Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi

Preliminary matters

A few preliminary matters before we get started. Basically whether you're happy with me mediating and where we're going to discuss things.

So a little about me. I'm a Brit and have no association with (or indeed knowledge of) any Fraternities so there isn't any conflict of interest that I can see :-). My role here will be to help you all to reach agreement on the issue in dispute, not to express opinions or take sides. Hopefully by the end of this mediation you will be able to reach an outcome that is acceptable to all of you. I will try to guide you as to what issues it might be helpful for you to discuss - but this process is about you. If you're unhappy with the way things are going at any time, please let me know.

If you have any questions, you may contact me at any time, either via my talkpage or by email if you prefer (my email address is WJBscribe at gmail dot com). I will treat all email correspondence as strictly confidential. WjBscribe 02:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator

Please sign below to confirm you're happy that I mediate this dispute:

Confirm. —SlamDiego_←T 13:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm. Jmlk 1 7 07:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm.RJ 20:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location of this mediation

If there are no privacy issues of concern to any of you, this mediation can proceed on this talkpage. However if any of the you would prefer the discussions to take place in private, I can create accounts for you on the private MedComWiki and we can proceed there. Please indicate which option you think is best:

Happy to have discussions here

I have no qualms about discussing here. Jmlk 1 7 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think that discussion should be here, and have no objections to WJBscribe as mediator. —SlamDiego_←T 08:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the remaining party (contrary to my expectation) strongly prefer private discussion, then I will accept private discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the discussion should be here. This discussion has been open thus far, and I don't see any reason why that should change. RJ 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer private mediation

Opening statements

Ok, now the above has been dealt with (I'll assume RJ meant to sign the first section). I think it would be a good idea to start by expressing where everyone stands on the issue in question. In your section below, please set out as concisely as possible:

Whether you think the article should discuss the rape
If yes, how much coverage the rape should have
Your reasons for the above

This should give us an understanding of where everyone is coming from on the issue. WjBscribe 03:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlamDiego

Yes, the article should cover the rape. I believe that, given the present level of available information, the present amount of coverage is about right. It is conceivable to me that, with further information, the coverage should later be as much as doubled, or possibly contracted.

Very simply, a fraternity is an aggregation of its parts. Articles on fraternities list such things as individual members, and their associated chapters, who have achieved notoriety though achievement. From a neutral point-of-view, it should likewise cover notoriety achieved through misdeed. By analogy, the article on the US Marine Corps has treated controversial allegations about the behaviour of individual marines or of platoons thereof; likewise, the article on the Roman Catholic Church does not merely treat of the actions of the Vatican, but of individual clergymen, parishes, and dioceses.

It will surely be noted that, so far, the only perpetrator convicted of the rape in question was a William Beebe, who was not formally a member of the fraternity. But the victim was drugged by a third party, acting as bartender for the fraternity (and thus an agent of the fraternity even if not a member of the fraternity). And the prosecutor and victim allege that the rape was a gang rape, ex hypothesi greatly increasing the probability that some of those who had forcible sex with the victim were fraternity members.

The allegations are likely to be substantiated: Beebe was allowed to plea bargain although the evidence against him was utterly damning; he is expected, in exchange, to testify against others.

The rape itself is notable not simply because it has attracted national attention, but because the victim was sufficiently strong a person to create a national organization, of some significance, to assist victims of rape.

Rjproie

I believe that this story does not, given present evidence, deserve coverage on the Phi Kappa Psi page. To this point, the only person directly implicated in the rape is William Beebe, who was never a member of Phi Kappa Psi. The possibility that the victim was drugged by a third party (which has been alleged by the victim) will never be verifiable, because no toxicology tests were performed at the time. The language used, that "It is alleged by the state of Virginia..." is incorrect, as the state of Virginia, or a representative thereof, does not make allegations until charges are pressed. As no charges have been brought against anyone other than William Beebe, who is not a member of the fraternity, I disagree with the characterization.
The section titles of "Controversy" on the article page and "Gang Rape" on the talk page are also problematic. As it has been noted, a gang rape has been alleged by the victim, but there is to this point no other credible evidence linking a member of the fraternity to any such thing. As such, there may well be a controversy, but it does not involve the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity, as there is no reason for the fraternity to have a position (aside from the fact that rape directly violates many fraternity laws, edicts and Rituals).
Finally, as I have noted on the Talk:Phi Kappa Psi page, I agree with the idea that the fraternity should be viewed, at least to some extent, as the whole of its parts. The actions of individuals or certainly of chapters of Phi Kappa Psi, whether "positive" or "negative," can be covered here, just as SlamDiego's examples of the U.S. Marine Corps or the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the principle that SlamDiego has espoused several times, that this topic may belong on this article page, but I sit on the opposite side of the fence in that I believe that some sort of direct link must be made to the fraternity before this topic appears here, as opposed to posting it and seeing if proof to the contrary appears. Since, in this instance, no fraternity members are implicated, I do not think that the actions of a non-member belong on this article page. RJ 03:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmlk17

I believe the rape should be mentioned in the article. I have seen it mentioned in national press at several locations, and has become enough of a news interest story to have it on CNN Headline News, a large and respected source. The simple ignoring of the issue in the article isn't really warranted, as the accused was a guest, and the perpetrator was on the premises with the permission of the fraternity. Thus, it became the responsibility of the fraternity to ensure that their guests were safe, and nothing would happen. Something did happen, and it has become quite newsworthy as a result. Jmlk 1 7 08:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator comment

Thank you all for your responses - my apologies for the fact that is has taken me some time to get back to you - I was rather overtaken by events elsewhere. Hopefully things can now move forward with increased speed... WjBaway 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underlying question

Before we move into discussing this particular controversy, I think it might be helpful for us to have a more general discussion about the underlying question - when should a particular controversy be included in the article about an organisation with whom it is associated? As I see it there are several factors one might consider:

Notability of the controversy - i.e. how widely covered was it?
Impact on the organisation
Extent of connection of the victim or perpetrator to the organisation
Physical proximity of the event(s) to the property of the organisation
Are there WP:BLP concerns with including the info?
NPOV concerns - can a neutral and balanced article still be written if the information is included/excluded

There may be other factors that have not occured to me that you may wish to address as well but that seems to be a good starting point for thinking about the issues involved. I would encourage participants to express a view about whether these should all be taken into consideration and the weight that should be attached to the various factors. I suspect if we can find common ground on the general question, it will be easier to apply any conclusions to discussing the specific case that concerns us here. WjBaway 01:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you don't insist that we seek to definitively answer that underlying, general question, but I note that the more that we approach seeking to do so, the longer that this dispute will remain unresolved.

I think that each of the items that you list should be taken into consideration. As to weighting, as I think that some of these considerations involve necessity, weighting isn't appropriate. Wikipedia requires notability, it requires the rules of WP:BLP, and it requires NPOV. Failure of a case on any one of these points would invalidate what would otherwise be soundness.

Connection to the organization, if not trivial, can be quite relevant. But I can readily imagine cases in which it were not necessary. Making the means of an assault readily available to would-be assailants could create criminal, civil, or moral liability even if the assailant and victim were otherwise mere passers-by. (Failure to keep property lit has brought many a landlord to grief.)

I think that physical proximity of the events to the property of the organization is relevant when it participates in showing a connection of the victim or of the perpetrator to an organization, or there can otherwise be shown to be liability of the organization. In many cases, proximity to property may be irrelevant.

—SlamDiego_←T 02:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, sorry I haven't checked this in some time. I've been traveling, and nothing had happened regarding this issue in a while. My bad. SlamDiego's post seems to have covered the idea of what's going on here pretty well, with the obvious caveat that I don't think the physical proximity of the event warrants this issue appearing on this page.

The story was covered pretty widely, appearing in many newspapers and magazines across the nation, and on at least one television news show. As to the effect on the organization, there has been nil, except for the fact that it is noted that the rape happened within a chapter house of the organization (I believe the Headquarters was contacted once or twice for information by a newspaper in Virginia). The connection of both the perpetrator and the victim to the organization is that they were guests of the local chapter. It was alleged that the woman may have been drugged, but the state of Virginia has abandoned that investigation.

I think an NPOV article can still exist without this information, just as any article is NPOV without being an exhaustive list of facts. I do think there is a need on this page and others like it for some "negative" press, not so much to counterbalance the all-positive nature of the information presented now as to acknowledge that everything isn't sunshine and roses. However, I still think there are better examples out there that connect Phi Kappa Psi to "controversies."

RJ 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

There are a few points I'd be grateful if the parties could clarify arising out of the answers above:

SlamDiego

Rjproie suggests that although this incident received quite a lot of coverage, there are better examples of "controversies" involving Phi Kappa Psi. Do you think coverage of other controversies would reduce the need for inclusion of this incident?
I strongly doubt it. I don't see the proper function of inclusion as being to show that the organization is imperfect. I see the incident as notable in its own light. (Were there a larger pattern of such attacks involving ΦΚΨ, then I could see contracting the coverage given to any one attack, and perhaps creating a spin-off article in the case of some specific attack or attacks.) —SlamDiego_←T 04:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rjproie

If I understand you correctly, you accept that this story was pretty widely covered but feel that there is better information that could be used to form a "controversy" section. Could you elaborate on this, what content would you propose should be in that section of the article?
My point is that there are incidents that actually involve the national fraternity directly, not that there is better information on this incident. As I do not believe that this incident affects the national fraternity, I feel that it should not be included. If it is simply a matter of the rape happening on Phi Kappa Psi property (locally owned), then I don't see why it wouldn't also be mirrored on the UVA page, as both the assailant and victim were students there. However, I don't think it belongs on either page.

To reiterate, I would be perfectly comfortable with incidents directly affecting the national fraternity appearing in a "Controversy" section. For example, a hypothetical new member being forced to drink and dying of alcohol poisoning could appear here. RJ 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be more happy with the inclusion of this incident as part of a discussion of other controversies so as to put it into context, or do you think it should be omitted altogether?
I think this incident should be omitted altogether, since I don't think it involves the fraternity except as an element of setting (and then only as a snapshot in time on the local level), but I think this page and others like it would benefit from thoughtful consideration of problems and issues that affect the organizations. It is clearly not all sunshine and roses for the Greek system, and these pages can look a bit ridiculous by appearing to ignore the very real problems Greeks face/cause (binge drinking, hazing, rape, etc.). However, I don't think advertising a problem that I don't see connecting to the fraternity fixes that oversight. RJ 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WjBscribe 03:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Jmlk17 has indicated he no longer feels strongly about this issue and doesn't wish to continue with these proceedings. As such discussions will continue with the two remaining parties only. WjBscribe 03:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“the national fraternity”

Rjproie refers above to “the national fraternity”. I would like him

to explicitly distinguish the referent here.
to explain how the article entitled “Phi Kappa Psi” should refer just to “the national fraternity”, and not to other noteworthy things that might seem to be concerned with some ΦΚΨ, perhaps affiliated with “the national fraternity” yet not “the national fraternity”.

I have earlier made plain my position (“a fraternity is an aggregation of its parts”). —SlamDiego_←T 01:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Case closed

Per this post, it appears the matter has been successfully resolved. WjBscribe 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]