Talk:Phi Gamma Delta

FIJI vs. Fiji

I was under the impression that Phi Gamma Delta only used the all-caps version FIJI as an "abbreviation" and have corrected articles in that regard. However, the national website for Phi Gamma Delta only has one occurence of the word on the page, a link to "Shop Fiji". Additionally, the about Phi Gamma Delta page (https://phigam.org/about/overview/ ) under Nicknames has "Phi Gam" and "Fiji". I know wikipedia is about what others say about the subject, but in this case, I'm trying to figure out what a contradictory source would be. (pinging Rublamb and Jax MN particularly) Naraht (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The use of Fiji was already in this article when I made updates, so I don't know much about this topic. However, given that the national fraternity says its nickname is "Fiji" (following your link), I don't see any reason to change this to FIJI. That being said, I personally dislike using nicknames in encyclopedic articles, other than a specific mention of the organization's nicknames. It would correct to replace most of the uses of Fiji anyway, which is another way of addressing your concern with deciding between FIJI and Fiji. I will go ahead and address most uses in that way. Rublamb (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

After my updates, the remaining uses are either Fiji Man, the Fiji Islander party, or the mention of its nickname which matches the source. I did some quick research and found the use of Fiji in a couple of fraternity histories published by the national: The Phi Gamma Delta Story and Phi Gamma Delta: The First Seventy-Five Years. It seems clear that Fiji is considered correct by the fraternity and is appropriate for the Wikipedia article. Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It appears that, as both are used in self-published articles, that both may be used. Of course we can standardize, but were I to parse these situations I would use "Fiji" when referring to the fraternity in body text, while using the capitalized version if listing it among other Greek Letter Organizations, simply for format clarity. Alas, perhaps that may lead a reader to guess whether the fraternity acronym should be read as "Phi Iota Gamma Iota"... But that is a natural outcome of their branding choice to anoint the word Fiji as their nickname.

Maybe, after all, the name "Fiji" is best, omitting the all-caps, like we do with Triangle, Acacia and FarmHouse. Jax MN (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Fix list

Ran a check for pages in mainspace with both FIJI all caps and (either Gamma or Fraternity). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%28Gamma%7CFraternity%29%2F+insource%3A%2FFIJI%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 I got 37 hits. At least 3 or 4 of them are comments/inrefs/something else and will likely stay. Should we just start hacking at it? I'm not even sure that this is large enough to use Autowikibrowser.Naraht (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think that "FIJI" is used reflexively when in proximity to other capitalized Greek letters. Their HQ probably has guidance on this, as a branding issue. I don't mind you taking this one on. One for the team. Jax MN (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

By capitalized greek letters, are you talking Gamma or Γ?Naraht (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

He means that when a list includes the symbols for other fraternities, "ΦΓΔ and FIJI" would be acceptable for Phi Gamma Delta. That is, use all caps using as a symbol/stand in for Greek letters. When mentioned in text as a nickname, and not as a symbol, the correct usage would be Fiji. However, since MOS generally suggests not using nicknames, I would lean toward saying "Bob Jones was a member of Phi Gamma Delta" rather than "Bob Jones was a member of Fiji". At least, this is how I am updating text when I come across the term. Also, I see no reason the say "Bob Jones was member of Phi Gamma Delta, also known as Fiji." and am changing those and similar usage to "Bob Jones was a member of Phi Gamma Delta". I don't know of another case where we indicate a nickname or other name for the GLO within the text of an article that is not about the GLO, unless the GLO name is currently different from when the person joined. Rublamb (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

So basically, an article

1. with the English spelled out "Phi Gamma Delta"
2. without "ΦΓΔ"
3. with FIJI/Fiji (as a simple restatement) rather than part of "Fiji Pig Roast"

needs to be Fixed to remove FIJI/Fiji. If FIJI is only used if ΑΤΩ is there, the question is "When should Fiji in the preferred capitalization actually be used other than in the Phi Gamma Delta article be used"?Naraht (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

When going through items pulled by your query, I found the following places to leave Fiji or FIJI, outside of articles about the fraternity: 1) used in the name of a source or a quote. 2) in a list that includes fraternity symbols (list of fraternities on a specific campus, for example). Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

For #1, references are more or less excluded anyway. For #2, that feel like mostly tables but could be dotted lists. Feels like Fiji (mixed case) should only be used if a list that includes non-Greek entries, like Smith belonged to Campus Ministry, ΑΤΩ, Circle K and ΦΓΔ/Fiji. And *that* probably should be redone with the greek letters spelled out to Campus Ministry, Alpha Tau Omega, Circle K and Phi Gamma Delta.Naraht (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

We are deep in the weeds on this one, in the realm of personal preference versus significant and necessary style guidance. It has been a useful discussion, and ought to be captured as a helpful commentary for future editors, maybe keeping it pinned to the "why we (the Phi Gams) don't use our Greek Letters except in these specific situations..." discussion. If you have strong preferences, editors, please note them here. Were I to vote, after thinking about this, I prefer the mixed-case variant where appropriate, rather than all caps. (Fiji/FIJI). Also:

1. I fully agree with Rublamb, that "Bob Jones was member of Phi Gamma Delta, also known as Fiji." is cumbersome.
2. It is redundant to use "FIJI/Fiji" --Skip that, and instead, use Fiji.
3. Likewise, it is redundant to use "ΦΓΔ/Fiji" --Skip that, and use Fiji or ΦΓΔ...
4. Where text or tables use Greek letters, go ahead and use ΦΓΔ in order to standardize.
5. However, in body text, or descriptive lines in EFNs or REFs, when standing alone, I think "Fiji" a reasonable alternative versus where we would use Greek Letters ("ΦΓΔ") for others.

I'm motivated toward standardization and clarity, versus strict adherence to any internal Fiji styleguide. But in body text it seems reasonable to opt for Fiji rather than ΦΓΔ, all things being equal. Jax MN (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue of the fraternity's policies about Greek letters for a minute, Fiji a nickname. In general, we don't use fraternity nicknames, such as referring to Sigma Alpha Mu as Sammy, as that would not be in encyclopedic voice. The exception would be when the national fraternity has adopted the nickname as its primary name, such as Delta Psi going by St. Anthony Hall and Delta Delta Delta callings itself Tri Delta. (the names of the national websites for both groups show the institutional adoption of the nickname). Since that is not the case for Phi Gam, Fiji would not be used unless stating the nickname, referring the name of an event, the old mascot, or part of a citation. Outside of an efn in the fraternity's article, I should not use Fiji in an efn as the reader would have no context for what the name Fiji meant. For example, it would be confusing in an efn in an article about chapters at a specific college that has no other mention of the term Fiji.

Now back to the Greek letter issue. The debate over what should or should not be used in Wikipedia predates me. However, I don't have problem offing FIJI a variant for the fraternity's symbols/Greek letters, especially if that is what the fraternity itself uses. It is akin to using Arabic or Jewish letters rather than Greek letters when that is the fraternity's preference. Granted, it is clunky to have two sets of letters in the symbols column, but not the end of the world. Rublamb (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Would you respond to the following, then?

1. I agree with you about Sammy and Tri-Delt. The problem with Fiji (the name, or nickname) is that it is so widespread. It is almost exactly like St. Anthony in its widespread adoption. It's not an ad hoc nickname on a few campuses. It also has demonstrable approval from their national. They are so well known as "Fijis" that to dismiss that word entirely is more confusing than in keeping it.
2. I veer toward "Fiji" versus "FIJI" because the mixed-case word is therefore more similar to how Acacia, Triangle, FarmHouse, Tri-Delt, St. Elmo's, and St. Anthony are styled.
3. Fiji has a styleguide. They may, in fact, prefer Fiji over "Phi Gam". I haven't reviewed this either way. I keep going back in my mind as to whom would benefit most. An incoming freshman or casual reader will likely encounter "Fiji" far sooner than they will "Phi Gamma Delta", especially on the larger campuses with several organizations whose names begin with Phi. In that case, use of "Fiji" seems preferable, for clarity. Jax MN (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

From the Phi Gamma Delta Brand Guidelines: Graphic Standards & Style Guide p. 20-21: "Brother is preferred rather than Fiji. Phi Gamma Delta is preferred rather than FIJI" and "When our fraternity is named in campus or interfraternity publications, Phi Gamma Delta is preferred instead of our Greek letters or nicknames: FIJI, Phi Gam". Clearly, Phi Gam is attempting to move away from the Fiji name, for several reasons I can think of. This is the opposite of Tri Delta which has rebranded to that name for its website and logo. Note that the Branding Guide says FIJI is the fraternity and Fiji is a member of FIJI. Go figure. Rublamb (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2025

The greek letters are only allowed to be on 7 very specific things and a Wikipedia article is not one of the 7. For continuity I believe it should be removed. Potatoes3758 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't bound by your frat rules. --Onorem (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Refer to the FAQ at the top of the page.

Q1: Should the Greek letters be removed because Wikipedia is not one of the seven places where they can be shown?

A1: One of Wikipedia's central policies is that Wikipedia is not censored. Removing the letters because of FIJI's bylaws is considered to be a form of censorship. Wikipedia is not a member of FIJI, and is therefore not bound by its rules. Furthermore, in order to end the habit of brothers vandalizing the Wikipedia article by removing the letters, the letters have received an exception to be shown on Wikipedia. --Onorem (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Answer 1 Info

JWmgr287 ..."the letters have received an exception to be shown on Wikipedia." Can you give us more information on this?Naraht (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Since there has been no response from JWmgr287, and no source has been provided, I have reverted this addition. Grayfell (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hazing vs. Hazing Allegations has section title

Jax MN, Rublamb: The change has been made by Tooki of the section header from Hazing Allegations to Hazing. As there is an attempt to keep section headers the same across the Social GLOs, I thought that including the active members of WP:FRAT who have worked on this type of thing was useful. I changed it back to Hazing Allegations. And even though Tooki changed it back (which based on WP:BRD should have waited), I think this is the appropriate place to discuss it.Naraht (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I think our standard header of "Local chapter or member misconduct" should be used, for consistency. For me, the most important word in this phrasing is "Local", to allow distance from the national group and a local mistake. I do not know of an example of nationally-sanctioned or approved hazing, even in the NPHC, which has, in recent years, looked the other way, but has not in any way sanctioned the behavior. Jax MN (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I strongly oppose such a change. Our goal is not to help this group with their PR, so distancing these from the main organization is out-of-scope for Wikipedia. I think in this case, simpler is better. The section isn't exclusively about allegations, it's also about undisputed events. The simpler wording is parallel to the other subsection titles in that section, which looks tidier. The over-use of 'allegations' can potentially be a subtle form of editorializing. Since some of these are undisputed, applying 'allegations' to all of them equally would match MOS:ALLEGED. Obviously, it does make sense to be cautious about this, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I will also remind everyone here that WP:LOCALCON at the Frat Wiki-project cannot over-rule site-wide policies, such as those about neutrality. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell. All the regular editors here understand the LOCALCON rule, and seek neutrality. We police FOR it. We do not add to it.

To your larger point, "Local chapter or member misconduct" has been used on fraternity and sorority articles here, 200 or 300 times for many years. It is standard, consensus language. It replaces the older "Controversies" subheader that we've removed when found. To summarize previous discussions about this, we would note any systemic (national) hazing practices with clear wording. But I do not know of any that have survived into the modern era with even tacit approval. So we agreed that a further addition of language to broaden the new subheader, to include 'national', would have been inaccurate and pejorative. This leaves misconduct (actual or alleged), and the assumption that the errant party/ies would either be a single chapter itself or one or more members of a chapter: both are possibilities that are correctly titled by that new standard headline. Finally, for the purpose of accuracy we ought to use 'alleged' the matter is still under a judicial review; our usages now tend to have citations, so future readers and editors may update these to both past tense, and remove the word 'alleged' IF a final court or school or organizational discipline proceeding supports that outcome. You'd recognize, I'm sure, that a portion of hazing, sex or alcohol allegations are either false, or fraudulant, or that the parties determine for various reasons never to work them out supported by judicial proceedings. The project team agreed to delete claims that thus don't go anywhere (thus aren't adjudicated) as hearsay. I agree we should not show BIAS in support of any of these groups, but neither do we want to be liable for fraudulent, negative bias, or slander, either. Jax MN (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

In this case, "Hazing allegations" is a subsection of the "Misconduct" section, so the point of WikiProject standards for section names doesn't really apply. Since the subsection includes only incidents where the fraternity chapter was removed, either the university or national fraternity found that the balance tipped toward hazing vs. alleged hazing. As a result, naming these cases "allegations" incorrectly implies that there is still doubt or that the university or national fraternity were in error. That does show a non-neutral point of view and should, therefore, be changed to "Hazing". Also, removing "allegations" provides balance as the term is not used with the "Racism" or "Sexual assault" subsections. Rublamb (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I note that zealous detractors regularly rush to post unsubstantiated and brand new announcements about misconduct at fraternity houses. Yes, we certainly avoid those, and remove them until such time as they are substantiated by a reliable source. Jax MN (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Precisely! — tooki (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Naraht did not include my own message (on their talk page) which described my extended rationale for removing “allegations”:

Regarding your revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phi_Gamma_Delta&diff=prev&oldid=1327308843

There is no defensible reason for the “Hazing” section heading to be given the “allegations” disclaimer, while other controversy sections (like “sexual assault”) do not have it. Regardless, the wiki article is not a legal document; the concept being discussed is hazing, not whether everyone was convicted.

As such, I consider “Hazing” to be an accurate heading for both convictions and allegations of hazing, whereas “hazing allegations” does not really encompass convictions.

I have undone your reversion. Absent a convincing argument why “hazing” should be given special treatment compared to the other controversies on the same page — in which case I invite you to discuss it here or on the talk page so we can work out an equitable, comprehensive edit — I trust you will let my edit stand.

As for invoking BRD, remember that it is an explicitly optional method. — tooki (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Different Section levels.

I *think* we may be dealing with two different levels here in the discussion and unfortunately conflating them. Due to the *large* number of issues at Phi Gamma Delta, there is a split that doesn't happen in most GLO articles. At the higher level, we have "Controversies and member misconduct". Based on other articles, changing it to "Local chapter or member misconduct" seems reasonable. (The type of issue that doesn't belong there are things like National Presidents skimming money) As subsections of that, we have "Racism", "Hazing" or "Hazing Accusations" and "Sexual Assault". I'm not sure that may of the other GLOs have subsections, so I'm not sure there is WP:FRAT guidance there. Would anyone be open to changing the section to "Hazing and Hazing allegations" and letting each entry stand alone? I don't particularly want to change the title if a large news story occurs on something that could be hazing but that hasn't had a legal determination. (Which also leads to the question as to whether if the determiner is the college administration without a legal case/prosecution whether that affects things.Naraht (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

See my comments above. New cases that have yet to be adjudicated (chapter banned or closed) should not be included in Wikipedia per the "not a newspaper" policy. Rublamb (talk) 02:53, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but some incidents definitely get enough coverage to be included long before a legal determination of hazing (via conviction) is made.Naraht (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

If the national fraternity or college bans a chapter for hazing, it is fair to say that hazing took place, with or without a legal conviction. Rublamb (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should watch for edits that cross the "not a newspaper" policy. I, for one, am very thankful that that is a standard rule here. Jax MN (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

We also need to be aware of the significance of the incidents, meaning not just local coverage. I removed anon-notable hazing incident and updated another. I think we need to look at the sexual assault items. At least one is just an accusation cited in a campus paper, with no added information. Rublamb (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)