Talk:Zeta Phi Rho/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Neutral Point of View

As of this writing (19:15, 19 January 2006), this is probably one of the most blatantly POV articles I've run across. The introduction reads like their rush literature, if it isn't lifted entirely from that.

User:Baldyguy's removal of the POV flag (18:50, 19 January 2006) is inappropriate. This user's total contributions are on this page, so hopefully they'll learn wikiquette quickly.

I'll take a stab at NPOVing this.

MARussellPESE 15:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon review of the individual chapter sites, this article is just a mirror of their websites [1]. MARussellPESE 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As of this writing User:Baldyguy has reinserted significant POV to the article. The excessive use of the first person plural (us, our) is as POV as it gets. This must substitute third person.

I shouldn't have yanked the the "Founding Fathers". ΣΧ, ΣΝ, ΑΦΑ, etc., list their founders by name.

However, the frat shot photo is really out of place (bad taste). See the other articles for comparison.

MARussellPESE 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A curiosity!

In the introduction follow the link Zetas.

--Francisco Valverde|Francisco Valverde 23:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This link is removed. MARussellPESE 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual accuracy

I've skimmed through some of the Universities (UCLA, USC, USSB, UC Riverside) where this fraternity has chapters and am able to locate them all through those universities' websites. UC Riverside UCSB

Those sites also roughly corroborate the purpose of the fraternity.

With respect to "rapidly growing", it seems to me that nine chapters in ten years qualifies.

I'm taking down the "Section Original Research" and the "Not Verified" flag, as I think the article passes muster on these points.

I'll change the "Totally Disputed" flag to "Disputed Neutrality" flag pending some other perspectives presented.

MARussellPESE 20:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I've been editing fraternity and sorority articles for the past year and reverting any POV, vandalism, etc. As the current article stands now, I don't see the need for a neutrality dispute tag. If anyone can argue why there should be one in the first place I'll take it down within the next few days. Currently, I don't think there's anything wrong with this article. I believe this tag to be outdated--† Ðy§ep§ion † 00:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; but, I was the person who made most of the updates, I didn't feel I should totally remove it. MARussellPESE 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What then specifically is wrong with the article that the neutrality tag should remain. Maybe I can help --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 06:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing that I can see. But I'd rather someone decidedly neutral remove the tag. If you see no reason for it would you please, Ðy§ep§ion? Grazie. MARussellPESE 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Done --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right...

Answering to MARussellPESE , yes, you are right about not using this talk page. Excuse me.

My problem with this page is that I do not believe it is wikipedian, it does not give any information, apart of the "founding fathers", it has been consistently bias, except for MARussellPESEand others edits. Its links all from the universities or web pages of the fraternity, at least one is broken, and there is no other independant source of information. Anyway, I just wanted to put the Afd to see what the consensus is about this type of articles. If I was wrong, excuse me. --Francisco Valverde 16:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Link broken

There is a broken or inexistent link in the Section Chapters, at the # Γ - University of Southern California [3] link. http://www.ucszetas.com/ Just letting know. --Francisco Valverde 20:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No access to External links

Also. I cannot access the http://www.zetaphirho.com/ Zeta Phi Rho web page, I am asked for a user's name and a password. Therefore I cannot consult the external links, therefore, no sources from Zeta Phi Rho web page. Should I tag as unverified?, I know there are the other chapters' links ... but there should at least be more sources, independant sources and also a Zeta Phi Rho' s source.

--Francisco Valverde 20:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we tag also POV, in the case of no real sources? I do not agree that the Chapters to Zeta Phi Rho are unbiased sources. Just add a source that doesn't belong to the fraternity!

--Francisco Valverde 09:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All info regarding fraternities and sororities are taken from their respective websites. It's up to wiki editors to make the information NPOV. I have yet to see any fraternity or sorority article whose main source doesn't come from their organization. According to your argument, you would have to tag POV on every single fraternity and sorority article as well as every student organization that has an article on wiki. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 19:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is not just my argument, I argue, but what is considered a guideline in wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I quote:

"Reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them."

and...

"Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing."

and...

"Partisan websites

Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source."

I image we could include also fraternity websites as Partisan websites. So therefore I am of the opinion that this article continues to be POV

--Francisco Valverde 19:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In the votes for the deletion for this article you said it was POV, then you said it wasn't, now you say it is. I am very fully aware of the reliability of online sources (i.e. what does and does not work for Wikipedia). You fail to address what I said that according to your logic a POV tag should be used on ALL student organizations. Why you are picking on this particular article, I have no idea. You also don't acknowledge that it is up to Wiki users to NPOV articles. You can take a biased article and make it NPOV. That's the way it's always been. Unless I really missed something. It seems what you're doing is trying to prove a point and you continue to put a POV tag when it seems you're the only one who agrees with it. If you were to open up a consensus and ask people if this page is POV, I highly doubt that many will agree with you that it is. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 20:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I said "Perhaps"... anyway. Also that it was not notable. But has you say I seem to be in a minority. (I did not even know of the existance of fraternities like these). I tried to have another look at the article and found (later) that all links seemed to me POV and that the only External Link was not accessible, before it was accessible no more. Why am I picking this article, nothing personal against Zeta Phi Rho, I can say. I just saw, at the beginning an extremely biased article, as other users agreed... At least it has improved...

Yes, you are right a bit lonely on this dispute and also a bit bored really. So I do not see any point in going on, just stop wasting time on this and concentrate in other topics in which I am more interested. I supose I couldn´t see the wikipedian point of Zeta Phi Rho... Anyway. Good Bye.

--Francisco Valverde 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zeta Phi Rho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Excessive external links

The "In the news" section was a clear violation of WP:ELNO - I'm moving the links here, so they can be added back to the article as and when they are useful as actual references for a claim:

- David Gerard (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of these are now bad references. Where they involve the chapter and have at least a Wayback archive, I placed them adjacent to the specific chapter in the main article. Several are void, and weren't transferred. Some were about specific members, and I didn't transfer those. Later, a "Notable members" section may be written; but it doesn't appear that these two fellows cited above would rise to the level of notability where they would first have their own Wikipedia article, and thus meet the general bar for inclusion as a link on the main article. Jax MN (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)