Talk:Kappa Sigma/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reaching Consensus

This page is now protected, and we are charged with reaching consensus of what should be on this page. There are three main areas of dispute: "American Founding," "Motto," and "Philosophy."

I agree with User:jheiv that much of the Founding section needs some major trimming - to the most important facts - year of founding, founders, expansion from Virginia, expansion from the South. Right now, the piece reads too much like a promotion piece for the Fraternity. (I expect most editors here to agree). There are sources that describe Kappa Sigma's early history that we could also cite.

The second, is what the motto of the fraternity is. To me, this does not matter - both KappaSigmaAEKDB and Jheiv have made great points. On one hand, the fraternity itself says that the motto of the fraternity is "Bologna Docet," but chapters have, and located on the crest is "AEKDB." Personally, I am OK with the current version - with a slight change from "Motto" to "Mottos."

The third is more problematic, and I have some doubt that some of the editors here will ever be able to reach agreement. I believe that if there is a point to discussing revocation over religious references it belongs in the History section instead of the Philosophy section. However, the earlier consensus was that these references were trivial and removed. Before I change my position, someone is going to have to convince me that a) this action is (and still is) the official belief of the organization (through additional verifiable sources) b) why this reference (or addition) is significant.

A larger problem I have is the additional references. I believe they are in violation of WP:COPY, WP:COPYLINK and WP:NFC. The links provided on this talk page Talk:Kappa_Sigma#Improper_Sourcing show that Kappa Sigma has asserted its copyright, and that "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1])" - WP:COPYLINK and is frowned upon.

These are my 2 cents, and I am speaking only for myself. --Enos733 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto: It doesn't matter much to me either compared to the other points, but I'm not sure its good policy to give equal weighting to "unofficial" anythings when there is a clear and unarguable "official" version.

Religious references: While I do think that the reference is trivial and should be removed, if it were demonstrated that this is not a single event and a frequent occurrence or if it were the official belief today, I would absolutely reconsider.

Additional references: Not to mention the copyright issue that Enos brought up, I think these references are unverifiable. There is nothing to say they are legitimate or have not been altered. There is simply no way to verify them. I realize the interest in including these types of material, but it's simply against the policies to include material where the only source is unverifiable. One might make the argument that because it Kappa Sigma asserted its copyright, that the entire upload is unaltered and otherwise correct, but that would not be correct. Infringing content is not limited to completely accurate reproductions. jhe_iv (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto: The infobox is only set up for one. I don't think there is any dispute on Bononia Docet being the open motto. For AEKDB, I think that the only sources that are even close to reliable are the two edu sites. The fact that it is on the crest is not relevant in terms of reliability.

Religious reference: I personally think that both the fact that Kappa Sigma doesn't allow atheists is worth mentioning *if they are the only or one of a few in the NIC* and that the New York Times is a good enough reference. The actual lawsuit is probably also a good place to look.

Additional Reference: For the reasons listed above, I *completely* oppose any result which leaves the article with a link to a webpage that claims to have a copy of the Kappa Sigma ritual.Naraht (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the religion side, this from 1963: "Kappa Sigma has its basis in the fundamentals of religion, and in order to become a member of our fraternity you must believe in God."[2]

When looking for information on religion and Kappa Sigma, I found a lot of sources on incidents involving Kappa Sigma. Surely we should include incidents about this fraternity to balance the reports of philanthropy?

At a 1986 party members of a chapter dressed in blackface,[3] the Tennessee chapter was suspended in 2002 after members dressed in blackface,[4] the president of the chapter at Swathmore College was suspended due to "a gentleman's agreement to bar non-whites,"[5] members in Stanford in the early 20th C poured hot water over a Japanese bill collector,[6] the California State College chaper flew the Confederate flag at dances in the mid-60s,[7] and 15 students wearing sheets marched in front of the Kappa Sigma house at the University of Alabama after a black student president was elected in 1976.[8]

A rush choked to death on raw liver during a hazing in 1959,[9] and in other hazings pledges have been stripped naked, taped together and photographed,[10] or have been driven around naked chained to a pickup truck.[11] The Northwestern chapter was banned in 2003 for an incident involving alcohol and a beluga whale.[12] It's not all bad, the same book as mentions the death in '59 contains comments from the then executive director of Kappa Sigma in 1998 describing the aims and values of the chapters.[13] Other book and scholarly sources do mention things like "x was a Kappa Sigma member" or "Kappa Sigma are going to build a new fraternity house", "x chapter was founded in xxxx and had xx members in xxxx", but nothing worth repeating.

Recent news: Cornell, UCF, and Mississippi State chapters all shut for breaching national fraternity regulations on alcohol,[14][15][16][17][18] a student stealing a sign from OSU's Kappa Sigma house was badly beaten with a metal baton,[19][20] the University of Virginia chapter was sanctioned for "inappropriate activities" with pledges,[21] members at Stanford resigned due to homophobia in the chapter,[22] a Texas Christian University Kappa Sigma member suffered second degree burns when branded on his buttocks with a hot coat-hanger by his frat,[23][24] a 21-year old woman was sexually assaulted at the SDSU chapter house,[25] Kappa Sigma joined other frats at Stanford in opposing sexual assaults,[26] three men challenged to leave a Berkeley chapter house party stabbed a man on leaving.[27] Some philanthropy:[28][29][30]. That's just this year, there's 2000+ news story from 1890-2009 about this fraternity:[31] including various reports of controversies[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and acts of philanthropy.[39][40] Fences&Windows 14:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the mention from the pledge manual is appropriate as a reference to the fact that Kappa Sigma requires belief in god (with the New York Times/Lawsuit as well). However, since the 2003 Pledge Manual says the same thing, the 2003 should probably be used, unless the article is trying to show change or lack thereof.

As for the hazing, there is sort of a paradox in that they would be significant events in the history of the individual chapters, but that there doesn't appear to be a specific effect on National Organization, and chapters are generally not considered notable enough for Wikipedia entries. The Article is about Kappa Sigma, not the chapter at school X. As a comparison, if an event at an individual McDonalds makes national news *and* affects the chain at the national level, it is worthwhile, if it doesn't affect the national chain, then it probably doesn't belong.

I'll have to think about the anti-african american references. It doesn't seem to rise to the level of issue that some of the other fraternities founded in the south such as KA Order or ATO, where the chapters of the Fraternity have consistently supported "Southern Culture/CSA". OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if there was more in Kappa Sigma that ZBT (founded in NYC).

Everything that you've included are valid references, I think it is a case of sorting through to see which ones are relevant.Naraht (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Naraht about the distinction between a national fraternity and an isolated event at a chapter. This was my reasoning with the NYT article, but it has since been shown that there are more references for it being a continued national policy. Unlike the religious requirement, however, hazing is certainly not a national policy. (In fact, there is a quite clear anti-hazing policy -- see the referenced Bononia Docet). Also with regards to hazing, I think we should consider other Fraternity articles, especially the ones that were featured:

• Alpha Kappa Alpha (featured) - no mention of individual chapter hazing, yet it is clear from a google search that the Fraternity has had it's issues with hazing.
• Alpha Phi Alpha (featured) - actually a fairly honest treatment of hazing in the Fraternity's history, but although they do mention a few specific incidents, a google search yields many more controversies that aren't discussed.
• Sigma Alpha Epsilon - no discussion of individual hazing incidents, yet a google search turns up multiple incidents
• Pi Kappa Alpha - no mention of hazing (nor a mention of an anti-hazing national policy, although I'm sure one exists).
• Beta Theta Pi - no mention of hazing (nor a mention of an anti-hazing national policy, although I'm sure one exists).
• Sigma Alpha Mu - no mention of hazing (nor a mention of an anti-hazing national policy, although I'm sure one exists).
• Lambda Chi Alpha - the article discusses the national anti-hazing policies, but does not discuss individual chapter incidents.

It seems that the articles on National Fraternities, for the most part, only discuss the national policies on hazing, if they discuss hazing at all. In only one case (that I've seen), do they discuss individual incidents by individual chapters.

All that being said, in the interest of balance, I wouldn't be opposed to including a fair and honest treatment of Kappa Sigma's issues with hazing (I think the Alpha Phi Alpha article would be a good starting point). As long as the section is given "due" weight. (We also need to consider the human tendency to be interested in and drive the reporting of negative events -- otherwise, WP's pages about celebrities would be made up of 95% of a description of their latest scandal, and 5% of everything else they've done).

jhe_iv (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What are the verified references to the religious requirement as a continued national philosophy? The link provided by Fences and Windows is a 1963 version of the Bologna Docet, and a quick google search of ""Kappa Sigma" +Religion OR Religious" does not lead to any relevant hits. Please correct me if I am in error.--Enos733 (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I misread the comments up until now. I made a similar search, along with others, and agree with you Enos. I'll check the more recent Bononia Docet referenced for any related sections. Otherwise, it (again) seems to me that this is an isolated incident at a single chapter out of hundreds more than twenty years ago. jhe_iv (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked that the two WP:COI editors are still in denial about their fraternity's religious requirements. On page 33 of the 2003 edition (page 30 of the .pdf file), in a section titled "Religion and Ritual," it says, "Before any man can be initiated as a Kappa Sigma, he must ... profess a belief in God, and scripture, and its teachings." I simply cannot believe that you are sincere when you suggest it was "an isolated incident at a single chapter." Plenty of chapters are more open and honest about it than you two are being.

Also, I support an honest approach to Kappa Sigma's hazing history in line with the featured Alpha Phi Alpha article's treatment. Fences&Windows has provided some excellent references. Per WP:COI, Jheiv and Enos should also recuse themselves from controversially deleting cited material if it is included in the article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should expand the hazing section to be more inline with the Alpha Phi Alpha article. My worry is that this page will get overloaded with hazing events from individual chapters. The two mentions in the Alpha Phi Alpha article seem out of place. Any suggestions?--Enos733 (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid concern, and one that I share as well -- it might be good policy to solely focus on the national fraternity and disregard chapters entirely. This would mean we wouldn't discuss individual chapters at all, not hazing incidents, not philanthropy events. This would solve the question about which events are notable -- similarly, this also solve my question about how to determine which philanthropy events are notable, as we seem to currently have a jumble of random events that people have added. This would solve many problems when it comes to determining notability (?) of events. If we went this route, it seems that the article would be focused on the national fraternity (so the section about IMF would stay) and we could use the aggregate numbers for things that we currently discuss on a chapter to chapter basis (philanthropy, etc). Just an idea -- not really set one way or the other. (But I do appreciate the mostly positive discussion going on). jhe_iv (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Another idea, maybe we could / should consult the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities or an RfC for this? I'd prefer the former since it might be good to establish some sort of guideline for these types of articles. jhe_iv (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma is made up of its chapters. Disallowing any inclusion of the record of its chapters' activities in this article is basically whitewashing the history of this organisation. Discussing this and any other fraternity while making no mention of the copious coverage of controversial activities would be far from neutral. I don't want to include every single incident, but some of the more prominent ones like a pledge choking to death would surely be acceptable to give a genuinely balanced view of Kappa Sigma. An RfC on how to deal with this for Greek letter organisations in general is probably a good idea. Let's be honest, consulting the WikiProject is not really going to get a balanced view on incorporating criticism of these organisations, is it? Fences&Windows 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who you ask in the wikiproject, I'm sure. Anyway the mention of chapter controversies in national organizations, has in the past, been dependent upon two factors: 1) the quality of the source 2) and the amount of national attention it received. For example Ivy League student newspaper mentions an on-campus violation by Alpha Beta U - Not notable not broad in scope/coverage and quite frankly it's a dime a dozen incident. Kappa Kappa Gamma chapter hazes its students and it's written about in a book, The New York Times, and covered on 20/20 and CNN - Notable, broad coverage by reputable sources. Delta Zeta chapter deactivates current members based on physical appearance and is covered by CNN, USA Today, The New York Times and others - Notable, broad coverage by reputable sources. Though each controversy seems to be taken on a case by case basis. The Alpha Chi Omega/Matt Shepard incident RfC leaned towards its removal even though it had coverage by a book, The New York Times, CNN, and the local student newspaper. So long as an event has had reasonably broad coverage nationally and it doesn't add WP:UNDUE weight to the article I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be added. Articles shouldn't censor and shouldn't be rush brochures for the organization. --ImGz (t/c) 19:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats a great listing of some applicable precedent within the project. One of the reason I considered dropping individual chapter references altogether was because it seems difficult to define a brightline rule for inclusion of chapter events. These are not limited to controversies, but also include philanthropic events, fundraising accomplishments, accomplishments at their local host institution, etc. but I think we could extend ImGz's reasoning to apply to all of these events. That being said, the one thing that concerns me is that human nature tends to focus on (and thus report on more often) scandalous events or controversies than positive / feel good pieces, irrespective of the actual balance within the chapter. However, this is a discussion for another day...

My other question is how you think WP:UNDUE applies. At first glance, I thought it would mean something like "content should be included only if it does not put undue weight on an event or events, with respect to the entire 'picture' of the organization, person or other article topic" -- but after reading it a few times, it seems to say something more along the lines of "content should be included to the extent that it's weight in the article is relatively equal to the amount of coverage it has received in reliable sources." -- How do you read it? jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Single point - Hazing Incidents

As mentioned elsewhere in the talk page, there are many chapters that have lost their charter due to hazing incidents. There is certainly a balance that should be struck between the policies of the Kappa Sigma Fraternity with regard to hazing/membership intake and the activities that took place in the individual chapters.

In the Alpha Phi Alpha article, discussion of hazing during certain parts of the fraternity's history are discussed in the membership section. This would seem to be the most appropriate place for discussing hazing (both the Fraternity's policy and notable actions of the individual chapters).

I did a quick search for Kappa Sigma in the NY Times, as a proxy for notable events and found only one reference that could be a hazing incident - In 1999, pledges from the Washington State University Chapter stole $1700 of goods, and the chapter was banned from rushing for two years 1. Other controversies that may be notable involving a Kappa Sigma chapter was the killing of a goose in 2003 and a couple of racist incidents.

I think we can find consensus, and I think that these discussions are making the main Kappa Sigma page better as a Wikipedia article.--Enos733 (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For the Washington State theft, I'm not sure that this falls under Hazing. I've found that the media is more likely to use the word hazing than a university or a prosecutor and yet no where in this article is the word hazing used. Also, I'm not quite sure why the NY Times covered this particularly. The only other articles that I can find about it are in either the Spokane, WA; Moscow, ID; or one mention in the Seattle, WA papers. While normally NY Times coverage of events outside the Northeast would count as National Coverage, this one doesn't seem to fit that. Wierd.Naraht (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This may sound awkward, but can anyone think of a brightline rule for "notable" hazing incidents? I mean, I'm worried we'll have the same problem of pile-on that we do with the philanthropy section -- that is, editors will add the most recent event that was dubbed "hazing" or "alleged hazing" by some media (and I note Naraht's important distinction between the media's use of the word and the legal use) to the article. I am wholly for discussing the "challenges" (I guess, for lack of a better word) that Kappa Sigma has had with hazing, but I'd like to come to some consensus about what events warrant inclusion (certainly not every event where the word hazing is used) and figure out how to make sure that we're not giving undue weight to hazing incidents with respect to the entire organization. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation-Needed Sources

Note: split from above section jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible citation sources (or how to fix):

"routinely revokes charters from guilty chapters which can be as old as 130 years" - rework sentence; find citation to news article of old chapter being revoked. See inactive chapter list for ideas.

"Each committee is made up strictly of volunteers and some contain various targeted subcommittee" - source Docet?

"Currently Kappa Sigma leads the Greek world in terms of donations and service hours as part of the "Greater Cause" program." Delete/rework sentence (promotional). Mention Greater Cause as program, cite #17.

"The case eventually reached the Virginia Supreme Court," - Kappa Sigma Fraterntiy Inc. v. Kappa Sigma Fraternity, 266 Va. 455 (2003); http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-jurisdiction/13616304-1.html; http://law2.richmond.edu/librarytech/varb/index.php?caseview=1&case=266045500; --Enos733 (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Single point - Atheism

From page 33 of the Bononia Docet ( http://www.kappasigma.org/pdf/Bononia_Docet_2003.pdf )

Religion and Ritual

No one could tell me where my soul might be; I searched for God but He eluded me; I sought my brother out and found all three. — Ernest Howard Crosby At every significant juncture in a man’s life he is asked to give his word that he will uphold certain obligations. Before any man can be initiated as a Kappa Sigma, he must give his word that he is not a member of another college fraternity and profess a belief in God, and scripture and its teachings. While the Ritual does not require adherence to any one religion, it requires belief in certain values,

including that man is responsible to a higher authority.

Does anyone feel that this does not stand as a referencable statement that a brother of Kappa Sigma may not be an atheist?

I don't (that is, I agree that this is a fine reference and seems to say exactly that). jhe_iv (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My problem with the reference is that sentence 3 in the cited material does not explicitly say that atheists are not allowed to become members - the operative words being "man is responsible to a higher authority." While there is disagreement on the meaning of Atheism ("Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism, contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism.") the questions becomes 1) how the policy is actually implemented (i.e. is the NY Times article still the policy of Kappa Sigma) 2) is the statement "brother of Kappa Sigma may not be an atheist" the best way to describe the policy. To me the better way to mention this whole section is to reorganize the page to create a "Membership" section (as per the featured articles), where we can include sentence 3 as part of the membership requirements.--Enos733 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea (the membership section) -- especially because of the negative connotation that aethism might carry along with it, it's probably best to be as specific as possible. jhe_iv (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about putting Atheists as part of the second half of the phrase. Something like "Kappa Sigma require that its initates express a belief in God, so atheists are not allowed as members". The ref to the pledge manual could go at the comma.Naraht (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be "Kappa Sigma has certain requirements for individuals becoming a member. A pledge must have a 2.0 GPA (cite), and must believe in certain values, including 'that man is responsible to a higher authority.'(cite) Kappa Sigma has no religious requirement."--Enos733 (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know enough about atheism, but the distinction seems to be that Enos prefers using the exact wording from the Bononia Docet. If there is, in fact, question about what atheism means, then I agree that we should use the exact wording, in order not to give the wrong message. In my opinion, the benefit of streamlining (?) it by using words "everybody knows" is far outweighed by the possibility of giving someone the wrong impression -- especially when the exact words are easily available and not confusing. However, even if we were to diverge from the exact wording, I think we could avoid the "atheism" question by saying that "the fraternity requires its initiates express belief in a higher authority(cite=docet), although there is no requirement to adhere to any one religion." or something of the like. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Enough with this sanitizing. The source says members must "profess a belief in God, and scripture, and its teachings." The watered-down wording that Enos is suggesting does not reflect this requirement. What Naraht suggests is the way to go, but with the inclusion of the preceding quote in the first half of the sentence. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and the disagreement is based on the inconsistency in those two statements. On one hand, there is a value of "professing a belief in God, scripture and its teaching." By itself, this would suggest that Kappa Sigma would only allow Christians to become members. The second sentence modifies the first, and thus becomes the controlling sentence. However, all of this assumes that the requirements are rigidly imposed by the individual chapters during pledging. All we can verify is that in the 1980s, Kappa Sigma revoked the charter of the Stanford chapter for failing to use the entire ritual (see the NY Times article). --Enos733 (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as a little odd. "Belief in God, scripture and its teaching" seem to fit Jews just as well...Naraht (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but the point remains, not every religion believes in "God." In addition, could "God" in this sentence be substituted for "Allah," "Buddha," or "Zeus?" If the answer is no, then we should revert to the more neutral terminology used in the Docet - a "higher authority."--Enos733 (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like consensus (-1) was to reorganize the page and add a member section that used the specific language because there is debate over the interpretation and/or the meaning of "aethist". Did I miss something? jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what anyone has said. If you attempt to define "consensus" as an agreement between yourself and Enos (both Kappa Sigma members), you are going to find significant resistance. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been ongoing for over 2 months while the main page was under protection. Only four editors have commented. I agree that consensus has not been reached, but there is a wide gulf that is yet to be spanned.

On one hand, one commentator prefers the page to refer to the position of a belief in God as an absolute requirement - and cites several other indirect sources including a NY Times article including the Kappa Sigma pledge manual. Yet the same pledge manual that is cited in support of a rigid policy states that prospective members must believe "man is responsible to a higher authority." This statement is not as clear cut as the editor believes. (See my earlier comment on this thread for more information). I do not know why we are trying to infer a larger intent from two clauses that are confusing. ("God" as well as "athiest" have multiple meanings and inferences). In addition, there is no source that states that someone has not become a member because of a religious requirement. (The NY Times article does not make that claim).

But the larger problem with the sentence is the fact that regardless of what I believe about the specific point, the whole sentence, if not the entire section should be rewritten. The Membership section begins with the values Kappa Sigmas are taught, then mentions the no-hazing policy, and then has one sentence about who is eligible for membership. I believe a better way to organize this section is to start with the membership requirements (including GPA, enrolled at the undergraduate institution), then discuss the process of becoming a member, then discuss the values Kappa Sigmas believe.--Enos733 (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection

This main Kappa Sigma page is scheduled to go off protection in a couple of weeks. After a flurry of activity on the talk page, the editors here do not seem to be anywhere closer to consensus on how to improve the page. Lets try to move forward so once the protection is off, we will not have any more controversy. --Enos733 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're "nowhere" closer. And to be honest, I'm not sure we'll ever get 100% consensus (although I have no doubt that can work out a consensus(-1)). It seems we're pretty close to consensus on the Endowment Fund change and the Motto and a little less close on the Aethism point. I think the Hazing discussion will still be active for a bit though. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this constant "consensus(-1)" snark if you want this article's editing environment to change from how it's been, Jheiv. Two Kappa Sigma brothers agreeing with one another about sanitizing the article to the fraternity's preferred specifications does not a consensus make. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you are the only editor who has been actively unproductive on this article. Your contributions have been a net negative thus far. Discussion has been on-going for the past two months while the article was under protection but you refused to participate, as you did largely prior to protection. Regardless of my or other editors connections to the organization, our edits show that we value WP policies over any interest in "sanitizing". As noted when you brought this issue to WP:COIN, edits to articles by organizations members or employees happens all the time, yet you refuse to listen (as you do most times you don't get your way) and continue to claim bias. Your username history and contributions show that you are simply a trolling WP:SPA who's interest is not in improving the article but rather painting the organization in an undue negative light. While you were not able to contribute to the discussion on the talk page, help find references for cite-needed tags, or help suggest ways to improve the page, you were, however, interested in nominating most of the images on the page for AfD. To be quite honest, and in light of all of this, the consensus(-1) notation seems perfectly apt. You are alone in your commitment to deface the page and your re-appearance after a peaceful and productive two months almost makes me wish the page was again protected. I hope these two months off have given you a chance to shift your focus from detrimental to productive, from insistent to compromising. If this is the case, then I would be happy to drop the notation -- otherwise, I have no problem ignoring your objections, reverting your edits, and continuing to improve the article unimpeded. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 07:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that attitude, then. The article was protected last time I reported you for edit-warring, and I have no doubt that the same will happen again if you seriously try to revert my edits "unimpeded." As a personal side note, though, I honestly welcome this attitude on your part. The more obstinate and overt you are in your attempts at censorship, the more attention is drawn and the more outside opinions are brought to the article. Fences&Windows saw the obvious NPOV/COI problems here, as will others.

You knew the truth about how AEKDB should have been referenced from the get-go, but you played dumb and reverted even in the face of references. You know the truth about atheists being kicked out of Kappa Sigma, but you insist on trying to obfuscate that fact in the article. Your disingenuous editing borders on acting in some of these discussions. Look at how selectively you apply Wikipedia's policies! "Oh, some photo of an obscure jug with initials on it is relevant to include in the article, but an actual Baird's reference on the fraternity's historical origins isn't!" You are a WP:COI editor who is trying to keep the article tailored to your fraternity's preferred specifications, plain and simple, and that's how I'll treat you in turn. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reported

Notice: I have reported the hostile atmosphere and edit warring between fraternity members and non-members at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The current situation clearly requires some sort of intervention or mediation, as protection has proven ineffective. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

COI/NPOV tag

Lets assume good faith unless/ until there is a specific action that an editor can point to that violates the standard. Disagreement, nor membership in an organization is sufficient to warrant this tag.--Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is still a promotional piece just as User:Fences&Windows pointed out when he/she arrived from the WP:COIN noticeboard. You are not in a position to remove it. What part of the WP:COI policy on "non-controversial edits" do you and Jheiv not understand? Why on God's green earth should I assume good faith when Kappa Sigma editors have declared that they will revert my contributions "unimpeded"? Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you are a WP:SPA who has no interest in improving the article. I'm sorry, but I no longer have interest in waiting around for you to become reasonable and accept consensus or WP policies. Until you can demonstrate consensus for this edit, it will be reverted. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You keep linking to that opinion essay as if it were Wikipedia policy. Keep yelling "SPA" all you like, the fact remains that you are a WP:COI editor, which is advised against in actual policy. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly shocked that a troll who has no regard for the effects his posts may have on the recruitment process can't understand why people have a problem with his edits. Oh wait, I completely can. Tmrobertson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for your fraternity's recruitment process. The Kappa Sigma fraternity does not own its Wikipedia article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that the template is inappropriate. Until you demonstrate consensus, the template will be removed. At the very least, you should try to find specific instances of edits that the editors you accuse of COI editing against WP-policies. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the COI/NPOV tags, not because of jheiv or Enos733 have a Conflict of Interest, but because the editor who just re-added the COI tag does so. Whether or not he admits it, I can not imagine him having the same relationship with Kappa Sigma that he does with Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Sigma Nu (to pick two other North-American Social Fraternities). While this relationship is almost certainly negative, it *is* there. If his interest in this article was to spread information about Greek Letter Organizations (GLOs) from Wikileaks , there are at least three other GLOs that he could have edited while the Kappa Sigma article was locked and he did not do so.

I've signficantly edited articles on at least a dozen GLOs, however any accusations of me having a COI on the GLOs that I am not a member of (including Kappa Sigma) will be giggled at.Naraht (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Membership

I believe this entire section should be rewritten. The Membership section begins with the values Kappa Sigmas are taught, then mentions the no-hazing policy, and then has one sentence about who is eligible for membership. I believe a better way to organize this section is to start with the membership requirements (including GPA, enrolled at the undergraduate institution), then discuss the process of becoming a member, then discuss the values Kappa Sigmas believe. Thoughts?--Enos733 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a national GPA requirement? I searched the Docet for one and didn't see one.

The outline for Alpha Phi Alpha and Alpha Kappa Alpha's Membership section looks like (combined):

• # of Chapters / Geographical Reach
• Special Terms for Members
• Notable Members
• Membership Intake:
  • Discussion of pledge requirements
  • Discussion of pledge process
  • Stance on Hazing
  • Individual "notable" hazing incidents
• Notable Members (APA):
  • Section of notable members along with pictures for many of them
• National Leadership (AKA):
  • Table showing national leadership offices and the respective officers
• International Presidents
  • Expanding list of international presidents
• Centennial Celebration (APA) / Boule (AKA)
  • (This would be a discussion about Biennial Grand Conclaves, and probably Leadership Conferences

What are the thoughts on something along these lines? We could integrate a lot of those suggestions into the discussion of pledge requirements and pledge process.

Also, the Alpha Phi Omega has a short and sweet section of the membership requirements that is well referenced including historical developments on the membership requirements -- I'm not sure how well documented the developments of Kappa Sigma's membership requirements are, but I like the added perspective. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

jheiv ^{talk contribs} 20:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think grabbing structure from Featured Articles is probably a good thing. Not sure what "Special Terms for Members" is. For the National Presidents, a template might work simply with name and years of service like most of those in Category:Fraternity and Sorority President Lists. At minimum the development of Kappa Sigma's membership requirements will include any changes to limitation on membership such as when it allowed non-whites, any changes to a religious requirement (could Jews and Muslims join when it was founded?) and any information on charters removed due to pledging atheists. One reason that the Alpha Phi Omega membership requirements are as documented as they are is that I found a document that includes the 1957 bylaws on eBay. :)Naraht (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No Fraternity wide GPA requirement. From http://www.kappasigma.org/content/pledging-kappa-sigma , "Scholastic Obligation: The minimum GPA for pledging and initiation is determined by the Chapter and the host institution. All scholarship questions can be directed to the Scholarship Chairman of the chapter." I don't know if the Lack of national GPA requirement is notable, but for this, I think a primary source is good.Naraht (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Kirjath Sepher

We've had a complaint in at OTRS under Ticket:2010080110021156; can someone please explain to me the significance of the words "Kirjath Sepher"? Stifle (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you post the text of the complaint for those of us who cannot log into OTRS? Who has filed the complaint? To answer your question, Kirjath Sepher was an alleged historical organization in Italy that the American Kappa Sigma fraternity claims to have modeled itself after. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After looking into this, it gets interesting. The mentions to "Kirjath Sepher" stem from Baird's 1898 American College Fraternities (5/e)-- see P.143 here. However, by the 9th edition of this book (1920), the mention was removed -- see P.219 here. The other references that I found connecting the phrase to the American Fraternity Kappa Sigma seem to be simply mirroring the Baird introduction to the Fraternity. Not sure what the complaint was, but we might want to find better references if there are complaints, or remove the material in the absence of them. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 08:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You will not delete this reference. It is extremely relevant to the history of Kappa Sigma and is sourced to the most authoritative reference work on fraternities in existence. Whether or not later Baird's editors later omitted this particular historical information doesn't change the validity of the 1898 edition. This is the most blatant example yet of you suggesting you'll engage in censorship on this article. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but rather mentioned it here to start a discussion about it -- if removal of the reference gains consensus, that it will indeed be removed. I'm not sure what the policy is when later editions of a book remove sections that were in previous sections. On one hand, it could have been an error that was later corrected, but on the equally likely other hand, it could have simply been an editorial decision to focus on other details. My point of view is that, if it is contentious, then it should be supported by more "sturdy" (if you will) references. A quick look finds a few, but they clearly are just mirroring what Baird said. Maybe you can help find them. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I regret that I cannot. OTRS tickets are private. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Baird is a valid reference. We cannot/nor should not make inferences on the editorial choices of an author or publisher, unless the reference is in error.--Enos733 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also curious as to why the article says "The Kappa Sigma Fraternity claims to be modeled after an extinct order known as 'Kirjath Sepher.'" Although Kirjath Sepher is mentioned in both the Baird and Patterson references, no where does it imply that the Fraternity itself claims to be descendent from it. Is there a current reference, one that is not dated back 100 years ago and preferably comes from the Kappa Sigma Fraternity itself to stand behind what is written in the article? I think more thought should be given as to why later editions of the Baird’s Manuel fail to mention Kirjath Sepher along with Kappa Sigma. As mentioned above, Baird’s is arguably the most well known and authoritative references for Fraternities; why not then, should we adhere to the more recent editions for clarification on this? Latter editions simply state that the Fraternity was based upon a secret European society found by Manuel Chrysolaras, this coincides with what the Kappa Sigma Fraternity has on their website. I can find no source from the Kappa Sigma Fraternity claiming to be in any way related to Kirjath Sepher, and unless we find a current unarguable source proving so, then the statement in question should be removed as it not able to be verified with a strong amount of certainty. This is not the only issue regarding Baird’s older editions versus the newer editions. Early editions date Kappa Sigma’s founding at 1867. Newer editions place it at 1869, the date which appears on the Kappa Sigma website and this article. It is problems like these that makes me feel that we should omit any possible relationship between Kappa Sigma and Kirjath Sepher until we can find current and verifiable information to do so.KM HCC (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the same issue previously, noting that the mention was later removed in Baird -- I would suspect there is some sort of WP policy surrounding these issues, but I have yet to find any. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 21:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like Rbreen's edit, but I am confused by the comment "Baird and Patterson give no sources for this information, which presumably came from fraternity sources; this needs citation from an independent source)." I am not sure what the comment is referring to - the existence of the old European order - the claim made by Kappa Sigma about its origins - or that "Kirjath Sepher" is the order that Kappa Sigma claims to base its existence upon? Going back to earlier comments, all we know is that Baird's discussion of the origins of Kappa Sigma changed over a period of 20 years or so. Why that was done is the question. Was it because the Fraternity changed its public information over that period, or was Baird's information incorrect earlier?--Enos733 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I am also confused by the edit summary for the same reasons you listed. Clearly, Baird reads (in at least one earlier version) that the Fraternity is based on "Kirjath Sepher": In 1865 George Wyatt Hollingsworth and George Miles Arnold, two Americans, while pursuing medical studies in Paris, learned of the Kirjath Sepher, an ancient European, secret order, many years extinct, which was founded at the University of Bologna between 1395 and 1400... -- so the edit is certainly confusing. But I'm not sure the question Enos733 raises while important, see my post right above this post, is unrelated to Rbreen's edit. I'll add a note on his talk page pointing him to the discussion. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, I noticed in the preface of Baird’s 6th edition, (where there is no longer a mention of Kirjath Sepher) Baird himself writes “So far as the articles concerning the fraternities are concerned, they have all been rewritten. Some of them needed much change, some little.” source Could this suggest that since all the fraternity articles were rewritten that they are in fact more accurate and therefore more reliable for referencing. If so we should no longer except the Baird’s old assertion of Kappa Sigma being modeled after Kirjath Sepher. It could have in fact been modeled after any secret European order. KM HCC (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask if there was a reliable source that says this but I'm afraid I have an idea of where you got this and don't want to resurrect that discussion yet again. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 07:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Books searches

My question is whether only the words "Kirjath Sepher" were asked about *or* did they ask about "Kirjath Sepher" in regards to "Kappa Sigma". Doing a quick google book search on "Kirjath Sepher" gets a humoungous number of hits, *most* of which have to do a location in the middle east mentioned in Joshua 15:15. There are other transliterations including Kiriath Sepher. The translation appears to be "City of Books". There were 21,700 hits on "Kirjath Sepher" on Google Books, OTOH, "Kirjath Sepher" and "Kappa Sigma" only has 11 hits. So if the question is simply about Kirjath Sepher, there is a *very* good chance that it has absolutely nothing to do with "Kappa Sigma".

However, it appears from the hits on "Kirjath Sepher" and "Kappa Sigma" that the phrase may mean something to Kappa Sigma. The 11 hits include the following:

• Two hits on Baird's Manual 1898

• Patterson's college and school directory of the United States and Canada and related books from the same publisher in 1909 & 1913 which appears to repeat the Baird's.

• A copy of the Sigma Chi Quarterly which lists both the history of the fraternity as listed in Baird's 1898 and the history of the fraternity as given in the Kappa Sigma magazine, the Caduceus, commenting on the contrast between the two histories.

• A Phi Delta Theta magazine from 1898, which attempts to do the founding of every extant fraternity in about a paragraph each and which is probably quoting from Baird's.

• A couple of Who's who in philosophy books that are unrelated (the Kappa Sigma comes from the fact that they belong to Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi)

• Two interesting entries from the Caduceus. One from 1906,from a Brother Sutton talking about Brother Jackson (who was responsible for a lot of the early growth of Kappa Sigma)

"It may interest you to know that about 1886, when the greek letters of the alphabet for the nomenclature of the chapters were exhausted, it was decided by the Supreme Executive Committee to use Hebrew letters". Yes, you may find the words Kirjath Sepher, in the Bible, but also the word Kohath - Not Kopath, as sometimes written - which is said to be the generic word for chapter in European Kappa Sigma."

and

the other from 1928, for which a full view is not available. The quote in what is shown from the search page includes "...San Francisco Examiner an interesting account of the unearthing of the remains of Kirjath Sepher this Summer: "Some fifteen miles to the southwest of Hebron American excavators have located the site of the library of Kirjath Sepher...."

Naraht (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Baird's editions & the Caduceus.

The editions of Baird's which occurred prior to the editions being in copyright are:

• 1879 which indicates that the fraternity was founded prior to the war in Baltimore and then reorganized at UVA in 1867 (only about a paragraph of info)
• 1880 apparently not on google books.
• 1883 apparently not on google books.
• 1890 apparently not on google books.
• 1898 includes information on Kirjath Sepher as part of several pages of information on Kappa Sigma.
• 1905 almost the same information as 1898, dropping only the specific name of the order founded at the University of Bologna, but not contradicting the 1898 version in any way.
• 1912 No information on a European connection at all, but nothing to indicate that the 1898/1905 information was in error.
• 1915 Very similar to 1912
• 1920 Similar to 1915 about the founding, but the list of notable brothers was dropped and
• 1923 (Snippets only, no relevant information can be seen).

In addition, the fraternity magazine, The Caduceus Volume 20 contains considerable commentary about the 1905 edition of Baird's, many praise the book and *none* disagree with the information about the tie to University of Bologna, though there is an interesting comment on how there continues to be confusion inside the fraternity on 1867 vs. 1869 (with oral interviews with the founders being part of the research.

For a Primary source for Kirjath Sepher, I recommend the Caduceus Volume 1 & 2, particularly Volume 2, no 2 on page 47 by Steven Alonzo Jackson, viewed as one of the most important Kappa Sigma brothers other than the 5 founders.

However, now that we have sources for Kirjath Sepher as part of Sigma Chi history, what I'm not sure as to whether it belongs in the article is discussion as to whether the founders actually ever went overseas as discussed in the 1903 Sigma Chi Quarterly. If revelation of what now is viewed as private history to Kappa Sigma has sparked those who want to remove it from the article, what would questioning the truthfulness that private history generate?Naraht (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Great research. As for your question, the historical section is prefaced by "claims," so there is a built in degree of skepticism.--Enos733 (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from KappaSigma989, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove any references to "Keirjath Sepher" from this page. It is incorrect and irrelevant to this article. It was posted by someone who claims to have knowledge about Kappa Sigma, does not, and is only interested in divulging privileged information about the Order. He has engaged in edit warring in the past, and only seems to care about defacing the pages of fraternities and sororities.--KappaSigma989 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

KappaSigma989 (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per article history (the reason for protection). -Atmoz (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See above talk section

Kirjath Sepher is sourced, see section on Baird's editions & the Caduceus above.Naraht (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I knew we had this discussion, I just recalled the outcome differently. Doh! Should have reviewed talk history. Thanks for pointing it out. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling and the Italian Order

Note, in looking for references on the name of the Italian Order, there have been multiple spellings used. I believe that the main reason to keep the current spelling in the article is because that is the spelling in the Primary Source (The Fraternity magazine: Kappa Sigma Quarterly Volume 2, issue 2). Many of the later references (1890-1910) that I have found spell the first word "Kirjaith" rather than "Kirjath". Note, there are also a variety of spelling of the second word. "Sepher" is most common. "Sephir" was used more than once in a quote from a Kappa Sigma editorial found in Theta Delta Chi Fraternity Magazine and in a Davidson College 1895 yearbook. "Sephor" is used in a series of books published in 1899/1901 "Greek Men of X" where X is a city or area like Pittsburgh or Southern New York or Michigan.Naraht (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012

I am requesting to remove the irrelevant information of "Kirjath Sepher" as this edit was cited as vandalism to the article prior.

Martinklemes (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: It's sourced in the article to two books, and the origin of the name doesn't seem unreasonable. If you'd like to hunt down exactly when that sentence was added or changed to its present form, I'd be happy to reconsider in light of whatever you turn up. Rivertorch (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The edit was made on the 9th of June 2012. Having looked at both sources, they also cite a founding date of 1867, where every other source on the article cite 1869; even the categorization 'Organizations established in 1869'. No official document from the fraternity, or modern sources, reference 1867 as a date of founding. This calls into question the credibility of the books; in addition, the referenced books do not cite their sources, nor should they be considered primary sources. Thank you for your time. Martinklemes (talk)

Not done: Looking into it a bit more thoroughly, I see that the phrase "Kirjath Sepher" was first added to the article on June 1, 2010. It apparently has been removed and reinserted at least 90 times (!) since then; the reinsertion has been at the hands of a wide array of editors, including various long-term Wikipedians who are anything but vandals. Indeed, your use of the term "vandalism", which has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, was inappropriate.

The earlier discussion on this page doesn't seem to have resulted in a strong consensus as to whether the content should be included or excluded. However, since there are two secondary sources, old but otherwise apparently reliable, that support the content, and no newer secondary sources that specifically refute it have been identified, I can think of no compelling reason to exclude. That newer sources, especially primary sources, fail to mention it isn't an especially persuasive argument. Therefore, I am adding the content again, rewording it slightly to enhance its accuracy. (Someone had removed it without explanation in the meantime.) Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that this particular fact is part of the fraternity's secrecy (rituals, history, etc.) and the members want to see it removed but can't admit that it's secret without admitting/confirming that it's part of their secrecy. That's unfortunate for them because the fact does seem to be documented in (rather old) sources and we need a good reason to omit it from the article. ElKevbo (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the improper use of citing vandalism; it just seemed to me that these changes are made without any merit more than once. What I am calling into question is the reliability of both sources (they are not dissimilar), regardless of any secrecy policies of the organization; Wikipedia itself is not a member of the organization, and does not fall subject to its policies. Is it not common practice to cite the most recent available editions of manuals published in this fashion (encyclopedias, etc.)? We can see that both sources prior (Baird and Patterson) cited the same information concerning the "history of Kappa Sigma" (i.e. 1867 founding, particulars of the European order). The eighth edition of Baird's corrects the 1867 founding date to the accepted 1869, and makes no reference to the phrase in question. As such, it is only appropriate to remove the phrase from the Wikipedia article, as Baird's omission was not without some purpose of refining the true information known about the organization.Martinklemes (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything else being equal, yes, a newer version of the same source is preferred. However, the mere absence of certain content that was found in an earlier edition does not mean that that content was erroneous. When books are revised, content may be dropped for a variety of reasons (e.g., space considerations, balance between entries, pressure from parties who'd prefer to keep something under wraps). As for the date, that may have originated in a typesetting error or a simple flub on the part of author or editor; maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it's not enough to impugn everything else along with it. That's the way I see it anyway. Others may disagree. But consider—the sentence now reads

According to some historical accounts, the order was known as "Kirjath Sepher" and was founded between 1395 and 1400.

which is verifiably factual. It doesn't claim that the accounts are true or accurate or representative of the best research; it just notes their existence. (Btw, there's no need to reset the edit request box if you comment again. Multiple editors are watching this page and will respond in due time.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The mention is appropriate given its sourcing.

Unsolicited advice for Kappa Sigma members trying to remove this information from this article: Leave it alone. Your actions have only served to draw attention to what would otherwise be an obscure factoid that no one would have even noticed had you not continually and ham-handedly tried to have it deleted. It's properly sourced and appropriate for this encyclopedia article so your continued efforts to remove it will only continue to make it a prominent issue. If you continue, you're likely to face even more resistance as other editors will perceive your efforts as censorship and inappropriate control over this encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually curious as to what sort of source could be provided which would get those two words removed from the article. (This also applies to other fraternities/sororities where information where information that members would like kept secret is referencable.) This isn't like the NPC sorority where the reference is *one* 21st century book with relatively unsourced facts about why those letters were chosen. Baird's is considered *the* reference source when it comes to fraternity and sororities. In addition, this reference would need to explain why the Magazine *of* Kappa Sigma Sorority would not be a valid source as well (Kappa Sigma Quarterly).Naraht (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to stuff the genie back into the bottle. I think we'd need a really good source explicitly stating that these alleged facts are inaccurate. And even then you could make an argument that the proper way to deal with that would be to add the new source with a note to the article instead of outright deleting everything. ElKevbo (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Streisand effect. Though if a source explicitly was found showing that it was inaccurate, the place to discuss how Baird's was fooled (if *that* information was available) would probably be on both here and on the article on Baird's...

Verifiability

There is a question that this page relies heavily on primary sources WP:V. While the policy does accept self-published sources as acceptable, the banner should not apply to this page. If it does, then other articles about Fraternity and Sororities in the United States would have the same problem. See Sigma Chi (reliance on the Norman Shield - their pledge manual), Beta Theta Pi (only one reference to their web site), Alpha Chi Omega (several references to its website). At the same time, both Delta Gamma and Pi Beta Phi have the verifiability tag attached to their page. I am going to also place this question in the talk section of the WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities page for more general advice how to address the concern of verifiability in these organizations which are notable in their own right, but do not (often) get press coverage of their activities. --Enos733 (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if those other articles may have problems. This section of the guideline (especially item 5 but to a lesser extent item 1) is of particular concern. Rivertorch (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

from the WikiProject talk page: "I would say that the answer to you first question is "no." The two FAs under this project (ΑΦΑ & ΑΚΑ) have over 50% of their references from self-published resources. The only current FAC (ΚΚΨ) has a similar percentage. You point out the reason--there just isn't much independent coverage. But ΑΦΑ, ΑΚΑ, and ΚΚΨ have many independent resources citing important bits of information also. If there is TOTAL reliance on self publication, I think WP:V might be merited. Reliance, even heavy reliance, on self published material is to be expected of articles under this WikiProject. We must ensure for the integrity of the project that this reliance does not introduce or excuse issues of POV. 2) But there are resources for all GLOs: Greek marketing websites can serve, as they do for ΚΚΨ, an independent attestation of membership numbers. Google Books and Google News Archive can provide historical facts. University archives from Alpha chapters may display yearbooks and college newspaper archives online, or a collegiate editor from the Alpha chapter could access microform editions. Baird's Manual is in just about every college library in the US and can provide an independent resource for expansion rates, historical events, and even verifiable descriptions of the society's jewelry. Most facts will be cited back to pledge manuals or the inter-/national website, but creative editors can find ways to cite quite a bit through other means. Sycamore (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)"--Enos733 (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

Remove everything regarding Kirjath Sepher this information is incorrect

75.110.171.161 (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The content is reliably sourced, there is consensus for its inclusion, and it has survived a recent OTRS request for removal. Rivertorch (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2014

"as well as agnostics" should be removed for in accurate representation and contradiction with them believing in a higher power. 157.89.192.190 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: While I have no opinion as to the optimal outcome of this request, page 33 of the cited primary source says: "Before any many can be initiated as a Kappa Sigma, he must . . . profess a belief in God, and scripture and its teachings. While the Ritual does not require adherence to any one religion, it requires belief in certain values, including that man is responsible to a higher authority." Rivertorch (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

From looking at the Wikipedia article on agnosticism, it says that we can't know whether a diety exists or that we lack the ability to know whether a diety exists. From this, I would say that a belief in the inability to know whether god exists would prohibit someone from joining Kappa Sigma.Naraht (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agnosticism isn't necessarily the active belief in the inability to know whether a higher power exists. This statement runs into a bit of trouble from the viewpoint of agnostic theism, for example. How about turning that phrase back around to more directly reflect the source and go with something like "To be eligible for membership a prospective member must profess a belief in God, though adherence to a specific religion is not required. In at least one situation,..." --ElHef (Meep?) 01:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

So to emphasize the requirement of theism rather than trying to define the set of what isn't. Seems better to me. Well, what do we do if we like the idea of a semi-protected edit request, but not the phrasing, reject, make the change and comment here?Naraht (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. Done --ElHef (Meep?) 03:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

Please remove the reference to Kirjath Sepher because the citations cannot be confirmed and are likely fraudulent.

Bergy171 (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Can anybody provide more information on the books provided? Kharkiv07^Talk 12:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[41] is the 2nd source, Pattersons American Education KAPPA SIGMA.

"Founded at the University of Virginia, at Charlottesville, in 1867. Modeled after an ancient European secret order, the Kirjath Sepher, now extinct, which flourished in the University of Bologna near the close of the fourteenth century, its rituals embracing many of the forms and ceremonies of this ancient order.

The badge of the fraternity is a crescent of chased gold with its horns turned downward and holding suspended a five-pointed star, enameled in black and with a narrow border of white enamel and gold. Within the star are the fraternity letters encircled by jewels. The crescent displays at its widest part the skull and crossed bones, while on one sid€ are crossed swords and on the other crossed keys. The fraternity colors are maroon, old gold and peacock blue; the flower the lily-of-the-valley. "

We use Pattersons as a source in a number of articles. "o that citation can be confirmed (the requester obviously didn't check, and note that sources don't need to be online, luckily this one could be. I see no reason to take seriously the claim it is likely fraudulent. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Update Coat of Arms

The fraternity recently updated its Coat of Arms as seen on their website, http://kappasigma.org, and I think it would be best to update the page with the newest version. Louisz16 (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A new copy would have to be uploaded. Can you please point out the differences between the new and the old, what is in the article looks to me like what is on the National website, but I may be missing something.Naraht (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Re-open once Narahts question is answered. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The torse in the new arms appears to be Or and Gulles, while the torse in the arms in this article is Argent and Gulles. (As an aside, heraldically, the "old" arms are correct, the newly update arms are incorrect [vis a vis the tinctures in the torse], however, if the fraternity has chosen to adopt incorrect arms that's neither here nor there, particularly as there are more significant issues with the heraldic correctness of the Kappa Sigma arms.) That said, I second Naraht and User:Allthefoxes that this should be uploaded and released; simply uploading an image should not be a COI issue. Once it's uploaded, we can update it. LavaBaron (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, before making the change, we should be able to verify that the new one is the official coat of arms and has supplanted the old one? For instance, does it say somewhere on their web site that that's the case? Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

In 2010, there was a discussion about how to cover incidents of hazing on this page. In 2013, the WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities held a discussion about when to include notable incidents. In that discussion, Sycamore wrote, "again, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia articles about fraternities and sororities should not be laundry lists of hazing incidents at chapters of those organizations. If an article is long enough to support information that is unfavorable to the image of its subject, such information can be added if it has been widely covered and is notable." Many of the latest edits to this page are sourced reports of incidents of hazing from individual chapters. I echo what jheiv said in 2010, "I'd like to come to some consensus about what events warrant inclusion (certainly not every event where the word hazing is used) and figure out how to make sure that we're not giving undue weight to hazing incidents with respect to the entire organization." And if it is not individual instances of incidents of hazing which are described in the article, is there a preference for how to explain there have been incidents in a broad paragraph or section? --Enos733 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the section as it currently is seems troubling. The Fraternity and Sorority discussion you linked talked a lot about whether an incident got widespread (distance-wise) coverage. For example, for local occurrences (e.g. chapters being closed, suspended, etc.) what about a guideline along the lines of needing 2+ distinct sources from outside of the state. I say this primarily because of "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Of course chapters accused of hazing will attract some local attention (especially the campus newspaper), but I don't see such accusations (or the like) warranting mention in the overall Fraternity article if that's the extent of the news coverage (per WP:PROPORTION). I don't have enough time right now, but I think it might be worth looking at how other Fraternities/Sororities are handling this sort of section and try to identify some sort of "best practices". jheiv ^{talk contribs} 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities.Naraht (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020

Lotje (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you may have used the wrong template since you're already able to edit this article. You can request a reduction in the protection level at WP:RFPP – Thjarkur (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: it has all to do me using the ReFill tool that since a couple of days triggers the log out automatically (weird), which means protected pages cannot be edited by users not logged in, so I have to log in again. Hence I tried this template to see what happens. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed

This page includes privileged information that needs edited ASAP. 192.63.2.209 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Privileged, maybe, but relevant and verifiable. We don't censor material to meet the whims of the subject. Ask the Fijis, whose letters are in their article, much to their chagrin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiable to their own national magazine, the magazine of other fraternities at the time and to Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. My guess is that it wasn't privileged in the 19th century.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

He was later dropped him off at a hospital in a coma but survived. delete "him" in the sentence, add a comma. 2601:5C2:300:5770:5479:3BE:E39A:4724 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)