity staff would be traveling to Ithaca.

--Jax MN (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

This is speculation and should be removed from the online encyclopedia until the events that took place are clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.31.112 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is this sub heading still here? It does not follow suit with any of the other fraternities. Many fraternities have suspected controversies, but Psi Upsilon seems to be the only page that contains speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.31.112 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think this reasoning is fair, and I have made the necessary edits: In keeping with standard practice for Greek pages, I noted the closure on the Chapters page, and removed the "Controversy" section on the main page. While tragic, this is more of a local issue (though significant on that campus), versus a systemic, fraternity wide problem. The fraternity itself closed its chapter, fully complying with the actions of school administration. It would be ill-balanced to note the occasional local legal problem concerning a local chapter on the summary page about its national fraternity. Jax MN (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't comment out content like that, it just leads to page bloat for no good reason. There's no such "standard practice" and if there were it would not hold up to closer scrutiny. If the information meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policies, it should be considered. The man indicted was a chapter president, and the investigation and closure received lasting national attention, so it can be presumed to have an enduring impact on the fraternity. There are similar sections on many other frat articles. If some don't have such sections, either it's because they haven't had similar rape accusations, they haven't been covered by reliable sources, or they haven't been added to their articles yet, but regardless, that doesn't set a precedent for this article. Grayfell (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This article, like too many other articles on frats, had a near completely lack of reliable, independent sources before this incident was added. If the only independent sources are unflattering news stories, so be it, because the alternative is worse. When most or all of the sources used in an article are an organization's own publications, it's a near-guarantee that the article is non-neutral. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, so recycling promotional material is a dead-end. Citing Baird's would at least help, although since it aimed to be comprehensive, it's weight is limited. Looking for additional sources on the fraternity, I notice that they were the last fraternity on Wesleyan, and the only one of the final two who seemed willing to become coed, before they were shut down due to investigations for illegal drug activity.[1][2]Like it or not, this kind of thing is a part of the frat's history too. It helps make the article more encyclopedic and well-rounded, because Wikipedia doesn't need yet another very thinly sourced mash note to the enduring value of brotherhood or whatever. If readers just want the information from a fraternity's own website, they know where to go. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Psi Upsilon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070414185849/http://www.psiu.org/fr/history.html to http://www.psiu.org/fr/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sherman Wu

I personally believe that it belongs on the page, not as a single unexplained link on the see also, but under the controversies. I found a few other sources which sprung from the Time coverage, (And according to https://digital.bentley.umich.edu/midaily/mdp.39015071756410/39 he was given honorary membership in local Kappa Sigma Alpha at Olivet College, unclear if that is the fraternity mentioned as having been given membership in) Naraht (talk) 07:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but only as a representative sample of how race issues evolved. Subtext is necessary. What I worry about here, is that popping in a 70 year-old Racism! claim distorts the narrative and casts a false understanding. The truth is, Greeks were often on the forefront of racial integration, and I think far more than they fought against it. After the military's integration, colleges became the venue for this to play out, and Greek chapters (among the most visible institutions) soon emerged as tens of thousands of individual battlefields where this was decided. Almost always, Greeks favored integration. Psi Upsilon wasn't much different in how it handled the rapid influx of WWII vets, which included a vastly-increased Black population on college campuses in the 1950s. This Northwestern chapter handled the emerging reality was no differently than other fraternities; a few years later integration was the rule. This Sherman Wu story was a specific campus issue, got national news, and perhaps could frame the larger point about how the issue reared up and was resolved by pluralistic inclusion over about a decade. --At least from the national fraternity perspective and at most chapters.

One 90 year-old man I knew well was a life-long champion for integration, and as a WWII vet came out of college, he said, changed by the experience of the influx of Black GIs. He became a much-loved middle school teacher. To paint him as part of a generation that was simply racist, without the subtext that these men and women became mid-century Liberal champions of racial inclusion, through their experiences, is a fraud. Jax MN (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying this needs to be as significant a part of the article as similar situations have been for Kappa Alpha Order. But it definitely reaches the level of Notable Controversies. And I don't think this is part of the "no differently" since Psi U didn't *have* racial requirements. Most of the well covered examples are where a chapter chooses to pledge a non-white and goes head to head with their national over the issue. (See half of the fraternities at Darthmouth).Naraht (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agree with you that it could add value as a notable controversy. (I prefer these sections be titled as "Local chapter or member misconduct" wherever possible.) But when added, a few supporting sentences should indicate the broader canvas of massive campus change at the time, and the beneficial result to the Northwestern chapter's difficulty working through the situation and resulting bad press. Speaking to Anon, who had attempted to add this, I think it irresponsible to cite these situations without using them as a teachable point. To focus only on the damning nature of the event is to appeal to the merely salacious and not to a balanced presentation.

Dartmouth: great example. Much of those changes were reactionary, as the school and its fraternities were on the forefront of agitating for change. But... those that sparked withdrawal from their nationals are not all innocent. For example, on that campus, Phi Sig's Tau chapter left its national, ostensibly because of a racial policy (rescinded nationally after just two years.), and thereby conveniently evaded a large remodeling debt ($100,000+) by so doing. Other chapter left their nationals because they didn't like paying insurance. Jax MN (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)