Talk:Upsilon Sigma Phi

Self-promotion, etc

There are massive problems with this article. One, I completely agree with @Chlod: it reads like an advert in clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:PROMOTION. (But I do think it's established enough to merit its own article.) Two, and more direly, all mentions of controversy, including hazing and the "Lonsi Leaks", have been scrubbed from the article. These are issues that are well-sourced and relevant, moreso than what's in most of the article. Nintendo2000 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Taking a cursory look at the editing history of this article, it does seem that there has been a concerted effort from numerous single-purpose accounts (whose editing histories comprise this article, and only this article) to repurpose this article into what's essentially a brochure for the organization. A "controversies" section (which I distinctly remember reading back then) has been scrubbed somehow without triggering any alarms from other editors.

I can bite the bullet and take a crack at restoring the Controversies section with some care and keep a closer watch going forward. Most of the content will still need significant rewriting for NPOV considerations. PritongKandule-✉️📝 10:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Excessive detail on "Controversies" section

To @Firekiino, while I am inclined to revert your edits, I would like to first hear your thoughts regarding the following points as you are an editor with experience:

• Your addition of "Examples of Messages" adds excessively lurid details unfit for an encyclopedia article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:EXCESSDETAIL.) Do you have a valid reason for why you think this should be included in such detail to Wikipedia, keeping in mind that what may have been a "big deal" within one university is not really as relevant in a wider scope?

• Per MOS:OVERSECTION: "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." A simple, chronological recounting of past incidents isn't sufficient content to warrant a subheading and honestly just feels like padding the section to make it bigger, wouldn't you agree?

• Last month, this article had serious WP:NPOV issues and resembled an advert/brochure rather than an encyclopedia article. After removing most of the content (i.e., lists of alumni achievements/positions unrelated to actual fraternity activities), the key now is trying to maintain balance with positive/neutral content with the negative. From WP:IMPARTIAL:

A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized.

Do you believe your edits did not place WP:UNDUE weight on a single controversy from 2018 (relevant to the remaining article content), and that an outside observer would consider it to have been written by an impartial editor?

If you would like to fix your prior edit or if you want to discuss it further, please go ahead. As mentioned previously in this talk page, this article has a history of being targeted by single purpose accounts that have added promotional text and removed controversial content. Let's not give them any further reason to come back. PritongKandule-✉️📝 18:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello @PritongKandule! thanks for pointing this out. Now that i think about it i did have a vague feeling the example messages were a bit too much in terms of detail so Ill probably remove it when i have the time. Regarding oversection I'm not entirely too sure how to deal with that. However, I do believe that the incident was notable enough to warrant addition to the overall article. Would you consider it better to integrate it into the history section or would simplifying the lonsi leak section be enough? Firekiino (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes you can go ahead and remove those details. As for the rest of it (quotes from university officials, details about which office was involved where), just take it from the point of a reader not from the university: "Do I really care about reading all of this information?" While I do agree it warrants a mention in the article, it should just stick to the most pertinent facts to be consistent with other fraternity articles. Golden rule of writing is KISS: Keep It Short and Simple.

Also, as this is a point of controversy, let's strive to keep every sentence or claim made here backed up with a few solid references or sources. On the other hand, don't go overboard with it like other editors in the past with an agenda (both negative and positive) who were guilty of WP:OVERCITING and notability-bombing.

As for the sections, I suggest to just remove them entirely. First, there's an error in categorization (Rolando Perez was a fatality of a fraternity brawl, not a hazing incident) which would leave just two recorded incidents separated by decades, not enough to warrant a subsection. Second, "assault charges" would be an incorrect description as there is a specific legal definition for assault (direct/indirect) under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. The QCPD's charges, per the sources, were for frustrated murder, physical injury, malicious mischief, and illegal possession of ammunition. Again, two separate and unrelated incidents do not warrant a subsection for the sake of having a subsection.

I'll leave you to it on how to best sort it out. I plan on going through the list of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines since a lot of them are in pretty awful condition and need to be sat down on, so if you want to help out on that as well that would be great. Thanks! PritongKandule-✉️📝 04:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh i thought you were just referring to the lonsi leaks section i edited instead of also the hazing incidents. Ill take a look at them as well because i agree the state of frat and sorority articles are abysmal. Would you feel lonsi leaks warrants its own subsection as it is right now? regarding the hazings tho what do you think of combining them into a subsection purely about incidents of that nature? Firekiino (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)