Talk:Lambda Phi Epsilon

message: # This article is little more than a rather inflated and exaggerated (especially in terms of touting its community service activities, based on what I've seen over the years) promo piece for the fraternity and a tribute to those named in it, and because of this, violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). To be sure, the article is almost totally unencyclopedic.
# It is mostly unreferenced.
# It was obviously written by members and/or alumni of the fraternity, so there is a problem with conflict of interest.
# Because of the problems mentioned above, it is in desperate need of clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards.
I hope someone will accept these comments not as an insult. Rather, they are intended to inspire editors to bring it up to the quality that Wikipedia articles should have. -- 208.127.79.104 07:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think the article is fine, you obviously aren't familiar (or don't care) about Wikipedia standards. This article actually fails those standards in several ways. No offense intended, but if the intent is to use Wikipedia as a recruitment vehicle for the fraternity, the article succeeds in fine fashion, while at the same time, violating Wikipedia policies. But if the intent is to provide a factual (and verifiable) article that is balanced and is written in a neutral point of view, then the article fails quite badly. This criticism is meant to get the article fixed, not to insult, denigrate, etc. -- 208.127.79.104 05:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It may be factual, but how does anyone other than a member know that, since the article doesn't cite a single, verifiable reference? And you said it yourself...if the article is "recruitment-like," it is not written in an encyclopedic style, and that must be addressed as well. -- 208.127.79.104 10:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To 208.127.79.104: I've been waiting to make a revision to make the article NPOV... but something you have to understand about Greek organizations is that there isn't a lot of publicly-documented information from mainstream media outlets.  For example, look at Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Sigma Nu.  If you're gonna carry out a whole crusade about unsourced articles, or articles that only cite their national website, then you better hit up those pages as well.  Otherwise you're pretty much editing Lambda Phi Epsilon because of some issue that you have against their organization.  And maybe the conflict of interest that you flagged the page with is your conflict of interest. Pinto A 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I flagged this article because I do know some people who were in it at one time, so I have a very, very, very minor interest. Don't care about other Greek organizations at all. My ONLY concern is accuracy and that the article follow Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV, verifiablity, conflict of interest, etc. I'm not contributing to the article, so please spare me the conflict of interest accusation. Seems more like a cop-out to me. And yes, I realize that there isn't a lot of published material in mainstream media outlets about fraternities and sororities, especially ones not considered to be part of the mainstream. However, that is not an excuse for an article to not follow WP:VERIFY. There are other ways to get verifiable references. In the end, my objections are not about the fraternity or its members. Rather, it is about the poor quality of this article and its problems that should be fixed so that the article meets Wikipedia's standards. It's current form does not even come close. -- 208.127.79.104 09:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the introduction should be rewritten to be encyclopedic in nature. However, the second paragraph about the history is the factual history of the fraternity. I don't see how anything in there is to promote the fraternity. Additionally, if you need it to be verified, I'm verifying that right now. What more do you need? A newspaper article to publish a member saying that its the truth? What Pinto said is precisely the problem with you objectifying this article. You should go around and start objecting all the other organizations. Although your motives to "cleanse" Wikipedia are great, singling out this article does raise some questions and does make it seem like it is your conflict of interest with this organization and not all organizations that have pages with uncited and possibly biased content. Finally, "recruitment-like" does not mean its not worthy of Wikipedia. I read about how the US Airforce does very intriguing research and flies fighter jets. I wanted to join because of a lot of the research I did. Therefore, its recruitment-like. However, whats wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, just as there is very little wrong with this article. Adamchou 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may very well be factual, it is not verfiable. You claiming that it factual is irrelevant because that would be classified as original research, which also violates Wikipedia policies. As I stated before, i could care less about other fraternity/sorority articles--I don't really know anyone in other Greek organizations. Even with the Lambdas, I only know a few, so my interest in this article is a passing one, at best. I just ran across this article one day, found it to be lacking in terms of all the things I mentioned above. The fact is, as far as Wikipedia standards are concerned, this article doesn't even come close to meeting them, and it does indeed read more like a recruitment piece than an encyclopedia article, and that violates Wikipedia's policies on maintaining a neutral point of view. Again, I understand that it is a challenge to find verifiable references in this case. But that is not an excuse. There are other ways to get verifiable references, and I'm sure there are potential authors who can locate such information. If this article is ever to reach GA or FA status, these issues must be addressed. Of course, if the purpose is to use Wikipedia as a recruitment vehicle for the fraternity, the article currently serves that purpose well, although I'm sure use of Wikipedia in that manner violates their policies as well. -- 208.127.79.104 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously written by someone who doesn't know anything about Wikipedia articles...or worse yet, a Lambda with a vested interest in keeping this article as a recuitment piece as opposed to a legitimate Wikipedia article. -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously doubt the mention of three deaths associated with the fraternity can hardly be called a "recruitment piece". --71.106.158.80 (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. But the rest of the article does read like a recruitment brochure. -- 208.127.79.104 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: well like somebody said earlier, if you want to place a controversy section on other fraternity's wikipedias like they have done with lambda phi epsilon here. I don't think if the incident is notable that it would be neglected. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes agreed, there a lot of biased possible lambda phi epsilon members here crying foul about the negative light this Wikipedia shines on their organization, but yet doing nothing about adding controversy sections to other fraternal wikis. If there is a significant events with a verifiable source feel free to take it upon yourselves to contribute to Wikipedia. Ceasing to kill people every now and then would help too, from what I can see in the controversy section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ceasing to kill people every now and then would help too"  Thanks for that absolutely unnecessary flamebaiting remark.  I'm sure that will make you look like a very neutral wiki editor here.  How exactly do two incidents allow you to condemn all of us?  For almost any major greek organization that has grown big enough, unfortunate incidents happen.  And it's a tragedy.  But it does not mean you can just generalize the remaining thousands of us based on the actions of a few minority.  And why should we add controversy sections to other fraternal wikis?  We have nothing against them... but if you guys are *truly* unbiased, neutral, and are really just anti-hazing and want to denounce greeks in general that have a few negative incidents associated with them, maybe it's your job to do so.  Be fair about it.  But I'm sure, you want to just keep writing about us, and us alone, because clearly you have something just against our organization.  So much for NPOV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles 2k4 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "ceasing to kill people" remark was a joke. I've updated many Greek wikipedias, not Lambda Phi Epsilon alone. The illusion of bias is yours alone, and you've made it clear you don't possess a NPOV by your affiliation with this fraternity in question. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I also find it surprising that, as of right now, the same controversy regarding the fight in san jose university is only on our page and not on pi alpha phi's.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles 2k4 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still there, although I don't think a member of Lambda Phi Epsilon should be concerned about a specific wikipedia entry where there is a conflict of interest. Clearly, being a member of your organization gives you that bias. 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Other stuff exists. Just because other articles don't have controversy sections doesn't mean the section should be deleted from this one as well. Also, this is hardly the only article on a Greek letter organization to have a controversies section. Repeatedly deleting the section from this article without discussing the matter is not going to help the situation, either. —C.Fred (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wrecking a reputation" and "fairness" to the organization's reputation has absolutely nothing to do with any portion of this wiki and is an irrelevant argument for deletion of content. All notable events backed by sources are documented appropriately. As C. Fred stated, this is hardly the first Greek organization with a "controversy" section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not mean to speak out of turn, but I was wondering - in the midst of this controversy discussion - would it be out of turn to ask for the information on local fraternity absorptions as it is explicit fraternity action? Specifically, in the history section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrokenSugar (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems 

message: Don't see the relevance between a section titled "Controversy" and a drunken car accident. Doesn't quite fit the context of the section nor the tones of the other three items. Lshutfupe (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I don't see it as being related to the fraternity, other than that it was an incident involving fraternity members. (As opposed to hazing allegations, which are more directly related to the fraternity.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Seriously, this is under the same category as the car accident. This isn't even in the same league as a fatal stabbing or hazing-related deaths. Even some of these can be contested due to, as mentioned above, a lack of controversy sections for all the other fraternities who have done the same thing. Given the clear discrepancy and the tendency of people to put every little thing in this section, I think people are being a little biased. The car accident? A young man who happened to be a Lambda DIED, show him some respect. And as everyone who has gone through college knows, stupid incidents occur when many people drink together. Are we to take note of every little incident and use it to reflect an entire organization?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.237.169 (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My take is that nothing says it's related to the organization, other than that the person involved was a member, so it's not significant to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: the article states that it was a lambda phi epsilon fraternity party held at the lambda phi epsilon fraternity house, therefore I do not feel it falls into the same category as a member passing away from a drunk driving accident. it is an irrelevant arguement to state that we should not take note of "every little incident"? Do I sense a conflict of interest here between maintaining an accurate and comprehensive wiki and that interests of a possible member of Lambda Phi Epsilon? The fact is that a innocent bystander was stabbed by a samurai sword by a fraternity member. How is this the same as a drunk driving accident? - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two issues in play. The first is that the text was lifted wholesale from , so I've removed it for infringement of copyright. The second is whether it's notable. I'll agree that getting stabbed with a samurai sword meets the "man bites dog" guideline for whether the event is newsworthy, but I'm not convinced it's relevant to the fraternity. I also note that the article says that a "resident" stabbed him with the sword and not a fraternity member. Are we sure it was a fraternity member and not a non-member living in the house? —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll address all your issues: 1) The blurb does need editing to fall under fair use, fair enough. 2) It is relevant to the fraternity because a "resident" of the house stabbed another person. 820 Oxford Road is a house zoned fraternity (http://www.michiganhousinglocator.rentlinx.com/Property.aspx?PropertyID=1767). Non-fraternity members do not live at designated fraternity houses, as per usual fraternity policy. Futhermore here is an update confirming that the stabber was indeed, a member of Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity (http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2009/01/swordwielding_fraternity_ninja.html). So now that we have the identity confirmed, your last statement was 'relevance to the fraternity', and the real question is if it follows "man bites dog" journalistic guidelines... does every controversy with the Lambda Phi Epsilon wiki have to be related to a death in order to be properly chronicled? Are we saying a man lunging at another man with a samurai sword isn't worthy of being in this wiki? I supposed that's the real question, but irregardless I believe this article (and we should cite both links for clarification) is relevant to this Lambda Phi Epsilon wiki if we are to be followed, and we wish to maintain the most up-to-date accurate wiki. I'd like to note on a sorority's wiki, alpha kappa delta phi in lieu of a controversy section (which I believe should have one as well), they detail a "fish rap live" incident with UC santa cruz spoof newspaper "Fish Rap Live". If an article from a gag newspaper is relevant to alpha kappa delta phi sorority, why wouldn't a samurai wielding fraternity boy be for lambda phi epsilon then?75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is an update i believe confirming the previous news article: http://blog.mlive.com/minorityreport/2009/01/swordwielding_fraternity_ninja.html. And if said resident does live at 820 Oxford, it is zoned fraternity residence in Ann Arbor. Furthermore, I don't believe it's relevant that it's "just a scratch". A fraternity member lunged at somebody with a samurai sword at a party - that sounds rather controversial and noteworthy to me (see my "fish rap live" comment in previous comment). The fact that you bring up the severity of the man's wounds into question as being of relevance to the importance of the article brings into question your particular bias. A "scratch" from a samurai sword counts as ASSAULT AND BATTERY in most places of the world. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, can we accept that this person was arrested for what he did which I think puts it over the top for relevance... It's not like he was given the stern finger by the police officer and sent about his business. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After review of the blog post, I don't see that adding anything source-wise, as blogs aren't generally reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even though it's the exact same news source as the the original article, it's not reliable? I think we're arguing semantics rather than the facts. Fact: The address is zoned fraternity, Fact: If using google maps, there is clearly lambda phi epsilon on the front of the address in huge greek letters, Fact: residents of a fraternity house are more than likely, undoubtedly fraternity members. If the identity is such into question, than we can use the term "resident" of Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity house because this is a LEGALLY ZONED AND RECOGNIZED FRATERNITY HOUSE ADDRESS IN ANN ARBOR! I would like to point toward the aforementioned Pi Alpha Phi wiki that the stabbing of the lambda phi epsilon was not done by a member of EITHER FRATERNITY, but a man named Long Duy Tran as cited in the article. I look at this incident in the same light that if a stabbing happened at a fraternity party EVEN if it was done by a "resident" and not a fraternity member (which it is 99% likely) we cannot ignore the precedent set by the Pi Alpha Phi article! I would like to state that I don't believe somebody has to die for a stabbing incident on fraternity property TO BE RECOGNIZED AS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO PUT ON WIKI. Perhaps we can come up with a compromise like I've seen on the Alpha Kappa Delta Phi Fish Rap Live incident and create a different section, as I believe from edits previously it used to be under "Controversy" but now is under an "See Also" section. One could argue the insignificance of said Fish Rap Live Controversy, I for one would like to see some continuity, consistency, and integrity in these fraternal wikis, and I believe it should begin now. There have been numerous other articles and events of note I believe DELETED and endlessly ARGUED over by BIASED members of Lambda Phi Epsilon. - 75.142.201.185 (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This right here, seems to me very professional and having a very good NVOP standard. I went over your history and you seem to have a genuine, and sole interest and concerns about Lambda Phi Epsilon. If you want what is fair, then start putting on some arguments on any other, ANY, fraternity page, including Pi Alpha Phi, since they were involved with the San Jose incident as well, which should be pretty easy to you since you know all about Lambda's dirt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.151.56 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Can you please include the Texas incident in its own discussion thread instead of putting this in Ann Arbor? Can you at least show THAT much courtesy before deleting my article? I will address your concerns one by one
Ann Arbor
1) Was the selling of drugs and subsequent arrest in Riverside small? Did that reflect the fraternity as a whole? The Ann Arbor article is STILL notable
2) If it was a scratch, why did the police officers bother to ask him?
3) It is notable because it passes the "man bites dog" test for notability as stated earlier.
Texas
1) Same arguement
2) It does not state that information in the article, so you are mistaken. Are you inventing facts? Re-read the article
3) Oh... ALL the members DID was get in a fight? Isn't that what happened in the San Jose controversy incident? Again I've stated this many times: does somebody have to die from an incident to be notable to the fraternity?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.201.185 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing/removing "Ann Arbor" in controversy 

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

message: Someone is removing the SUNY Buffalo article from this wiki without discussion 75.142.201.185 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Happened again today. Reverted with a note to give reason. danno 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit today was from a University of Buffalo IP address. I've also given a conflict of interest warning to the IP. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing/removing "SUNY Buffalo" in controversy 

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

message: The original issues brought up about this article years ago seem to have been finally laid to rest.
"#This article is little more than a rather inflated and exaggerated (especially in terms of touting its community service activities, based on what I've seen over the years) promo piece for the fraternity and a tribute to those named in it, and because of this, violates Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). To be sure, the article is almost totally unencyclopedic.
#It is mostly unreferenced.
#It was obviously written by members and/or alumni of the fraternity, so there is a problem with conflict of interest.
#Because of the problems mentioned above, it is in desperate need of clean-up to meet Wikipedia standards."
Every other sentence has a reference, all personal biases have been diluted away as they should be. Discussion should always continue on the quality of Wikipedia articles; however, this NPOV dispute hasn't seen action in several years. Isn't it time to lay it to rest. (Elgentleman (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The NPOV template was added one year ago, and while bits and pieces still need work, it seems like it's worth setting it aside for now. We can always re-add it if needed. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

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

message: Hello.  I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page.  This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.  Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
* http://cornellsun.com/section/news/content/2009/02/19/one-woman%E2%80%99s-plight-shows-minority-woes
* http://www.redandblack.com/news/fraternity-pirates-host-marrow-drive/article_d20fce56-4575-581f-9389-939a62b416c7.html
* http://www.dailytargum.com/bone-marrow-drive-aims-to-increase-minority-base/article_82a78d60-6143-53fb-9d9c-68bc37bb4457.html
* http://dailyuw.com/archive/2001/01/24/imported/bone-marrow-drive-adds-asian-americans-national-registry
* http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archives/article_5a2076f7-f308-5cf8-86c0-45f7cbce361f.html
* http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=6264878
* http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/10/survivor_winner_yul_kwon_joins.html
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: I don't think we should include the SFSU incident under "hazing incidents", as neither source states that the death was caused by hazing. I have no proof of course, but I personally know that the crossover celebration was after pledging was completed and the incident was not caused by hazing. Either way, the sources don't confirm hazing, and no source on this issue ever will. One source said the fraternity was suspended and investigated for possible hazing, which is a no-brainer and does not prove hazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.170 (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015‎
:I don't know what you mean by "confirmed". The sources both specifically mention that the chapter was closed following a hazing investigation. As you may already know, your personal experiences and knowledge are not usable, as they're original research. Blanking the info seems inappropriate, so I have restored it pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Truth be told, not super familiar with Wikipedia. If we can't find any follow-up articles about the University concluding hazing was involved, do we continue to keep the allegations under a section titled Hazing Incidents?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C500:F535:98FF:5BB4:5988:8F15 (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You can read the Wikipedia:Introduction if you would like to learn more. The article has two sources that clearly indicate that the university expelled the chapter after a person died in connection to hazing. Peter Tran's death from alcohol poisoning occurred in April, and the chapter was expelled in late June "...after a two-month review into alleged violations of SFSU's hazing policy." A quick search shows that there are plenty more sources where that came from. If you know that's not actually the case, you need to find a reliable source explaining what happened. A reliable sources in this case usually means a newspaper report or an academic work. Things like court documents or press releases may be usable, but there are some common pitfalls, since they're WP:PRIMARY sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. This whole thing was very unfortunate, but it's also unfortunate that the school ruled it was due to hazing. With that being said, there's not much left to say about the matter, even if the university's ruling isn't accurate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.170 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Hazing section revisited

message: Have changes from above simply been reverted without further discussion? There is a very glaring difference between how this page looks and how the Pi Alpha Phi page looks. The latter focuses primarily on mission statements and other seemingly non-neutral "facts". It seems excessively detailed, especially compared to how brief these same sections are here. Also about the controversial sections - on this page they take up almost half the article. On the Pi Alpha Phi page, there are zero incidents mentioned, which is odd considering the chapter list says half of all chapters are currently suspended. 
Also, the following doesn't seem necessary: "Lambda Phi Epsilon has experienced the most hazing incidents among Asian-American fraternities, including three deaths. All deaths occurred in the last 13 years.[14] As of 2019, 18 chapters have been closed.[15] Hazing activities include (but are not limited to) knuckle push ups, consumption of large amounts of alcohol and miscellaneous condiments, tackle football, and calisthenics."
Do we include such descriptions for other fraternities that are, by far, the largest populations in their sectors? I don't doubt Lambda Phi Epsilon has the most hazing incidents brought to light - they have the largest membership. The hazing activities, even if proven in some of these specific incidents, is uncited and given its own focus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C900:50D0:F9FD:B0D2:4B1A:4766 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisiting article in 2021