Jump to content

Talk:Kappa Alpha Order/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Neutrality

This not an article!!

I agree, at least partially due to how it is written. I'd hope someone would clean this up and get rid of the loads of pointless information and re-center the neutrality of this page.--68.231.168.20 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Vkraul the neutrality has been recentered--Samwisep86 05:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

He's Right

This article is completly biased. "Southern Ideals"? As if there is a code of conduct uniqe to just southerners? This looks like it was taken RIGHT from the website. PLEASE clean this up.

Cleanup?

User:L0b0t, for whatever reason it is obvious that you have a personal issues with this organization considering you don't watch over articles of other fraternities other than this one. Your constant edits of citation needed tags when information can be easily found on the links already provided as well as your cleanup tag without an explanation of what needs to be cleaned up and only stating "this is not college level writing" doesn't help much at all. The vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are not college level writing. All of this coupled with your very poor and failed bad faith nomination to get this article deleted is quite disruptive. So instead of trying to find everything wrong with this article why don't you actually try and clean this up yourself since you have watch over this article or leave it alone because compared to similar articles, the format of this article is either better or the same as others --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 05:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This entry reads like a press release and mentions nothing about the organization's long-standing racist and oppressive history in the South. The "Old South" parties alone should tell you that. At some universities, the members would pay young black children to pick up pieces of candy in the front yard so it looked like they were picking cotton. I know many whites and blacks who have had negative experiences with this fraternity. That should be included to add more balance to the article. Jyroberson 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it as long as you can cite it with a reference. Articles shouldn't be biased for or against. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As stated above, adding a negative bias to this article is just as bad as a positive one. The "picking cotton" incident in reality happened at an Alpha Tau Omega chapter in Mississippi. It was a fellow costumed fraternity member picking the cotton and not "young black children" as you have described. Many fraternities have negative stereotypes associated with them. That doesn't mean they are true or factually based.Mshrop 12:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No, adding positive and negative bias would mean neutrality, one of the things Wikipedia aims for. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't quite understand how adding any sort of bias to this article contributes to the neutrality of the article. No bias, neither positive nor negative, should be added to these fraternity and sorority articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities specifically states its goal is "To provide unbiased and in depth articles on the subject of fraternities and sororities." Logically, it seems the best way to keep the neutrality of the article would be to avoid bias altogether. Mshrop 07:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide BOTH sides. Take a look at other fraternity and sorority articles and you'll see what I mean: Pi Kappa Phi, Kappa Kappa Gamma. Anyone can present positive or negative bias as long as it is cited. I see how anyone can read this present article and it reads off as a recruitment brochure and in that sense it is not neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I am going to have to agree with Dysepsion. I pledged for Kappa Alpha ['KA'] in my Junior year of undergraduate. To simplify state things, the Beta Omega Chapter pledging process was not designed to enhance my academics, my moral character, or even to help the college community (three things noted to be the primary objectives in the fraternity). The pledging process was more of a ritualistic abuse- "because it was done to me, I have to do it to you" was a common motto. For over ten-weeks, I was subjected to all forms of hazing [listed in a way to show ascending discomfort]: - being forced to come to the chapter house to spend the night awake, just sitting there (without falling asleep) for days at a time - scavenger hunts during the night, where we were blind-folded and driven usually over 10-miles out into the backroads, even outside the town limits. The objective was to make it back without being caught or seen by anyone (including members who were out doing "Spot-Lighting"- a task where current members would search you out for the sole intention of finding and punishing pledges if they were seen) - being given a wooden paddle to have on us (hidden) at all times, to PROTECT & to have signed by all present members within a period of time given by the vice-president. To earn a signature, pledgings had to do bidding for that current members (errands such as driving them all over town, being their slaves for a day, having to drink a large amount of alcohol ... this list goes on) We were constantly called into the chapter house for general 'tasks' (other forms of hazement that did not earn us a signature) that needed to be done at that moment- current members (numbering 3-5) jumped the pledgings at these times, with the mission of finding their paddles and breaking them (meaning pledgings would have to start over again 'earning' signatures). Pledgings and members were normally injured as the pledging tried to get away, and Kappa Alpha 'Gentlemen' kept them in the house while roughing them up for their paddle (I had clothing damaged, bruises ... and the only satisfactory I got was never having my paddle broken). - forced to drink large volumes of alcohol, most notoriusly the "Crimson-Red-Vodka" (two/three-people shared a handle of red colored vodka). This drink induced you to vomit what appeared to be blood, staining anything it touched. Before leaving, we were made to wash our hands thoroughly to remove the coloring. Crimson Red- one of the flag colors of KA. - forced to guzzle a 1-gallon container of Whole Milk. This task induced vomitting as well as painful stomach cramping through the night and well into the morning (think of a type of constipation, where it felt like you were the character in the movie "Aliens" where the serpent larva ripped out of your chest ... only in the abdominal area). This was noteably one of the sickest moments I felt in my whole life!

I pledged for Kappa Alpha because they (in the interest meetings) noted that their primary task was to make 'gentlemen' out of us, improving our academics, our moral character, and our community services. At this time, I was not only trying to maintain my high GPA, but I was also studying for the MCATs (I payed $1400 for the study prep course and test). Not one activity was made for helping me to achieve either of these ... ALL ACTIVITIES were designed to keep me away from achieving these personal tasks. In whole, my Kappa Alpha experience was a struggle for nothing. In the end, after the 10-wks and right before initiation, I was asked to make a choice- "choose KA, or choose to take your MCATs." I am proud to state that here today, I am currently maintaining a 3.0 in my studies in becoming a doctor, where I have a good future ahead of me (and not a 'Kappa Alpha Gentlemen', where I would be on the way of developing a beer-gut working for McDonalds at $10/hr). You state to have proof, contact Washington College, Chestertown MD. Ask about the Kappa Alpha incident of Spring '05. Ask about the following stay, where Kappa Alpha members vandalized my car, physically/verbally threaten me, and did all they could to make my life a living hell. Then message me back to see if they achieved there goal (-laughs-).

So Why Aren't These Truths Recognized on THIS Article? It is the truth and should be recognize before an innocent student is hurt like I was, or even worse, killed, for following your Kappa Alpha Pledging 'Rituals' carried out by your chapters. After googling "hazing" and "Kappa Alpha Order" I must admit I was not totally shocked to see trials listed for members who hazed, and I am sure that it wasn't individuals that were doing it, but individuals that were caught or handed over. Just admit it, you are a bunch of hazers and proud of it!

You are quite obviously the same person that vandalized this page along with the Washington College page masquerading as a Kappa Alpha member. The omission of a signature confirms it. Mshrop 01:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
No, it's all true ... As a former member of Beta Omega, the truth is not vandalism ... it's just the full description of a UNBIASED article. If you don't believe it, contact the college. I am sure they would love to correct you.
However, seeing that you cited a correction above, I am sure you already know the truth and sadly trying to cover it up. If you can't cite the truth, then delete the entire article. Don't be bias'd!

Please see WP:VERIFY, WP:No original research, and WP:NPOV. Unsourced accusations cannot be included based on your own experiences. The "truth" should be easily backed up by sources, but until then, this content cannot be included. AuburnPilottalk 04:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

College paper, The Elm. Go to the college, get a copy, read and be rid of thy ignorance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LetTruthBeKnown2006 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of proof is not on me to seek out sources for an unverified, libelous paragraph. You cannot add such information without proper sources. It is unquestionably unacceptable. Please review WP:VERIFY and WP:CITE. It is not my duty to go to a specific college and search out an essay. The content cannot stay unless cited. AuburnPilottalk 14:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe 'Truth' is referring to the event followed up in [1], where one of the chapters was placed on probation for (1) year and kicked out of housing after admitting to several acts of hazing towards pledges, Spring 2005. Further information regarding the incident, written in the Elm (school newspaper) has not been added to the online source (neither has any of the Spring 2005 issues).
As for the honor board hearing, briefly mentioned in the first article, outcomes are not documented online (this would compromise the college's overall integrity, as one group's mistakes do not represent the college as a whole - in this situation, Beta Omega Chapter as well as a second male fraternity, Phi Delta Theta were both charged with acts of hazing). You would have to clarify with a senior editor the terms of citation, whether or not if specifics were provided if this source is feasible.
On a last note, many fraternities haze. I agree that to be correct and factual for all aspects, such negative events should be documented in these articles, HOWEVER, not as a 'general' assumption of the whole group. Maybe under a subheading as "Striving to Perfect," where chapters/colonies that have hazed could be found - to clarify that the group is striving to clean up "ritualistic" pledgings as 'Truth' makes mention of. This may be overstepping - so find a senior editor to talk to about making those particular revisions (and maybe the group itself) D-Hell-pers 17:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

KA Stereotypes

As a current Vice-President of a Kappa Alpha chapter, I wish to at least express my take on any negative reputations of the national fraternity.

I do acknowledge that the racist stereotype of the KA fraternity did not randomly appear out of the clear skies, but rather there have been isolate incidents of specific chapters engaging in racist behavior, consequentially begetting unfair stereotypes. You may even find a Confederate flag or two in each house in the KA southern chapters; however, it must be known that there should NOT be a racist connotation with the Confederate flag, especially in this case...as many southerners will tell you (by the way, I'm from the Midwest and not a racist for the record so I can at least partially be objective in that claim).

Racist behavior by an individual chapter is an anomaly. The national fraternity condemns racism on all accounts (and hazing on all accounts for that matter) and instead advocates gentlemenly and honorable conduct as inspired by our spiritual founder, Robert E. Lee, with an emphasis placed on holding women in high esteem and being faithful to God. Was General Lee man who was loyal to his home state and lead the Army of Northern Virginia and afterword became the head of Washington College (now W&L, a prestigious institution)? Yes. A racist, oppressive Southerner? Definitely not.

Fraternities across the nation have their share of problems they must deal with. Many fraternities haze pointlessly. I can honestly say that what sells KA on my campus (and we are NOT an anomaly, for I know many KAs from many other schools) is that our pledgeship makes each and every KA a better person, rather than the sadistic and pointless hazing that I know for a fact other fraternities engage in.

In summary, KAs are relatively good men, generally speaking. The few that give the whole chapter a bad name are not accepted nationally. When word gets out of one isolated racist incident (which unfortunately happens in countless other fraternities besides KA, let me assure you), this racist reputation perpetuates simply because it is easy to slap a racist card against us because of the negative connotation of Southern Values and what some falsely believe Robert E. Lee represents. This connotation is probably believed by the isolated ignoramous whose actions tarnish what it truly means to be a KA. Let it be known that gentlemen of the Kappa Alpha Order, as a whole, oppose the cowardly ignorance of racism.

I can even simplify it more for everyone without trying to sound like a 19th century noble Southern gentleman: we are just a bunch of fun-loving, decent college guys trying to enjoy these great and exciting final years of our youth...before the real world hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CDB3889 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

My personal favorite experience of Kappa Alpha, was the alumni chapter mailing out a biased letter full of lies, talking about how unfair and unjust it was that a chapter be punished for hazing (among other things) ... the letter contained private information of a former pledge's name and full living address. What was the reasoning behind a move like this Mr. Vice-President, besides the Kappa Alpha Gentlemanly way of 'vengenance'?LetTruthBeKnown2006 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

206.169.45.183, Ignorance Not Welcomed

Ignorant vandalist. Please keep to the article, not personal attacks against other editors. If it is unreferenced, then the citation can not be claimed (it's the laws of wikipedia, not my own). If you have such a problem with unreference tags, just REFERENCE them yourself. It's not that hard to do for a competent individual (please ask your mommy or daddy to help you if you are having difficulty). D-Hell-pers 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tags

Pretty much the entire article is quotes from a KA Order Book, followed by notable members. That's it. It's not well-organized, nor is it truly an article. Jmlk17 03:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapter list

Can we get a chapter list? QuinnHK 04:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:KAFlag.gif

Image:KAFlag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

the_undertow talk 00:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Some revisionist historians are trying to remove the following sourced controversy section from the article:

In October 1905, after a performance of Thomas Dixon's race-baiting and white-supremacist play the Clansman, the Kappa Alpha Order at the University of Virginia hosted a dinner honoring the author.[1]

In November 2002, the Zeta Psi and Kappa Alpha Order chapters at the University of Virginia were suspended and subsequently cleared after the fraternities held a Halloween party where guests were photographed wearing blackface and dressed up as Uncle Sam and Venus and Serena Williams.[2][3]

  1. ^ Blackmon, Douglas A. (2009). Slavery by Another Name. Anchor Books. p. 268.
  2. ^ Argetsinger, Amy (December 3, 2002,). "University of Virginia Frats Cleared in Blackface Incident". Washington Post. p. A15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  3. ^ http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26978313_ITM

The claim is that the first incident is "too old" and the second incident did not involve Kappa Alpha Order. However, the provided sources do state that Kappa Alpha Order was initially named and subsequently cleared. It was controversy, and yes I did add it to Zeta Psi as well. Why is Wikipedia censoring information? I feel as though the sections should be restored and will do so. Per WP:BRD, I appear to be the only one willing to engage in the "discuss" part of BRD. Thank you. 67.52.2.234 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the first "controversy" is no controversy at all. Dixon was honored at many dinners and his play was not controversial 104 years ago. There was no controversy surrounding a (more than a century old) dinner at one local chapter of this national organization. To include it here violates WP:SYN (there are no contemporaneous sources saying the dinner was in any way controversial) and WP:UNDUE (1 dinner at a local chapter, 104 years ago, has no relevance to the current, national organization). The costume party; the local chapter of the national organization was cleared in this incident, it was another local chapter of separate fraternal organization that was involved. This incident had nothing to do with the subject of this article so, again, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. L0b0t (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The first incident isn't being given the proper context, but I believe the costume party does have relevance and should be included. It generated quite a bit of national controversy, even if it was only at one school. 98.212.135.1 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Original research? How so? The Washington Post article names Kappa Alpha Order, so I would hardly call that original research. As far as WP:UNDUE goes, the entire article has nothing negative. I would say that is more problematic than the inclusion of a controversy section. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is being put in by someone with an obvious grudge against the Chapter at Virginia. It was not a big news event and the fraternity was cleared. No other fraternities who actually did these things that same year do not have a controversy section, like the Betas and Pikes. Zeta Psi only had a controversy section added after the hypocrisy of the author was shown. This section adds nothing to the article and is a cheap attempt to smear the Order. Txattorney328 (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The lack of a controversy section on other fraternity WP pages can be corrected, and hence ceases to be hypocrisy. It appears to be big enough news to get an article in the Washington Post, which is a pretty high profile newspaper. The fact that the fraternity was subsequently cleared is mentioned in the section. This article should be balanced, with both positive and negative press. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
We don't know if the Washington Post carried the story as they are not cited. The two cited sources are: some fellow's personal homepage (george.loper.org) that presents a copy of what is claimed to be a Post story, and a link to a nonexistent web page at something called accessmylibrary.com. Terrible sources coupled with a tangential (at best) connection to the subject of the article leads me to the conclusion that to include this information would be to give undue weight to a point of view held by an extremely small group. Trying to imply that there is a controversy over racism on the part of a national organization by using information about a small local chapter of the national organization is also, in my view, clearcut original research. L0b0t (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No, we do know that the Washington Post carried the story, see http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-387996.html for example. Just because the Washington Post doesn't keep content online from 2002, doesn't mean it didn't make the paper. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The section could be expanded to include suspensions due to hazing ( http://www.thedmonline.com/ka-suspended-over-hazing-incident-1.1041126 ) as well. There were also suspensions at Southwestern and University of North Texas ( http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/022101/pagea7.pdf ), University of Texas ( http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2.8480/national-office-suspends-kappa-alpha-1.1258294 ), University of Florida ( http://reitzrambler.blogspot.com/2005/07/kappa-alpha-order-at-uf-suspended.html ). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


L0b0t, please see FUTON bias. If you have serious concerns that the article doesn't exist, I'd suggest finding (offline) archives of the newspaper. A few of us might be able to help. However, it appears you are biased to FUTON more than legitimately concerned about a hoax. If the latter applies, let me/us know. tedder (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that, with the exception of Zeta Psi-at my insistance, the Order is the only fraternity to have a controversy section. Adding more controversies will just show that a small group of people are hell bent on slandering the order. If there is a controversy section, then every fraternity, including the black fraternities, should have a controversy section and list all the times they made the news. KA seems to be singled out and this is unacceptable. Also, I listed articles from the Daily Cavalier in the history comments that are better than what the WP said. It gives a better account. Either all fraternities and sororities, white, black, hispanic, and asian should have these controversy sections. The way the Order is treated seems to me just a way to get people uncomfortable about the Order and decide not to rush it. Txattorney328 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that every organization should have a controversy section when there is sufficient controversy. We should strive to make these articles more balanced and factual, and less like a recruiting website (advert). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, could you relist those sources here? It will be helpful once the protection is lifted to give a more balanced account of the controversy. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"IFC finds fraternities not guilty" Daily Cavalier December 3, 2002; "Kappa Alpha Headquarters lifts suspension," Daily Cavalier, November 21, 2002. Txattorney328 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I gave correct sources and it was reverted to the misleading articles. I say again, either ALL greek organizations have the controversy section, or NONE of them should. This is attempt by someone at UVA to disparage the Order. If this is not the case, then why is KA the one singled out? Txattorney328 (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree and I have reverted your change. If controversy sections need to be added to other greek organizations, then that should be the next step. We should strive to make articles of all greek organizations more balanced. Do you have evidence that the edits are coming from UVA? It seems to be a bold attempt to out an editor. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to out an editor. It is just an educated guess that the past history of this section recently has centered on chapter at Virginia. Therefore, the person who created this is at the school or has a beef with that chapter. Txattorney328 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I just think it's best to focus on the content, rather than the editors introducing the content, when possible. Of course, if there are issues of WP:SOCK or WP:COI, then those should be noted and the editors should be warned or delt with appropriately. However, that would be the job of WP:SPI, for example. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy revisited

On 7 December 2010, Zeta Psi's page had the controversy section removed, and has not been re-added.

How is there a controversy when all groups involved were cleared of any wrongdoing, and no one involved with the incident has any standing with the current chapters? This section should be removed, since it was only newsworthy for originally being incorrect. Unfounded allegations do not make a controversy that should be credited to the organization that was targeted (unfairly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.45.183 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kappa Alpha Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kappa Alpha Order. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Laundry list of hazing

Hazing allegations need sources that clearly imply that there's some significance to the fraternity as a larger organization, not just an isolated occurrence. Using legal case documents is almost never enough by itself to establish this, as they are WP:PRIMARY sources. Likewise, brief mentions in student newspapers aren't really up-to-snuff. Regional-level news coverage seems like a good cut-off point, right? Grayfell (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously there is a contributor with an axe to grind against a small subset of Greek organizations. I'm just curious how some groups were allowed to remove the edits made by this user, while some pages are forced to maintain biased text. Grayfell reverted a change I made regarding UA in 2008-09 - where the article literally only has this to say regarding Kappa Alpha, "Kappa Alpha Order was suspended for 18 months after an investigation found the chapter hosted unregistered parties and created other safety concerns." The rest of that article referred to other Greek organizations, yet the KA page tells the story of "severely haz[ed] pledges" - which is in no way substantiated by the referring link. Should these events even be on the National Organization's page, since the national directors have, in every linked article of merit and depth, punished the offenders and the chapters by suspending the chapters and/or expelling the members involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.13.67.21 (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. If it's "obvious" that I have an ax to grind, it's obvious that you're here to defend your frat and right great wrongs. Maybe instead of slinging judgments at each other and making assumptions about what's obvious, how about we discuss this civilly. That's not really a suggestion as much as a reminder of policy. Anyway, I agree that some of the incidents you removed don't belong, but the UA one seems debatable, considering that it was part of a larger issue with the school. The news report really is pretty flimsy on this, especially as connected to hazing, so I've again removed it.
As for the rest, if the national organization is coming out and saying something about an incident, doesn't that actually support that it's significant to the organization? If the frat is working hard to fight hazing, as supported by reliable independent sources, that should be included in the article. Few of the sources I've seen have been all that persuasive on that, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you've got examples supported by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's be civil. First off, I was referencing Broadmoor, not Grayfell as having the axe to grind - Some of Broadmoor's postings regarding hazing clearly violates WP:NPOV, as they editorialized the UVa story using the biased terms, "several serious allegations of hazing and misconduct", when the most useful quote from the article says the suspension was to investigate, "colorable reports of hazing and misconduct," including excessive alcohol consumption and "other behavior that threatens the health, safety and well-being of ... students." - colorable does not equal 'several' nor 'serious'. I would also point out that the chapter was never formally suspended by the University, and the National Organization never suspended the chapter, as it has done in the past when the evidence supports it. How could this be a 'notable event' when there is nothing of note other than a suspension during an investigation - an investigation where no other actions were taken? I would think this should be removed from the page. Additionally, the 2015 lawsuit has claims that are not borne out by the linked articles. While it appears that injuries were sustained, neither article claims that they caused "his football career ending prematurely". The note on the 2011 incident that claims that the chapter was suspended "after the media receive reports of pledges being abused and adult female performers being hired for live sex shows" - the linked article says nothing about this. The article was regarding a lawsuit where the National Organization was trying to receive assets from a suspended chapter - but there was nothing about 'media reports' being the reason for a suspension.

So far, on this page alone Broadmoor has posted 9 separate 'notable hazing' incidents, as well as an allegation of "a plethora of hazing incidents, lawsuits, and chapter suspensions involving Kappa Alpha Order." 3 have already been removed as lacking substance, and I am arguing that at least 3 more have improperly editorialized content, as well as having the inflammatory allegation removed from the page. If I were trying to RGW, wouldn't I also try to remove the section on Accusations of Racial Insensitivity? I would just like to have some consistency across all Fraternity pages - if some groups are allowed to take off 'Notable Hazing Incidents' - as posted by Broadmoor, then why isn't Kappa Alpha Order allowed to do the same, or if there is such a laundry list of these incidents, why can't they be placed on another page and linked from the main page?

I've toned down some of the WP:EDITORIAL words. What other fraternity articles have had their hazing sections removed? If they are reliably sourced, they should not be removed without discussion, and I would like to know so I can restore them, or at least assess the sources. Otherwise, the problems of other frat articles are not all that relevant, since Wikipedia has an ambivalent attitude towards precedent.
I've expanded with an additional source to explain that the UVa thing was temporary. I've also corrected and expanded the Austin thing, which as you said was substantially different than was presented. If you have other sources clarifying these, that would be helpful. Grayfell (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant Paragraph Removal

The paragraph below has no relation to the page and should be removed. Boomerbuzz (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

"Ku Klux Klan founder John Lester claimed that the Klan's initiation ritual was based on a popular collegiate fraternal order. [7] It has been speculated by Allen Trelease that "Kuklos Adelphon almost certainly provided the model" for the early Klan. [8] Kuklos Adelphon dissolved during the American Civil War."

I think I got lost on this and at the moment I agree. I will look at this again tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 22:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
It was always relevant and you should have known that. I've fixed it by reinstating versions of some of the text you added - but you'd misrepresented the text considerably. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Again, this paragraph is not relevant to this page, it is misleading and defaming.Boomerbuzz (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Order/Archive_1&oldid=1217849571"