Jump to content

Talk:Kappa Sigma/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Largest Fraternity?

Unless i'm badly mistaken Kappa Sig is not the largest fraternity by any way you count it. that distinction(s) belongs to SigEp in total number of currently active undergrads, TKE in total number of chapters, and SAE in total number of initiates. If i'm wrong please point out a citation for that fact otherwise i'll correct the article in a few days.Trey 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma HQ does not claim that the fraternity is the largest by any measure. Where are you finding your numbers for SigEp, TKE, and SAE? QuinnHK 09:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah your right Kappa Sig HQ does not claim that it is the largest fraternity. However this Article often does. As for the numbers for the others you can check their websites, the IFC website i think and a few other independent sources.Trey 14:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where you get your information from, but according to the sources. Kappa Sigma has 304 Chapters, TKE has 269, and Sip Ep has 260.
According to Kappa Sig's own website, they state they have 234. I have no idea where you got that 304 from. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe he's confusing the Chapter Roll number for the number of existing chapters. The Chapter Roll number is at 304. Unfortunately, some of these chapters no longer exist. For instance, Alpha-Theta over at Union University. From my understanding, the Chapter Roll number records the historical total of Kappa Sigma chapters / colonies -- how many ever existed. This number does not decrease. Thus, the next new chapter that forms will be considered the 305th. However, 234 is the current number of chapters across the United States and Canada. I hope this clears up any confusion. - USLeatherneck 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Chapter rolle is currently at 323 after last saturday with the installation of the Pi Eta chapter at Missouri Southern State

The "early history"

The "early history" invented for Kappa Sigma, an American fraternity founded at the University of Virginia in 1869, is an important part of the fraternity's lore and self-image, involving a sense of competition with Phi Beta Kappa, founded at William and Mary in 1776, together with the atmosphere of Greek Revival sensibilities and the recent publication of Jacob Burckhardt's "Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy," —but it has intruded upon the Wikipedia article on the historical Manuel Chrysoloras, which falsifies genuine history. A paragraph here on the traditional assertions of most fraternal organizations, that they represent long underground secret brotherhoods stretching back in time, would help right the balance. --Wetman 20:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused by all of this, because according to this page at MIT's chapter's site, Kappa Sigma is "founded in the spirit of," not "directly descended from." It seems almost cut and dry that it's not true, but...who knows?  RasputinAXP  talk *

contribs 19:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The source document is not reliable either (it is highly biased), please take the early history off as it can not reliably be verified.

Attention

I added the attention tag because this article really needs to be much more balanced and non-POV. -- Egil 09:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look POV to me. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 00:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Beta Delta Chapter

What happened to the Beta Delta Chapter of Kappa Sigma? It was originally at Washington and Jefferson College, Washington, PA.

Unfortunately it lost its charter somewhere along the line. Perhaps someone will step up at some point and bring it back. QuinnHK 17:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring of History section

I agree with Nae'blis's recent comment. "Traditional founder" should probably read something like "legendary founder." Then again, none of that stuff should be under History anyway. I'm making some quick changes that will do as a patch--this is one of many Fraternity and Sorority articles that need help. — vijay (Talk) 05:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I read up on some different chapters' history pages and seemed to get a feel for what the "offiicial" line is. But, I couldn't find anything on <www.kappasigma.org>, so I could've gotten a lot wrong--I don't know. If those who know better than I could help out, it would be good! Also, apologies for making edits that should've been "minor" and that were lacking in summaries--I didn't mean to; it won't happen again! — vijay (Talk) 06:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Kappa Sigs

"Notable Kappa Sigs" has been updated to be more scannable... it was quite a mess before and a lot of the famous Kappa Sigs are not instantly recognizable (Mike O'Malley, Dennis Haskins). I also put the chapter list in 2 columns but there's a bit of code leftover at the top which I can't figure out how to fix. jgladdin 7/1/06

Unless I am in the wrong here, I believe some of names on the Notable Kappa Sigs list do not belong there. Some of these names do not have significant titles/occupations, etc. or is devoid of any prominance to be on this list. For instance, who is David Flynn? I searched his name and received a name of a composer (who did only one musical score for a movie nobody's even heard of), a home builder website, and an English composer who's attempting to make it big. Unless we verify the names (i.e. are they Kappa Sigs?) and their significance on the list, it should not be on the list. Otherwise it sounds like self-promotion to me -- like some no-name show business guy trying to put himself on the list. After all, how can you be a "Notable Kappa Sig" if you have not even established yourself in your respective industry? It trivializes the list. And, who is Charlie Kautz? Why isn't there a title next to him? Without verification or reference, there's no way to stop some of us to just simply add our names to the list. - USLeatherneck 09:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My policy on who appears on a notable list of any Greek organization is a two fold test. If they have a reasonable wiki page more than just an obvious spam page then they are notable enough for the list in my opinion. So long as proof can be found that they are really are member of the particular organization. If the person is a red link and a quick Google search doesn't turn up some significant hits then I get rid of them. In Kappa Sig’s case I think most of the red links can be gone. Feel free to be bold and just delete them. If they were significant enough some one should add them back and while they are at it write up a separate wiki page on them.Trey 18:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll investigate this further. Which ever I delete, I'll post here just so that one does not mistake it for vandalism. - USLeatherneck 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted 3 names (Chip Walton, Charlie Kautz, and Matt Burunoff) from the list. I believe more names in red should be deleted unless there's citation or they match national's Notable Kappa Sigma list. Of course, exceptions will be made, including John Covert Boyd. - USLeatherneck 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

added to main page

By an anon: You have an error. The Epsilon Chapter is Centenary College of Louisiana, not Centenary College of New Jersey. Check it out. Jimmy Davis -- nae'blis (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kappa Sigma Fraternity??

I don't see why Kappa Sigma redirects to Kappa Sigma Fraternity. As far as I know there's not another Kappa Sigma fraternity or sorority, nor is there a disambiguous page at Kappa Sigma. The edit summary for the move from Kappa Sigma to Kappa Sigma Fraternity is moved Kappa Sigma to Kappa Sigma Fraternity: More appropriate title I do not see how Kappa Sigma Fraternity is a more appropriate title given the fact that there is no other Kappa Sigma on wikipedia, also the website address for this is kappasigma.org. Unless the actual name of this fraternity is Kappa Sigma Fraternity (which I doubt because the website refers to itself as Kappa Sigma singularly ex. 'Kappa Sigma helps you excel in the classroom.') I don't think Kappa Sigma Fraternity is correct and should be moved back to Kappa Sigma. But that's just me, I'm not a member, I don't know any men who are members, etc. If anybody has any thoughts/ideas/comments feel free to leave them. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you. The other greek fraternities all are listed under just their name Sigma Phi Epsilon,Theta Chi and so on. unless some one can give a reason for this as a special case,i would say it needs to be switched to Kappa Sigma as the main page and kappa sigma fraternity can be left as the re-direct pageTrey 20:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

From the Constitution, By-laws, and Rules, Article 1 Section 1: "Name. The name of the Order, which has its existence by virtue and accordance with this Constitution, shall be KAPPA SIGMA FRATERNITY." Michael Connor 16:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They are all according to their bylaws So and So Fraternity thats pretty much the first line in every set of national bylaws i've ever seen. My question is why is Kappa Sigma treated different, either change them all or switch it back but keep some consistent format. Perhaps this discussion should be moved to the greek project page Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities to reach a verdict. Personally i think adding Fraternity to the end of every one of them is redundent. note to self sign comments..... Trey 19:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To reinstate what Michael Connor said, it is part of the Constitution and Nationals recognizes the name being Kappa Sigma Fraternity. It is always referred to by its full name when it can be. I for one vote that it should be Kappa Sigma Fraternity, but it doesnt matter that much. I did rewrite a few words to reflect its name. It might just be a bit pompous, but it is just the proper terminology.

there is another kappa sigma on wikipedia??? maybe you should type it in before assuming things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.139.171 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sister Sorority

Kappa Sigma HQ does not recognize any sorority as an official sister group. Why do we need to include that Chi Omega is an unofficial sister sorority? Depending on the school, so is Alpha Gamma Delta, Sigma Kappa, etc. QuinnHK 13:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chi Omega can be considered the unoffical sorority because Dr. Charles Richardson, an initate of Kappa Sigma is one of the founders of the Chi Omega Sorority.

I am a Kappa Sigma, and I have never heard of any "sister sorority." A Kappa Sigma also helped write the ritual of Sigma Sigma Sigma, and a chapter is located at my school. There is never any mentioning of a brother/sister relationship or any alliance. Also, Chi Omega is a Woman's Fraternity because it was founded before "sorority" was a term. Technically, it is a sorority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.197.246.10 (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If you read page 17 of the most current Caduceus (Volume 114, Number 3) it discusses that Richardson did indeed found Chi Omega and James Miller Leake founded Sigma Sigma Sigma. Both men were initiated into these sororities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.47.13 (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring of Chapter List

Call me crazy, but I don't like the new format. It just doesn't flow well.User:jgladding

It's not a good idea to make long lists into a table. Short lists are fine but long lists increase the size of the article which make it difficult to manage not to mention the technical restrictions. If the current format is kept, a seperate list article should be created. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 07:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So i moved the chapter tabe which was really nice looking to its own new page hope no one minds. Personally i think this should be done with all greek groups with those crazy long alumni and chapter lists.Trey 07:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Star and Crescent

Why does somebody keep removing the Star and Crescent - it is not a fraternity secret.

I'm not a Kappa Sig so i don't know if it is or not so i haven't been messing with it. If it is or is considered by most members to be then it should stay off but if its open then its good info that needs to stay in. Any Kappa Sigs that can shed some light on this? I'd like to know one way or the otherTrey 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Star & Crescent is not a secret, it's more of a defining statement of what it means to be a Kappa Sigma brother ... a "what's in store for you becoming a member." Many fraternity articles shed light on this subject, defining obligations - roles - and character traits 'shared' by the existing brothers. The Star & Crescent is no different - it's just given a title and organized different (instead of bullet listing, etc).
Many things of any fraternity nowadays are no longer "secret." Society is teaching people to be cautious (conservative), by gathering information on a certain subject before devoting one's self interest. I am sure there are certain things that are still kept in confidence (handshakes, codes, etc), but as for obligations, moral codes, and so on, fraternities have made public. D-Hell-pers 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
To Add-
Much of the removal of the Star & Crescent has been done by IP addresses, instead of named editors. This is more/less a clear sign of a vandalist. IP addresses can be harder to block, as many potential editors can be blocked with a single IP (take for instance shared internet at schools/college & universities/work areas). Now compare this to an editor, or someone with a wikipedia name/call-sign. An editor has a discussion page, where he/she can be warned immediately, and if neccessary, can be blocked. This block will single out that particular editor, with a temporary 1-3 day block to the IP address (this temporary block may be lifted quickly by following notes left on the discussion page of editors sharing the IP). Singling out a particular editors allows for wikipedia to keep those editors who are adding to the overall cause of the wiki- project, and try to rid of those with negative impacts. For this reason, "editors" (names, not IP addresses) tend to be more of a positive influence, where IP addresses are 50/50 for destructive/positive contributions.
So, for future reference- revisions to any article by an IP address should be scrutinized, espicially for removal/obnoxious additions. This is a quick and easy way to detect vandalism. D-Hell-pers 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well yes i'm always wary of IP editors instead of a name editor. I tend to make most of my edits on Wikipedia reverting vandalism. I just was curious if the Star and Crescent was a secret. I don't know personaly enough about Kappa Sig to judge what may be a secret or not. I'm protective of my personal Fratrnity's page and always remove any secret info. I like to extend that same protection to other fraternities as well. If its agreed that the Stars and Crescent are not secret to Kappa Sig i'll start adding it back in whenever anyone removes it.Trey 02:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for your help. I too am working on protection of (5) fraternities now. As a newer editor, i am trying to start small and work my way up to a large watchlist.
As for the Star & Crescent, does your other(s) fraternity(ies) have a similar posting of public knowledge, as mentioned above in my first explanation (whatever it may be called). D-Hell-pers 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well i guess that depends on if the Star and Crescent are public or seceret ritiual. SigEp has its founding story which is public but not the meaning of its letters or the meaning of the symboyls on its badge which are only in the ritiual book. TKE and some others have their creed on the page or the meaning of their letters if thats open. My rule of thumb is usually that if the info or story or creed or whatever can be found on the national website for the organazation or a legit chapter site then its ok to be on Wikipedia. As for this case i haven't had time to look it up since this became an issue but i will at the first chance i getTrey 08:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Point Trey. I took the liberty of Googling K.S. national + star and crescent. The second site listed is a powerpoint with the S & C, on the Kappa Sigma national address here. If the nationals have made it available to anyone who googles it, I guess it can be considered public. D-Hell-pers 09:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep i agree it should without doubt stay in. Thanks for your help with this one Trey 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

From an actual brother, the Star and Crescent is our creed. It is public. Everything on the page is currently ok and there is nothing secretive revealed on the page.

History ReWrite

I changed a few words for the historical founding and say that there needs to be some more writings done for the American history. Hell, there is no mention of Jackson. I started with some stuff. Someone will probably want to go over it and revise. Never mind, I rewrote it all and added in a lot of info. Probably needs a cleanup and reduction now though...

Fair use rationale for Image:Jimmy buffet.jpg

Image:Jimmy buffet.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

images

There used to be a lot of images on the page that got removed for various reasons. We should try to get more photos back on the page if possible. It would be rather nice. Possible additions include Jackson, The Five Friends and Brothers, and various distinguished alumni.

List of Kappa Sigma Men of the Year

An article dedicated to who won an award(which is not a notable award) within a Fraternity does not fit into Wikipedia guidelines. It would be much better to merge that into this article or to create a List of Notable Kappa Sigmas and label who won the award, such as was done with Sigma Chi's list. Acidskater 03:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I created this list, and would be willing to integrate it into the list of notable members. I think we should break the notable member list into a seperate article. Is everyone comfortable with this? QuinnHK 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that the list of notable alumni should be moved to a separate article. It is quite long and would need to be relocated for a GAEnos733 23:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources

This page should not have a Primary Sources tag attached. According to the guidelines, primary source material published by the Kappa Sigma Fraternity, which is the primary source for most of the Traditional Founding and History sections come from the Kappa Sigma pledge manual (and is also available online at www.kappasigma.org). This is a similar sourcing to those found in the Sigma Chi page, which has been held as a standard for Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject.

While "Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are not sufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article," there are exceptions to this blanket policy.

Self-published material can be used when: * it is relevant to their notability; * it is not contentious; * it is not unduly self-serving; * it does not involve claims about third parties; * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it; * the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I believe that all pledge manuals (fraternal histories) fit the exception. If the problem is that the article is not based primarily on such sources, it will be difficult for any Fraternity and Sorority page to meet that criteria. In any event, other parts of this article are referenced by other, and external sources. --Enos733 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A publication by the Fraternity is not a primary source by Wikipedia standards. Firstly, it quotes no primary sources - eg, archival records, historical journals or books; the claims in the linked document are unsupported by citations of any sort. Secondly, it's not accurate to say that this is not contentious, or that it doesn't involve claims about third parties - it involves the contentious claim that Manuel Chrysoloras founded this society, a claim which no historian of the period or biographer of the scholar has ever (as far as I am aware) taken seriously. I've rewritten the history section to make clear that this story is claimed to be true by the fraternity, but not supported by external sources. --Rbreen (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ritual

AEKDB is not public information, please remove any reference to it or its meaning. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.63.113 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Publication of any material about the secrets of Kappa Sigma violates the policies of Wikipedia and may lead to banning by Wikipedia editors.--Enos733 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)--

please be careful about threating banning of editors. You don't have the power to do that and it creates an unpleasant environment. While i abhor the publication of Greek organization's secrets and strive to remove them whenever i find them their publication comes under the policies related to unverifiable content and original research. Since they are not published in any public documents they are inherently un-verifiable and if a member of a Greek organization themselves publishes the information in addition to violating their own organization's rules they are also submitting original research which of course must be deleted. However, threating banning for these offenses unless they are repeated and obviously of a vandalizing nature is extreme and like i said somewhat un-friendly. The better path is to leave one of the warning templates on the editor's talk page to make them aware of the situation and if they continue to repeat the offense after a few warnings you can alert an administrator to the issue and allow them to handle it. All the while you and the other editors here who strive to keep the Greek pages clean and accurate can quietly revert their work without calling attention to it thereby limiting the amount of harm it may cause. Lets try and keep things cheerful.Trey (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure - my question is though - can certain pages be completely deleted from the system, and how can/ or who should be notified. Scrubbing the vandalism from the main page is one thing, but deleted from the history section would be better--Enos733 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

short answer: No the edit history of a page can not be deleted its a permanent. Long answer on the process to delete certain articles in particular or a section of an article i left on your talk page.Trey (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia administratrators have and can delete history. It's all just a big database when you boil it down. You can delete information from a database, all it takes is the correct rights. It's worth trying. I have alerted an administrator already... I encourage others to do the same. We can't be the first greek organization to have gone through this. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your not the first its been going on since the first Greek page appeared on Wikipedia. Admins almost never delete history they generally won't delete histories for anything but a major reason and usually only to get rid of a one time vandal work. Even if they will this one time for one edit you point out you would have to get them to do it nearly every week for multiple edits since secrets are added every day to various Greek pages and that not only is too much effort but can hurt the integrity of the page since their are plenty of good edits that need to be saved. No hurt in trying though. Good luck. Trey (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feb 20 rev

The thing about Jackson isnt POV as that is the wording used to teach about him, he was after all a great leader in the Fraternity as it said.

The thing about the ancient history is just part of the story, and its kinda POV but still at the same time isnt. Just kind of a general statement about how the order grew larger and changed from a society for protection into more of a social club.

And everything about the American founding (and history) is from the pledge book. It used to be the cite but there were some arguments about its authority on the subject, however if you want to add it back...go ahead. It can be found at http://www.kappasigma.org/pubBononia.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.90.37 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Future Additions

When we have time to actually add to the content of the article, I suggest the following sections. 1) An section on colony development and or the pledge process 2) A section on the variety of charitable projects local chapters are engaged in and the new Fallen Heroes campaign 3) A section on the Caduceus, the Kappa Sigma magazine for members and 4) a section on the organization of the fraternity - the SEC (and perhaps the federal structure of the organization from District Grand Masters to Assistant Alumnus Advisors).--Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added some stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.90.198 (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dues

someone took it out, but isnt the Kappa Sigma dues (nationally speaking of course) lower than other national fraternities?

I know it used to be at least and unless another Fraternity lowered their dues, it still is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.90.198 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Recent Protection

I just noticed the recent protection and the edit summary said it wanted to see a consensus -- see a consensus of what? Maybe I'm missing it but it looks as if its just random (not unusual) vandalism. Anyway, thanks for the protection. Jheiv (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the Kappa Sigma ritual book was released and people were linking it here. Is there a reason it shouldn't be?Anonymous70 (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Who knows what was being linked to? Things that can't be verified (and I think any editor would be hardpressed to verify any kind of secret from any fraternal organization) have no place on Wikipedia. Often these things are completely made-up, poor recollections from disgruntled former members, etc. People claiming to have uncovered the secrets have done so often on these pages. Thanks for everyone's diligence in cleaning up the vandalism and preserving the pages.Jheiv (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the wikileaks contains legal notices from Kappa Sigma regarding the material, declaring the material is Kappa Sigma property and protected under copyright. I agree that it be best to keep the integrity of the ritual here on wikipedia, though I still think to a point other "sources" should be considered for information purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous70 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not relink. I don't think we can verify a site with other information from the same site... there is nothing about Wikileak's claim that that really jumps out at me as verification -- looks very hoaxish. If it was in some kind of published reliable source then this discussion might be different.Jheiv (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything pertaining to the ritual should not be published or linked here. The ritual is personal to Kappa Sigma members, and should not be available to the general population of the Internet. KSigDowntown (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought you are right. Until the information becomes more public knowledge is it better to keep the integrity of the ritual for the group.Anonymous70 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any information related to the Kappa Sigma Ritual is personal and non-public information for members only. Cossa007 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note: that all of this discussion of whether the information is publishable or not is mildly irrelevant. Information on Wikipedia must be be verifiable by published reliable sources. There currently (to my knowledge) isn't a reliable source discussing this. However, if this does get discussed by main stream media, then the relevant information can be added. After all, Wikipedia is not censored. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As this is on topic, does wikileaks qualify as a reliable source? I ask because I have seen it used as a source on other wiki articles. Anonymous70 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Per WP:RS, reliable sources aren't self-published (whether vanity press, Wikis, or Web 2.0-esque), which Wikileaks is (more or less). --Bfigura (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that the recent string of vandalism is stemming from 4chan's Anonymous. When the book was leaked, it was at 4chan that was one of the first places to get it. They have since made it their mission to destroy as much as they can with this information, and it is them that are editing the articles, submitted to wikileaks, and several other places. It isn't just a few random users, though they may be contributing to the problem. Anonymous (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjason82 (talk • contribs)

Religious Requirement

Shouldn't the page have some mention of the no-atheists policy [1] and the history thereof?[2] Qwerty08642 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Orig. posted 18:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think there would be a problem with that if you could cite some record that proves that that's the case. Do you have a reference? As far as the history, I don't think there is one. It's just the way things have always been. Jason (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course there is a history. Many fraternities once discriminated against Jews and/or Blacks but no longer do; this fraternity is probably not an exception. (If it is such an exception, that is extremely notable.)Qwerty08642 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would kind of hope there would be better references than those two (one to a primarily anonymous forum and one to a 4 line blurb from 1982) to make such a change. Perhaps some sort of more recent press coverage, or a response/ explanation/ etc from the Fraternity itself... I would have to say without better references I would be opposed to the addition. Jheiv (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While shorter than ideal, the NY Times piece is a perfectly valid source. The other source merely confirms it. (Is it wrong?) A "response/ explanation/ etc from the Fraternity itself" would be very welcome, but I couldn't find anything on their website. If they have something, it should be summarized here.Qwerty08642 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I moved the section into the recent history section. I think it fits better and is also more appropriate (and neutral) to place it in the history section rather than the Philosophy section.--Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with putting this in the history section if you can cite a relevant, official non-discrimination policy. But the previous edit left it unclear as to what was being refused. I've tried to fix that. We should not revert to a version that leaves that confusing.Qwerty08642 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I took out the inappropriate blockquote -- it was unnecessary, poorly formatted, and looked out of place. The referenced article has the quote, in fact, thats almost the entirety of the article -- a blockquote is unnecessary. I left the fact tag for the next sentence -- you are right, that should be referenced. Jheiv (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The paraphrase was mostly fine, but to make sense it needed to explain just what was refused. I've added a brief explanation. Readers can indeed go to the referenced article if they want the rest.Qwerty08642 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The reference to this at all is inappropriate and unsupported. The article referenced only says that Stanford's charter was withdrawn for not using the entire ritual ceremony. Nowhere in that article does it say that there is any "religious requirement" as is indicated in the language used in the Recent History section. Clearly whoever is posting/edting this material is not a member of Kappa Sigma, as anyone who is involved with the Fraternity knows that there is nothing in the Ritual or otherwise that discriminates against "non-Christians" as indicated in the NYT article blurb. I would suggest that this mate3rial be removed from the page in its entirety. KSigDowntown (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree. This has been troubling me since it was added. As I said before, I'm not convinced there is enough detail in the NYT article to verify any claim other than the Stanford charter was revoked. If a third person else agrees, I'll remove it, and make sure Qwerty doesn't keep adding it. Jheiv (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. There is nothing in the ritual or any history that specifies Christianity over any other religion. The focus is on theists and that's as specific as it gets. Jason (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Guards as EC

I've seen a ton of edits going back and forth concerning guards in (some chapter's) ECs. Instead of just editing, reverting, editing, etc... comments? Jheiv (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • A chapter's Executive Committee should consist only of the five officers--Grand Master, Grand Procurator, Grand Master of Ceremonies, Grand Scribe and Grand Treasurer. Guards, while they may be elected in some chapters, are not considered members of a chapter's Executive Committee. This is noted countless places, including in Bononia Docet and the COnstitution, By-Laws and Rules. KSigDowntown (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • CBR Article 4 Section 7:
Chapter Officers. Each Chapter shall elect a Grand Master, Grand Procurator, Grand Master of Ceremonies, Grand Scribe, and Grand Treasurer, who shall constitute the Chapter Executive Committee. They shall respectively have such powers and perform such duties as may be provided in the By-Laws and Rules. Jheiv (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's settled. Jheiv (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not as clear as the Constitution of Kappa Sigma suggests. Section 4 of the bylaws states that Guards are officers of the fraternity. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Article 5 Section 4 of the Bylaws doesn't mention the executive committee, just officers, and also includes Assistant Grand Treasurers and Scribes... I think its most appropriate to mention the EC, otherwise there could be an argument to name committee chairs, etc. Jheiv (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it simply varies from chapter to chapter operations. A comment might be [read: should be] included that states while the Guard are not explicit members of the EC, many chapters elect to put them on their. And just to say, we put the guards on our EC and assign them the roles of AGT and AGS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.63.113 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

some restructuring

Just an idea that we need to do some restructuring. Mainly an area for Champions Quest where the goals and records of rush and colonization can be kept and updated as well as a redone section for service with references to the Fallen Heroes Campaign and A Greater Cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.91.63.113 (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did a little something something, but it can stand for some more work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelshark (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

traditional history

Why was the traditional history reverted back? Its all information that is part of the tradition and is freely discussed by the Fraternity. Seeing as the entire section begins with something like "according to the Fraternity" I figured its a good thing to at least get the whole story from the fraternity out there. Its prefaced as being from a single source which is not necessarily reliable (or unreliable) in the first place. I can understand some rewording and structuring, but having more information is always a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.209.208 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The whole story does not need to be out there - this is an encyclopedic entry, and only the most relevant pieces should be part of the main article. If you think that the traditional history should be longer, then you should ask yourself a) do non-fraternity members want to wade through more of the traditional history, or b) does the traditional history deserve its own page. The difficulty with Kappa Sigma's history is that it borders on our historical past, complete with actual names, places, and events. If an astute web searcher follows links about Manuel Chrysoloras, Baldassare Cossa, or Bologna, the claims made by Kappa Sigma might contradict known historical truths. An example of this is that several sources suggest that Cossa did not arrive in Bologna until 1403. In addition, there are many sources that even suggest that the founding of Kappa Sigma in 1869 is not a historical truth. We should be careful to present the history of Kappa Sigma in a way that is neutral, interesting, and of an appropriate length for a Wikipedia entry.

The second part of my edits revolve around verifiability and grammatical errors. For modern history, all claims should be tied to a source, and should not tend toward triviality.

Also, it would help if you got a Wikipedia account. It helps separate more trusted entries with random ones. --Enos733 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

giant white space in article

it's so big, fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.249.233 (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

American founding date and location revert war

The fraternity was founded in 1869 at the University of Virgina. Anything otherwise (1967 and Alabama specifically) is incorrect and should be changed as soon as possible. This is not up to debate, there is no credible source saying otherwise as the official fraternity and their documents state this as well as some other independent sources. So stop changing it until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that the Kappa Sigma Fraternity that is continued to this date is in fact founded elsewhere. A similarly named order or anything else of that nature does not count seeing as this article is about the fraternity (presumable) founded in 1869 and continues to this date.

AEKDB and referencability

While it is appropriate that AEKDB be deleted, it is *not* because it is private to Kappa Sigma, it is because it is unreferencable. If a document that Kappa Sigma feels should be private to itself is made public on the internet in say Belarus, it *then* would be appropriate to consider whether it is notable for the page.Naraht (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because a source is "on the internet" doesn't mean its a reliable, verifiable source -- there are WP policies on what is an reliable source.jheiv (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably the most reliable source in that regard would be a photograph of a ritual book or something similar.11:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A photograph can be doctored. Anyway, I think that this should be removed if there is no source that meets Wikipedia standards. NYCRuss ☎ 12:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There are *quite* a few pieces of information on Wikipedia based on photographs... And if this were in the middle of a page in a ritual book, with no contradicting information, I think it should be OK. However, from what I've heard elsewhere, the meaning of AEKDB isn't even in the Kappa Sigma ritual book. In my opinion, the only valid information about AEKDB for this article is that ΑΕΚΔΒ is part of the crest, that the meaning of this is not public and that the english equivalent is often used as a closing phrase in letters.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed this information because no one has provided a credible source. NYCRuss ☎ 13:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Good.Naraht (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not good. It is public knowledge that AEKDB is Kappa Sigma's motto. It is present on their crest and many letters from Kappa Sigma figures. You can argue over whether or not its TRANSLATION can be reliably sourced, but to censor the very letters "AEKDB" is concerning. KappaSigmaAEKDB (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You need to use a citation from a verifiable and reliable source that explicitly states that this their motto. NYCRuss ☎ 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The motto is shown on the picture which depicts the coat of arms - which is wrongly described as a crest. So long as you are happy with the coat of arms, you have to accept the motto. You can't bin one without the other. Also shown are a torse, shield, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You need a reliable and verifiable source that declares AEKDB to be the motto. Otherwise you are either speculating, or are very close to original research. Kappa Sigma does have a publicly declared motto, and it is Bononia Docet.Bonia Docet (2003) p13 NYCRuss ☎ 22:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. Look at the picture. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish. Readthe citation. NYCRuss ☎ 23:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Read the assorted AEKDB citations that have been provided and look at the coat of arms, Russ. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It is kind of difficult to read the coat of arms when Kitty removed it for no reason. Anyway, I think that the last scenario, before she removed it, was best. Both mottos listed with two citations. NYCRuss ☎ 23:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That is acceptable to me. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, so we're in agreement. What does everyone else think? NYCRuss ☎ 23:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent) -- I only see one citation in this dicussion -- from http://old.kappasigma.org. This is a primary source and verifiable so I'm fine with it. But this comes down to sourcing, what is the sourcing of any other motto? Is it reliable? verifiable? Does it meet WP:RS? jheiv (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
(Combining duplicate discussion)

After slogging through a large number of wikianswers, answers.yahoo and topsecretbs.whatever. I have found two that *might* be appropriate as a referenced source. www.southalabama.edu/greeklife/PDFs/agathon09.pdf and http://www.vt.edu/spotlight/impact/2009-09-21-greek/portico.pdf . Opinions?

Of course it is suitable. Again, this motto is also present on their crest and is public knowledge. KappaSigmaAEKDB (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not a reliable reference. I'm looking through the document and the motto for my fraternity is incorrect. A reliable and verifiable source is needed, such as Baird's, a Kappa Sig magazine, or some other Kappa Sigma publication. NYCRuss ☎ 21:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Two educational institutions list AEKDB as Kappa Sigma's motto. There is no reason they should not be considered reliable. There is a larger problem here: we have Kappa Sigma editors leaving edit summaries that say "removed the motto ... should not be viewed by all the web." Russ knows that AEKDB is their motto, I know that AEKDB is their motto, and so does every Kappa Sigma member who has ever edited this article. This cherry-picking and dismissing of university sources just makes no sense. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

While it is interesting that these institutions put down something else, it seems all moot since the organization itself says its motto is "Bologna teaches" (See P13 [3]). I'm not sure what the fuss is about. jheiv (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact (of which you, who signs your posts with AEKDB, are aware) is that Kappa Sigma has more than one motto. Plenty of Kappa Sigma chapters list AEKDB as their motto, which the provided university references illustrate. Jheiv, why do you (and the other Kappa Sigma brothers on this article) want to hide AEKDB so badly all of a sudden? Also, could you please openly declare your Conflict of Interest on your user page so long as you continue editing this article? Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I do declare and have declared my CoI on my userpage. More importantly though, I am not trying to hide AEKDB. I'm just suggesting that it is clear that Kappa Sigma's motto is "Bononia Docet" and only "Bononia Docet". It seems as if you are suggesting that AEKDB is an "unofficial motto" -- which, if it were, would still have no place on Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with me, but with WP policy. jheiv (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Bononia Docet is described as the "open motto" per the reference provided. Other Kappa Sigma chapters list the AEKDB motto, as the university-published sources illustrate. Also, do not archive discussion or attempt to referee this article again, Jheiv. Your changes are controversial and you are editing with a WP:COI. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to clean up the discussion that was happening on two disjointed parts of the page, but I suppose combining them (as I did now) is a better alternative -- sorry about that. This article is not about various chapters and their mottos, it is about a National Fraternity who states that there motto is one certain thing. If you want to find a way to work into the article that some chapters have used AEKDB as their motto then fine, I'd be agreeable to it depending on how it was introduced. However, to give it equal weighting as the official motto is hardly rational or in compliance with WP policies. jheiv (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry Jheiv, but I support the current version (both mottos, two references) where the motto is concerned. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we all understand your position, and since it's clear an edit was has erupted on the article, I'll leave it to other editors to chime in. jheiv (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheism

I believe that the fact that Kappa Sigma will not admit atheists is something that separates them from any other member of the NIC, and thus, I'd lean away from it being trivia.Naraht (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I very much agree. Deleting the religious requirement from a section titled "Philosophy" is an improper use of WP:TRIVIA. Reading the older Talk discussions on this page, it is clear that many Kappa Sigma members are involved in editing and protecting this article's content. The Kappa Sigma Fraternity does not WP:OWN Wikipedia's article on Kappa Sigma, and Kappa Sigma members/alumni should keep WP:COI in mind when editing or deleting material.
From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested."
I would appreciate any Kappa Sigma members/alumni who participate in editing/talk discussion on this article to declare that affiliation on this talk page. As for myself, I am a freemasonry/secret society enthusiast but not a member of Kappa Sigma. KappaSigmaAEKDB (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times source does not say anything about atheism or the philosophy of the organization. Reference to the story, if it is deemed significant for this page, belongs in the history section, rather than in a statement about the philosophy of the organization. While unsourced, many fraternities and sororities had difficulties while emerging from the Civil Rights era, including Kappa Sigma. I believe there were stories about the relationship Washington Governor Christine Gregoire had with her sorority at the University of Washington. Does this history belong - likely, but in appropriate places in a Wikipedia entry.--Enos733 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not some sort of pre-Civil Rights history, Enos. You and I both know Kappa Sigma's religious requirements, which are hardly secret information. In light of your membership in (and oath to) Kappa Sigma, perhaps you should recuse yourself from editing on this subject. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh please. He has declared his CoI. You actually had an account mostly named "Kappa Sigma" until Monday. What's your CoI? NYCRuss ☎ 04:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I encourage everyone to reread the discussion that occurred from May 29 - June 9, 2008 Talk:Kappa_Sigma#Religious_Requirement about an earlier consensus of religious requirements. At that point, the section was deleted because "there is enough detail in the NYT article to verify any claim other than the Stanford charter was revoked." Other references that were provide recently may violate WP:PD and/or WP:SOURCEACCESS.--Enos733 (talk) 06:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How many from that years-old discussion are Kappa Sigma members? At least four by my count. Such an obvious collection of users with conflicts of interest is hardly a consensus. You and the rest of your sworn fraternity brothers need to recuse yourselves from reverting sourced material on this article, plain and simple. The Kappa Sigma Fraternity does not own its Wikipedia article as many Kappa Sigmas on this page appear to believe. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Your edits here are not sourced material. From a non-Kappa Sigma member on this page: "While i abhor the publication of Greek organization's secrets and strive to remove them whenever i find them their publication comes under the policies related to unverifiable content and original research. Since they are not published in any public documents they are inherently un-verifiable and if a member of a Greek organization themselves publishes the information in addition to violating their own organization's rules they are also submitting original research which of course must be deleted." - Trey (talk). This is my problem with your edits - none of it is verifiable. The question I ask, can any member of the public obtain a copy of the references you link to? If not, then the claim should not be part of this article. If so, then I would have no beef with your edits, and as someone who follows this page, I prefer to clean up the page for readability and interest. I would like to add more about the entire history of Kappa Sigma, warts and all, that is relevant to an encyclopedia entry. To me, this is not "owning" the page, but an attempt to be a responsible editor. --Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The material has been removed per discussion consensus (again). The one actual source you linked to is trivia. It described a not-noteworthy single event that occured more than 25 years ago. Please seek consensus before re-adding. jheiv (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your archiving and deletion are out of line. An editor with a conflict of interest is not in a position to archive, referee, or make controversial changes, Jheiv. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This comment is laughable coming from a WP:SPA. jheiv (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
My interests are my interests. It's not as if several of the Kappa Sigma editors from Talk:Kappa_Sigma/Archive_1#Religious_Requirement (whose input you have accepted for the purpose of "consensus") are any different. The fact remains that you have an obvious COI and are not in a position to referee this controversial issue. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
It is funny, Jheiv, that I did not see you adding templates to the ends of your fellow Kappa Sigma brothers' comments back during Talk:Kappa_Sigma#Religious_Requirement. You should spend less time on templates and more time going over what is prescribed at WP:COI. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with this page

Some of the recent edit warring involves additions that clearly violate one or more Wikipedia policies.

Here are the issues:

  • Many cited sources aren't available for public inspection. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. These should not be used as sources.
  • Some sources that are presented aren't verifiable. These fail WP:RS and WP:V tests. These should similarly not be used as sources.
  • Some editors want to give equal weight to "unofficial" mottos as the official mottos -- this is innappropriate. It violates WP:WEIGHT. Note on that page the quote from Jimbo Wales: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
  • We have a few WP:SPAs consistently reverting without working to form consensus on the page before adding contentious material.

I will not make any more edits to the article today since I've already reverted twice (and another editor once shortly after) yet they've all been reverted by the same WP:SPA. I hope to build consensus on the talk page before inclusion of contentious sections but some editors insist on refuting consensus and constantly disrupt the article.

I am happy to respond.

  • Point one: Cited sources are freely available for public inspection. Links have been provided which match my physical copy. WP:SOURCEACCESS clearly says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources."
  • Point two: Earlier, editors insisted that ONLY Kappa Sigma published information was legitimate for sourcing. Now editors are saying that this information (published by Kappa Sigma) cannot be included in the article at all. This is inconsistent.
  • Point three: There is no issue of WP:WEIGHT at all. There is more than one motto, one of which is designated as an "open motto." That distinction has been made clear on the article.
  • Point four: We have a few conflict of interest editors consistently deleting CITED MATERIAL without working to form a consensus, or only acknowledging the "consensus" reached by groups weighted with Kappa Sigma members. This reeks of WP:OWNership and WP:CENSORship.

The WP:COI problem on this article is very real and very serious. For you to keep deleting and reverting me, but then condemn me for "edit warring," is also inconsistent. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. As you will see, I am not pushing any agenda but rather enforcing Wikipedia policies. I would do the same on any article, but it's just the nature of Wikipedia that editors follow pages they are involved in. You do, however, bring up a good point but you confuse two areas. When it comes to sourcing, I prefer primary sources -- ones that are clearly and without question from the company or organization that the article is about. That is why I think it is important to remove any "unofficial" mottos. However, all sources must meet the criteria in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SOURCEACCESS and every other WP policy. You continue to provide sources that fail to meet one or more of these requirements. You say you have a physical document, fine, but how can anyone verify that? If you want to take it to a historian and ask them to verify it, and then take it to a newspaper and ask them to write a story on it, then that story can certainly be used as a source. You have cited wikileaks images. They too fail, since you have not shown that they are verifiable. Just because it is "on the internet" does not mean it is so. Photos can be doctored, documents forged, etc. etc.
I am trying to put this in the nicest way possible, I think you need to read about these policies before you keep adding these sources. If you find a source that meets all the criteria and is relevant to the article then the addition will be welcomed (at least by me). jheiv (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
They do not fail simply because you say "they fail." I have read the policies and even provided additional citation information (a URL) when someone complained about WP:SOURCEACCESS. The source can now be inspected by anyone in a digital format. There is a clear double-standard here: you say that the digital copy of the fraternity-published Bononia Docet pledge manual is an acceptable source, but not the Ritual Book?
I do not believe you are "putting this in the nicest way possible." You have "edit-warred" against me while reporting me for the same, you have been inflammatory, and you have COMPLETELY disregarded the WP:Conflict of interest policy by making controversial changes and deletions. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Removing the content is far from controversial. In fact, you are the only editor who suggests it should be included. A review of the talk page will show this. jheiv (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What part of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits do you not understand?
"If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit."
For someone so familiar with all of these policies you link, you seem to be ignoring major parts of the policy that most applies to your editing. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Improper Sourcing

Stuff like this is constantly added and re-added to the page. The problem is, its not verifiable. This source fails at least WP:RS and WP:V. There is nothing to show that this is real, unaltered or otherwise reliable. jheiv (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is already being discussed above, Jheiv. Are repeat sections really necessary? You feel that the Kappa Sigma "Bononia Docet" pledge manual passes WP:V and WP:RS, but not a copy of the Ritual Book. That is a strange double-standard, and I would respectfully suggest that your WP:COI as a member of Kappa Sigma has more to do with it than you will acknowledge. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The Bononia Docet is clearly affiliated with the fraternity as it is hosted by the fraternity's own website. The "Ritual Book" on the other hand, is not, nor is it hosted by any institutions or fraternity chapters. It was uploaded anonymously to a file-sharing site. The origins of that document are completely unknown -- there is no shred of anything reliable and verifiable that ties that upload to being the product of the fraternity. Sure, you could argue that it "could be" or "looks like it is" legitimate -- but there is no proof of this. The distinction is quite clear. jheiv (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
When will you stop this charade, Jheiv? You know it's not a forgery. There is also ample documentation that Kappa Sigma has acknowledged this copy as "a copyrighted book owned by Kappa Sigma Fraternity" and "the exclusive property of Kappa Sigma Fraternity." My copy matches the digital copy (albeit with some water damage) perfectly. You and I both know that it is not a hoax, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Clean Up

I think we need to clean up this article a little. Some ideas are:

  • First off, we do need to take care of the material without reliable sources, but thats a different issue.
  • Shorten the founding section significantly. There are no sources other than the Bononia Docet for much of this and is really not of interest to J. Random Wikipedian. This is not to say we should remove the references to the founding or the Bononia Docet, however. Even if we don't remove that much, there is a great lack of sourcing in this section. Consider the featured Alpha Kappa Alpha article.
  • We should clean up the "events" section -- Its not clear that the ones listed are really notable. Maybe we shouldn't even list specific chapter events at all, as it might be difficult to come up with some sort of critera for notable events and without the criteria, chapters would come through and add their latest fundraiser.
  • A like the "National Programs" section that Alpha Kappa Alpha and Alpha Phi Alpha have -- something similar might be a good idea.

jheiv (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the sources. The traditional foundation section is entertaining, but it appears to be entirely mythical and no external source supports it. It needs to be shorter. --Rbreen (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Did a lot of clean up today. Still more references are needed, however. jheiv (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-wiki collusion among fraternity editors

Please note this invitation from Naraht to Jheiv to engage in off-wiki discussion of the Kappa Sigma article's content. Comments and behavior like this are not conducive to productive editing, nor do they help dispel the appearance of collusion among Greek editors when it comes to sanitizing fraternity articles. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that off-wiki communication is discouraged, unless there is "significant reason". If there is no way to keep this on-wiki, please let me know, and I'll be happy to email you. jheiv (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection

The article has been fully protected two months per the result of WP:AN3#User:Jheiv reported by User:Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (Result: Protected), since the first protection seemed to give no benefit at all. Be aware that WP:Dispute resolution gives several options for bringing in outside opinions. Sometimes using the talk page to debate one issue at a time can bring results. Use WP:RSN to get opinions on sources. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP if agreement is reached. Uncontroversial changes can be handled via {{editprotected}} so long as protection lasts. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. jheiv (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves and Leadership Conferences

I started this [4][5], which I hope to include in the article similar to the way Alpha Kappa Alpha includes a list of their presidents. If you have any references of other dates, please feel free to add them on the template, or list them on the talk page so others can add them. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest changing this... In general, as far as I've found, templates are largely used for lists of presidents (see any page on Category:Fraternity_and_Sorority_President_Lists and separate pages are used for conclaves (see any page on Category:Fraternity_and_Sorority_National_Conference_Lists) and yes, I have made several of these. :) Naraht (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I wasn't in love with the template -- I just liked the collapse feature -- so would you suggest something like the List of Kappa Sigma chapters (in article space)? jheiv (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, though List of Kappa Sigma chapters needs work too. Also, you may want to consider a Category:Kappa Sigma and place Kappa Sigma, List of Kappa Sigma members, list of Kappa Sigma chapters, File:Kappa_sigma_46_east_lawn_uva.JPG, File:KappaSigmaCrest-AEKDB.gif, and any other related pages into it. I'll be happy to help with this if you want.Naraht (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd really like to do that. Also, after some thought, I think a good idea would be to change that terrible list of chapters into a historical list of chapters -- it would eliminate the need to reflect changes in chapter status (that is, there would be no distinction between current chapters and chapters who have since lost their charter / folded. The idea would be to direct the reader to the Fraternity's website if they're seeking an up-to-date listing (which I'm sure is available somewhere on their site). I looked around and didn't find many examples of other GLOs having chapter listings once their chapter roster became a certain size -- and that makes a lot of sense -- especially when you consider the difficulty that has been discussed on the talk page. I'll bring this idea up there, but I would certainly appreciate any guidance you had on the Category. jheiv talk contribs 11:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and create the category, mapping it after Category:Alpha Phi Omega. Please check once I've created for any pages or images that I've missed. And since this discussion seems to have only two participants, do you want to move the entire section to one of our talk pages?Naraht (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jheiv, 2 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

  • Replace: thumb|150px|Official Logo of the Endowment Fund
  • with: thumb|Official Logo of the Endowment Fund
  • Rationale: (view source for exact replacement, minus leading colon) -- This is an uncontroversial non-content change that will replace a full size image on commons with incorrect copyright information (and set to be deleted in a few days because of it) with a low-res version of the image with the correct copyright information (non-free fair-use rationale).

jheiv (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from jheiv, 2 June 2010

{{editprotected}} Note: Sorry, it seems someone went through and tagged many of the article's images with IfD recently.

  • Replace: thumb|250px|A Greater Cause
  • with: thumb|A Greater Cause
  • Rationale: (view source for exact replacement, minus leading colon) -- This is an uncontroversial non-content change that will replace a full-size image on commons with incorrect copyright information (and set to be deleted in a few days because of it) with a low-res version of the image with the correct copyright information (non-free fair-use rationale).

jheiv (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Naraht, 2 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

  • Add: [[Category:Kappa Sigma|*]]
  • Rationale: This is an uncontroversial edit to add Kappa Sigma to the newly created Kappa Sigma category for which it is the main article and for which it will be listed first.Naraht (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag and COI tag

The NPOV and COI templates are both relevant. A COI editor should not delete them. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see how the COI template is, but how is the NPOV one? jheiv (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator from the WP:COIN noticeboard first added Template:POV to the article, and you, a Kappa Sigma member, have edit-warred to remove it. I agree with User:Fences and windows addition of the tag because the article is in violation of WP:PROMOTION. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{editprotected}} Edit request: If this article is going to be protected for two months in its current form, please re-insert Template:POV at the top, which had been repeatedly removed by editors who are Kappa Sigma members. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. The protection banner explicitly states that "this is not an endorsement of the current version" which should be sufficient, barring significant consensus. See m:The Wrong Version- admins aren't allowed to lock pages in The Right VersionTM! You could put File:The Wrong Version.svg at the top of this page though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

_________________________________________

I disagree with all of the COI and NPOV statements made over the past month. Most of the edits made have actually improved the quality of the article and limited the degree of "self-promotion" - see the changes of the history section as a prime example. My feeling is that through the accusations of COI and NPOV a sense of bad faith has come about as assumptions about the value of user edits are made without consideration of the merits of any particular edit.
"Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral." I agree that editors are expected to reveal any interest in the subject, and many of the editors on this page have declared such an interest. However, it is incorrect to suggest that Wikipedia editors who happen Kappa Sigma members should not participate in discussions here or edits to the main page. Each edit made, should be evaluated from all of the standards set by Wikipedia, not just one particular policy that happens to fit one particular perspective. In the past, this page, like many Fraternity and Sorority pages have tended toward reading like a rush brochure, and any history or policies of Kappa Sigma should not be sanitized. However, it is incorrect to suggest that all members of Kappa Sigma intentionally contributed to this situation, or collectively own the article.
At the same time, questions are made in my mind about your relationship to this subject. You state you [own] a copy of Kappa Sigma's ritual book, and all of your [contributions] are about Kappa Sigma. While I agree with some of the point you make on this talk page, my sense is that you have some connection (or past connection) to the subject that you are not disclosing.--Enos733 (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK to add List of Kappa Sigma Grand Conclaves?

Before I request an edit, I'd like to make sure it's non-controversial -- but I'm pretty sure it is:

... below the "Notable Members" section and above the "References" section.

jheiv talk contribs 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not need to be added right now. You can do more COI WP:PROMOTION of your fraternity once the article's protection expires. I don't even know that such frat meetings are notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I do not see much value in a list of Grand Conclaves, unless additional value is shown.--Enos733 (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well the list survived an AfD -- it'd be a little weird not to include a link now if you ask me. jheiv talk contribs 18:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jheiv, 9 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

...found a secret society of students beginning with five of his most devoted disciples, for mutual protection against Cossa.[1]thumb|150px|Picture of an Italian wine jug, found amongst a 14-15th century pottery collection, bearing a poem and the letters Kappa Sigma[1]
  • Rationale: This image was removed as there was up for FfD. However, the FfD was closed and the image survived.
Thanks!
jheiv talk contribs 06:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask HJ Mitchell to attend to this request because I can't find the relevant discussion that removed the image. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, but if interested, it's archived here. Thanks! jheiv talk contribs 09:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Docet was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Endowment Fund

I found a reference for the last sentence of the first paragraph

It has the oldest continuous endowment fund which has donated $4.5 million to undergrads since its inception in 1919.

, at http://ef.kappasigma.org/about_us , but the number $4.5 million is since 1948. The amount since 1919 would be larger. I think this could be fixed with "more than 4.5 million". As for oldest continuous, I haven't found anything where the term continuous is used, but the Bononia Docet pledge manual page 44 does refer to

Founded in 1919, the Kappa Sigma Endowment Fund is the oldest college fraternity foundation[...]

. So I think that the sentence should be changed to

Its Endowment Fund, founded in 1919 is the oldest college fraternity foundation and has donated more than $4.5 million to undergrads since 1948.[1][2]

with the refs being from the endowment fund about_us and the pledge manual.
(still working unsuccessfully on the other three "citation needed")Naraht (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and think your new version is more accurate w/r/t the sources. jheiv talk contribs

Single point - Motto(s)

Dealing with multiple issues at once seemed to complicate the consensus. So I'd like to focus on one particular issue, the Motto(s).

I believe that everyone can agree that a pdf document on the Kappa Sigma website stands as an acceptable source for information in the Infobox unless there are stronger referenced sources disagreeing with it. In this case, the 2003 pledge manual (Bononia Docet) exists on the website as either (http://www.kappasigma.org/pdf/Bononia_Docet_2003b.pdf the binary) or http://www.kappasigma.org/pdf/Bononia_Docet_2003.pdf which has searchable text).

On page 15 is the following text

Kappa Sigma’s open motto, Bononia Docet, refers to the great University in its translation - "Bologna Teaches.

Similarly at the bottom of page 36 is the following text

The Mu-Iota Chapter at the entrance to the Gallaudet campus. The Brothers in the first row are signing Kappa Sigma's secret motto, Α.Ε.Κ.Δ.Β.

.

Since the letters in the abbreciation are apparently not the roman alphabet (at least from trying to paste the entire string into MS word or notepad), I think that all five of those letters are in fact greek letters (as opposed to only the delta.) this may require someone with more knowledge of use of non-ascii characters in pdfs. Any opinions on these topics? The issue as to what the Α.Ε.Κ.Δ.Β. stands for and whether *that* is referenced should be another section.Naraht (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on both points. Specifically:
  • This is a reliably sourced reference to what is apparently the fraternity's secret motto (as opposed to their open motto which they clearly distinguish in the document.
  • As far as I can tell from reliable sources, Α.Ε.Κ.Δ.Β. is the fraternity's secret motto. The caption didn't say "a reference to it's secret motto", or "an abbreviation of it's secret motto", it simply says "Kappa Sigma's secret motto, Α.Ε.Κ.Δ.Β.".
That being the case, that there are both an "open" and "secret" mottos, the question is how to handle it on the page. jheiv (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You knew this was the case about the mottos from the very beginning, and your acting is insulting to other editors' intelligences. That said, it is (again) obvious that both mottos should be listed, perhaps with "open motto" and "secret motto" following in parentheses, or the fraternity box template can be edited to accommodate this. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What are editors thoughts of the way it is currently presented in this page? I'm not really opposed to it's current form since both have reliable sourcing and (although I might have thought it would have worked before) trying to add "open" or "public" and "secret" qualifiers in the info box looks awkward to me. jheiv talk contribs 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The current arrangement of the mottos is fine. (The fact also remains that you willfully denied what you knew to be true for the sake of protecting something that the fraternity has decided to make secret.) Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
How could you ever know what I know? And even if I "knew" all sorts of things that aren't correct on Wikipedia, the requirement is that material is sourced. Sigh another failure to assume good faith. jheiv talk contribs 19:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Sigma/Archive_1&oldid=1148113449"