Talk:Kappa Alpha Society/Archive 1

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

James Madison University?

I recently visited JMU and I think there is a chapter of KA there as well. I'm not sure all of the information bu t I filled out as much as I did know on the page. Can the rest of the information be found/confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.245.7 (talk) 23:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • It has been brought to my attention that while there may be a chapter of KA at James Madison, it is not a chapter of the Kappa Alpha Society, but rather the Kappa Alpha Order. A common mistake, it has since been corrected in the article. RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to whomever (Matt?) is maintaining the article. Compared to the last time I wandered through it is short, neat, and to the point. Now that there is little politics in the shorter, matter-of-fact article hopefully the editing wars are over. The co-education paragraph is still BULLshit (*wink*) but if including it prevents fights I'm all for it. I was at the failed Wesleyan revival attempt in 1993 but if some people want to pretend the chapter existed "to about 1997" I say let them have their happy fiction. - Red Diederich, VL 1996 65.96.186.184 (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Haha, it's not me! There's a bot reverting it automatically, I think the problem has been fixed. Thanks for your help Red. I would also encourage you to add whatever you see fit, I haven't had the time to make a decent article, so I mostly just look after it to protect it from vandals. RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 03:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I created a new page for notable members who happened to be KA members Kappa_Alpha_Society_Trivia. Last year I just deleted most of the list and renamed it "Contibuting members." I appreciate the work that went into compiling the list (which is much longer than than the previous one) but it has nothing to do with the core definition of the Society which is what the wikipedia entry is for. Red Diederich, VL 1996 Jackdied2 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I appreciate your vigilance in reverting my changes (dude, in less than 30 seconds). Please re-revert them. They aren't vandalism. The content is preserved on the new page. I'm asking because I can't possibly outdo you (I don't have the page on my RSS feed). Red Diederich, VL 1996 Jackdied2 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Changes being made on this page by me are done by myself,Rav Dhaliwal a VOO Kap'05 and recent alumnist. The omission of Nathaniel Berry CC'04 and Alan Bernstein CC? were done do to the lack of credible information available to me at this time. Berry seems to have just finished university and if he was so notable, his exploits would at least be documented somewhere on the WWW. As for Alan Bernstein, I could not verify if he was ever a Kap, since numerous web pages out there seem to mix up Kappa Alpha Order members with the Kaps of the Kappa Alpha Literary Society. I will however look further into those two individuals mentioned above before discounting them completely. Also additional "notable members" will be added as I have time.

I edited the reference to women to say " and a few women" since KA is a male society, but there were a few rare instances in the past when "a few" women were allowed to join legitimately.

The recent addition of the word "with" to the line involing Dr James Collip changes the context of the statement. As far as I know and I could be wrong, that Macleod and Collip won the Noble Prize for Medicine and each of those two shared their portions of the winning and recognition with their partners, who where Best and Collip. If this is wrong, feel free to change the wording on Collips KA info, but please provide a link or evidence. VOO KAP 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the Alumnist Thomas Wellington since he/she does not appear to be a Kap according to the Kappa Alpha records of 1825-1940, 1825-1960 and 1976. This person may have been added originally to the article along with the two other names mentioned at the top of the page as a form of vandalism, so I suspect. VOO KAP 08:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Caution

The Kappa Alpha Society is a small organization and a federated organization. Between chapters there is a strong consensus on history pre-1870. After that there are some quibbles, and anything modern is small politics. Any edits that are about current events or recent history are inherently POV because the antagonists are still alive and kicking. Volatile subjects include co-ed chapters (all died but there are still some proponents) and newly re-established chapters (if the nineties re-seeded chapters are any guide the new efforts have a 50% chance of existing five years from now).

Another good reason to delete current events is that they have more to do with local uni administrative policy than they do with the fraternity. As a federation we have our rules but as an old federation they are much, much less restrictive than a modern bureaucracy.

(my POV: yank out every person in the notables section who doesn't have their own page. Yank out the rest because their being a Kap doesn't actually have anything to do with the society. Do keep F.H. Ludlow, he wrote a shitload of our songs.) Red Diederich VL '96 65.96.181.124 07:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If the above is true, then how can there be any history of any society, organization or institution since 1870? Besides this article is not a Kappa Alpha proprietary product, and if you can't have some sort of neutral entry for Kappa Alpha, then why bother with Wikipedia at all?

As for removing alumni, sure. It is a meaningless addition to the article.

How about this "This Kappa Alpha article is a stub because the people who are Kappa Alphas, (and their antagonists shooting from the galleries), cannot agree on any article whatsoever."?

History

Can someone please expand this article to include a definitive history of the organization? As it looks now, this article seems to be nothing more than a list of a notable alumni. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Phi Beta Kappa was a academic honours society, not a greek social organization. As for a definitive history, go to the KA HQ website. I will if I have time have the history up some time in the future. VOO KAP 03:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rav for patroling this page. I hadn't checked this page in a couple years but it has certainly changed for the blander. The laundry list of politicians and others seems wholey unuccessary. The page should look like a summary of "In the begining" from the publicly available KA histories (the descriptions are quite frank, it was a bunch of undergrads carving out a niche club and not the illuminati). Cribbing the two paragraph summary of KA from any other fraternity's pledgebook would be fine too. Add a list of current and defunct chapters and you're done - we started small and stayed small so the list only takes up 15 lines. Heck, the wiki entry used to have them, I moved some chapters around the last time I edited the page. The list of important people who have belonged could persist under the wiki name Kappa_Alpha_Vanity. Would folks freak out and revert the page if I made those sane edits? [Red, VL '96]

"Phi Beta Kappa was a academic honours society, not a greek social organization."---It was a social organization, it was not an academic honors society. Learn your history.

Only at first. Only at first. And a comment on the entire Talk page. You can maintain your personal anonymity even if you create a Wikipedia identity and log in. It's bad form to post comments without your 'handle'. Jax MN (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Within the Fraternities and Sororities Project I just adjusted the article rating as "start" class rather than being a "C", as it should clearly have a larger history section. For a group that was so influential for the early growth of the Greek Letter world, this article is far too slim. The Kappa Alpha Society is a very important and interesting subject, and therefore I hope the factions can agree to expand the page with those things upon which they agree. In the big scheme of things, the (apparently) contentious matter of co-education is a minor thing. KA tried it; the chapters that did so met their demise. Other old nationals have tried it with varying success, mostly failing. Alpha Delta Phi and Delta Phi continue as partially co-ed (only on some campuses) but many co-ed chapters of other nationals have faded into oblivion. It appears once the novelty has worn off, these were less attractive to incoming students. Jax MN (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bernstein

I can verify that Bernstein is indeed a Kap active in 1976 or '77, @ CC. I am in the record, I believe. Thanks for your contributing this entry.

CC 77

I too can verify that Bernstein is a Kap. After graduating, he remained on the CC campus for approximately 20 years and played an important role in many a CC Kap's experience.

CC '97

I, too, can verify that Alan Bernstein is a Kap, he's a CC'79 (graduation year).

The trouble with all three of your statements, which assuredly are true, is that they constitute WP:Original Research, which WP bans. If you want to insert a name as a member on the list of notables, it should have an independent citation, which in weak form can be from a publically available published KA book, or much better would be an outside citation like a magazine article which notes his (or her) membership. Because of the risk of Vanity Listings, other fraternities have published guidelines for inclusion here on the Talk page. See for example Alpha Delta Phi's Talk page. This may be a valid idea for KA's listing, if it grows much larger.
Last, I don't wish to nag; But please know that just like it is bad form to text someone USING ALL CAPS, and thereby showing others that you are a Newbie, Wikipedia editors view as suspect edits that come in without attribution. Often the source of vandalism, non-attributed edits from unknown users still come up showing your DNS listing, which itself can be identified in case of prosecution for libel or slander. (not that you are doing that). So in the end there is no real privacy here or elsewhere on the web. Signing off with a WP User link is reasonable and good form. To do so, simply type four 'tildes', ~~~~, after your comment. You can certainly, with pride, note your KA chapter and year, but that is up to you. Jax MN (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article Status

For those editing, the wikipedia article Alpha Phi Alpha is a former featured article. That's our goal gentleman, let's make it happen. RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has a long ways to go. I would love to help, but am not sure how to even get started. It's just that bad of a mess, no offense. Jmlk17 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, believe me, none taken. This article is a sorry mess and it is no small feat to decide on where to begin. Unfortunately, I am in Quebec right now and will not be able to contribute much. Hopefully, some progress will be made. RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that does tend to happen. I am planning on getting involved a bit more, but am tidying up around the site on other projects in the mean time. Good luck and happy editing! Jmlk17 06:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Rating

As of now there is a dispute as to what the article should be rated and it would be best to have a discussion. There is a chart to base your discussion off of.

  • Mid - This article is about a Fraternal organization which is represented in less than 25 states and has less than 30 [active chapters. Acidskater 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have rated many greek articles on wikipedia and I Agree completely with Acidskater and have re- rated the article importance as Mid the socitey now is very small and although there have been claims that it is the link between social and secert these are not conclusive. In any case it wouldn't matter the rating system used is based on size not history. A top rating is reserved for umbrella and govermental organs like IFC and NPHC which the society never was. Final point, and this is not meant to be said in a rude way but instead of having a revert war about its rating scale which doesn't really affect all that much the editors should really focus more on adding info to the article since as of right now it is severely lacking.[User:Treyt021|Trey]] 20:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • High - Size is not a measure of worth or value, despite having few Chapters the history of KA is of high importance to anyone studying the history of Greek organizations. It was my belief that the role KA played in the history of Greek organizations was well known, however my conversations with Acidskater have proven otherwise. If however, you doubt my claims as being false, I would direct your attention to Baird's Manual and see for yourself. Additionally, there are internet resources confirming my position. RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote to High as of now because as few chapters as Kappa Alpha Society has, they still are "notable in a significant and important way within the field of Greek Life, but not necessarily outside it.". I still have yet to read myself that RarefiedDeer (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) claim is true or even a fact, but it is a fact that Kappa Alpha Society was the first social fraternity and that is quite important. I will take down Trey's re-rate for now and hope to see more input on this matter. If there is no more debate within a week I will change it to High. Acidskater 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • comment Sorry about cutting your name acid, i didn't even notice, thats what i get for editing in a hurry. Anyways I won't argue with a high rating. I prefer Mid because the claim that all socials were influenced by the socitey is in my view bogus and they are very small now. But they were first so that counts for somethingTrey 04:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Delta Phi legend

I took out this legend "One of the distinguishing characteristics of the early Kappa Alpha was the degree to which it saw itself as a leader of a “movement” more than an organization of its own. A good example of this was the effort made to establish a chapter at Hamilton College three years earlier than that at Williams. When the effort faltered, Kappa Alpha simply gave some of its ritual to the founders (one of them a Kap) of what became the mother chapter of Alpha Delta Phi. Expansion of the idea was more important than the name. There is evidence of similar activities involving other early fraternities. That is why Kappa Alpha has never had a rule against dual membership unlike the rest of the “Greek” world." as being less then credible. First, the ceremonies of Alpha Delta Phi were drawn directly from Freemasonry and are unlike Kappa Alpha's. Second, Samuel Eells extensive written personal account of the founding of Alpha Delta Phi is at variance with it. Third, this story sounds exactly like a typical exaggeration/distortion and is implausible on the face of it.

Coeducation

I added this paragraph: Several chapters have been co-educated (male and female members) in the past, such as the chapter at Wesleyan University, which existed from 1967 to about 1980, (there was a small co-ed group of Wesleyan initiates in 1997 but who never met as a chapter). Other chapters were co-ed as well, on a home-rule basis. The refusal of the Willimas chapter to co-educate led to the termination of that chapter. Kappa Alpha may now prohibit coeducated chapters. Kappa Alpha will not be able to re-enter those colleges, (Williams and Wesleyan) without co-educating, and is likely effectively proscribed from returning to others (Princeton, McGill) for the same reason. The next day, someone deleted it. Evidently some Kaps have issues facing their own history.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.124.195 (talk • contribs) 05:40 UTC, May 20, 2007.

Someone needs lessons on basic civility. Have you not considered that perhaps others are uncomfortable with edits from anonymous accounts and that usually those edits are vandalism or baseless lies? At any rate, your edit is there for now and is most likely correct. However, in the future, I expect that you maintain some semblance of decorum; Anonymity should not be an invitation for lack of etiquette, or an excuse thereof. RarefiedDeer 23:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been vindicated right down the line, so I don't know where you finding "vandalism or baseless lies". Claiming chapter existences that don't exist. That's a lie. Hitting me with invective when I'm right, that seems a lack of etiquette. I've just been happily adding my little bits of information here and there. Four or five other people here seem to be in a purple rage. THAT's a lack of decorum. ---This page can be a pat history right out of the Kap candidate brochure, or it can be a real and intelligent layout of an important historical topic. The first case will make all the Kaps happy. The second probably won't, but it actually should. If you're going to pretend to be all that the society claims for itself, you should be trying for the second.

Talking to you is a fruitless endeavour and I grow weary of it. RarefiedDeer 19:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I'm right and you don't have anything. Cool. Glad to have helped make the page better.

Glad I could validate your existance. RarefiedDeer 16:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I just deleted it along with the list of politicians and sports stars that wer Kaps. All stuff that has nothing to do with the organization. Politicians that are Kaps are incidental to the org. The few brief experiments with co-education have nothing to do with the org. The page is thin enough on history without including kruft. Seriously - we've had less than twenty coeds in our entire history and all the chapters that promoted them folded. Twenty people don't demand a paragraph on a largely empty page of a very old org. Red Diederich VL '96 65.96.181.124 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC) (I was there for the Wesleyan restart and Bull killed his baby quick smart)

Well, you've got jack for a society history here. Which is a shame, since Kappa Alpha actually DOES have a history. But But don't write about chapters that folded. Don't write about chapters that succeeded. Don't write about coeducation. Don't wqrite about ANYTHING. In another twenty years, you'll be down to the last chapter, and it won't matter anyway.

Copyvio

This anonymous edit introduced a massive cut-and-paste copyright violation from www.ka.org. I've reverted the History section to the version of the edit before the copyvio was introduced, but perhaps someone more familiar with the content of this article and its edit history should take a look to see if any more (legal) content can be salvaged. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You simply DO NOT know if that was a copyright violation. Cutting that was irresponsible and irrational. Copyright is not violated if the owner consents to the use. If that history was 'owned' by the Kappa Alpha society and the Kappa Alpha society consents to it's use here, then there is NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

Rbellin, you don't know what you're doing, you don't understand copyright, and you're running around ruining articles. Please stop and restore the damage you have done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.195 (talk • contribs)

If the copyright holders have given permission for their work to appear here under the GFDL, then, if you can show some evidence that that's the case, it might well be restored. Can you show us some proof? There is some evidence that this is NOT the case, in that the copyright notice on the website contains the wording "All Rights Reserved", so for the sake of legal liabilities alone, wikipedia should treat the text as though we don't have such permission until otherwise informed. --Aim Here 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I suspect the copyright is held by the JHH Foundation or whatever the new organization is called. Anyway, this does beg the question, if copyrighted KA material is being used by Kaps in the public domain, what does that mean? Is it indeed a copyright violation? It was my understanding that copyrights were there to protect the authors of material who wished to publish and live off their work. The material disseminated by KA is not sold, therefore there is no livelihood that is being lost. In fact, the literature is for the benefit of members and others interested in KA, would not Wikipedia then be an appropriate medium? RarefiedDeer 16:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. A license permitting non-commercial use is not sufficient to allow use on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is GFDL licensed. Anyway, the KA site says "all rights reserved" and specifically asserts copyright, so this is hardly ambiguous. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Completely incorrect. First, if some source reserves copyright, and then acts in a manner inconsistent with that reservation, then they have given up that reservation. Second, GFDL is not law. Law is law. Wikipedia is bound by law, just like anyone else. Excerpting a few paragraphs from a larger work is fair use, and no amount of bickering can change that.

What you've done is take a mildly useful article and reduced it to utter uselessness. The current article serves no purpose and might as well be deleted. You don't have a clue what you're doing and need to stop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.124.194 (talk • contribs)

You guys need to cool off a bit. Realize that arguing isn't really going to do any good. Try taking what information you can find on said site, use it as a basis for the Wikipedia article, cite it, and continue finding other sources. Simple copy and pasting isn't exactly the best way to expand or add to an article. Jmlk17 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
First off, changing your argument halfway through, from 'we have permission' to 'we don't need to have permission, it's fair use' doesn't inspire confidence in the rightness of your arguments. I suggest you tone down the ad hominems and allegations of cluelessness, too. They're not helping.
Secondly, even if we do have the legal right to put a few paragraphs of this material in Wikipedia under 'fair use', (which is unlikely - you placed a recognisably large chunk of the source material in there without attribution, and plagiarism would kill the 'fair use' defence stone dead), you still have to get this past the wikipedia policy on fair use material. A chunk of unattributed text lifted from a copyrighted work is number one on the list of things Wikipedia doesn't accept.
I agree with you that Wikipedia policies are not law. Wikipedia policies are wikipedia policies and any edits here are bound by those, and the GFDL, in addition to law. It would take a lot more work to sit here and try to push your copy-and-pasted paragraph through Wikipedia than it would take you to to rewrite the material and source it. --Aim Here 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're assuming that I put the material in. I did not. Nothing I wrote states that I did. Your mininterpretation, not mine. Nor do you understand a) copyright law, b) fair use, c) that recognizability is no measure of fair use, d) it is not necessarily 'lifted' if the copyright owner is the poster, or e) the logical progress of this discussion. Look, this article is now crap. It's a list of chapters alumni and says nothing about Kappa Alpha. If you want to do something to remedy that, fine. I'm not going to.

Recognisability IS a measure of plagiarism, and of copyrightability itself. There is NO evidence that the copyright owner is the poster. If you're not here to improve the encyclopedia go away, and stop trolling. It would be nice to have a better article but not at the expense of risking a copyvio because we took incompetent legal advice from an random anonymous troll on the net. --Aim Here 06:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, recognisability IS NOT a measure of fair use, since with a fair use defense, it is admitted that the original work was the source of the material. So, again, you don't understand the concepts you're trying to argue about. Further, there is a probability that a member was the poster. You can resort to calling me a 'random anonymous troll' but at least I know what I'm talking about. Your posts here just show that all of this is over your head, and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. It was not necessarily a copyright violation, and this article is reduced to nothing. Congratulations.

Guys, not trying to but in, but this argument really doesn't belong here. Just a word of advice: take it to your respective talk pages. Jmlk17 03:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to believe basic facts

Kappa Alpha's pre-eminence as a college fraternity is accepted by every author in the field. It was founded in 1825, and predates all other college fraternities. All other college fraternities not only were founded later, but can in almost all cases be attributed to some contact with Kappa Alpha, or in some other manner derivative. That's just a plain fact. That some people refuse to accept that, or challenge every statement of that plain truth is all but irrational. I assume these challenges come from a) people who want to argue some point of origin for the American college fraternity system at odds with every published author, every original source, and every commonly accepted history of college fraternities, or b) people who believe in the make believe stories included in their own fraternity initiations. That this Kappa Alpha article cannot manage to have a basic history outline included with it is astonishing. The article as it currently exists is a complete failure and a rebuke to the fraternities and sororities project and to the whole theory under which Wikipedia operates.

Fair use rationale for Image:Kapkeycolour.gif

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Purpose needs stating

The purpose of the organisation, and what they do, need stating. Without these, the nature of the organisation is simply not known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.152.167 (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Current Crisis ??

I am uncertain who added this heading to the article, but many facts (which have been edited) are untrue. For example, the society's history still remains well intact through volumes and volumes of records the society has always distinguished itself in keeping, as well as the revival of dormant chapters such as VC, CH, and CC which have since occured or will this up coming year. Currently there are active chapters in: VL, VP, CH, VC, VT, VA and VOO making a total of 7.

Apparently the issue at hand is the lack of knowledge about other chapters. Try adding some legitimate sources to add notability to the issue. Jmlk17 07:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for legitimate sources, these are facts. As the Kappa Alpha Society is small, there is a considerable amount of inter-chapter communication and these chapters are considered active by members of the society.

  • Actually there is a great need for legit sources. Wikipedia is not a site of un-sourced conjecture and even though I’m sure the members of the chapter are experts and do know what they are talking about we cannot prove they are members and we cannot independently verify their claims. This is a major problem for a lot of Greek pages and one that we have to work hard to overcome. Bairds is a good source and the organization’s national website is also useful any third party articles from magazines or interviews can also be used, but an editor just saying they know this just because can’t be allowed. By the way this is also how we justify deleting organization's secret rituals, since as they are secret and unpublished they can’t be verified and hence are subject to deletion. So it works both in favor and against.Wikipedia has several policies that cover this including the no original research and verifiability policy plus just a general ban on hearsay. Please see Wikipedia:List of policies for a pretty comprehensive list of what we can allow. If you can back it up with sources from a legitimate source then it’s great and needs to be here. Otherwise its subject to deletion.Trey 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Trey on this point. Third-party verification is essential to maintaining a proper standard for encyclopedic reference. I should have the currently outstanding citations resolved by the end of this week. As for the "Current Crisis" heading, rumour and speculation have no place in Wikipedia. If a source could be provided that validated these claims, so be it, but I, nor the original editor it seems, has been able to find anything of the kind. Lastly, I would remind editors to sign their posts, it takes seconds and adds to accountability. RarefiedDeer 07:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Cornell was reinstituted on April 17, 2007? A week ago? Well, that must mean that the historical traditions of Cornell are intact, then. --- Please. How many chapter houses have been lost? The society's history and traditions have been suffering quite a deal. Which chapters of the seven have more than a month's intact history? All seven? Fine. Then how many have existed intact since their inception? Let me be clear, I'm not attacking Kappa Alpha, I'm just trying to inject some truth into this silly entry. If we want a pollyanna history, we'll go to the Kappa Alpha website. This is supposed to show some objectivity. As for validation of the "Current Crisis" section, the ham-handed efforts to try to hide Kappa Alpha's problems is validation. (Actually, as was noted before the section was wiped, the "Current Crisis" section was based on the table in the article---it was based on what the society itself was claiming.)

The following is a paragraph added to the main article by an anon user and has been reverted several times. It is being placed on the talk page as it is more appropriate here than on the main article: --† Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 17:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of the rest of the more recent history of the society is supressed on wikipedia, presumably by over zealous or over sensitive members. As can be seen from the list of chapters a large number of chapters are not functioning, and it is not being made clear that several older chapters have only a very short continuous history; that is, the old chapter died for whatever reason and a new group has recently been put together. That the members would want to hide these embarassing details is natural enough. That the true state of affairs cannot be presented to readers of wikipedia is unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.210 (talk • contribs)

So much for 'Speak your mind', Dysepsion.

It is clear why this article is so empty of content, as you noted "Can someone please expand this article to include a definitive history of the organization? As it looks now, this article seems to be nothing more than a list of a notable alumni. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 18:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)" There is no definitive history up here with citations because the members are a little too sensitive about it.

Apparently wikipedia articles are supposed to contain truthful, citable content, as long as it doesn't ruffle the feathers of the sensitive subjects of articles.

If you're going to help them sanitize their articles, then don't complain that the articles are all sanitized.

There is no further history available on Kappa Alpha because members remove all uncomfortable facts from this Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.210 (talk • contribs)
I think what you mean is there is no further hearsay and conjecture available. If you could provide a legitimate source to your edits, they would most likely stand. However, not being founded on verifiable material, they have been summarily reverted. I encourage you to continue editing, but only after having dropped the apparent vendetta you have against the Society. Only sourced material, or potential sourced material is appropriate for not just this article, but for all Wikipedia. How you can claim "truthful, citable content" is beyond me. RarefiedDeer 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Vendetta against the society?" If you have some emotional baggage associated with these issues you should address that in some other format. My insistence on certain matters has elicited much more detail about the history and current status of the society. Although you claim that my edits were not "founded on verifiable material" apparently the subsequent edits by members have confirmed every claim I made. ---I repeat, they have confirmed every claim I made.--- If you compare the detail, the specific dates, et c., that we now have about all the Kappa Alpha chapters compared to what this article showed a couple of weeks ago, I think any calm, reasonable observer would see a marked improvement. No need to thank me, knowing the improvements have been made is reward enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.247.3.210 (talk • contribs) 08:14, May 9, 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from using "++" language on Wikipedia. In addition, I hit 'enter' by accident in my edit revert. The usage of "Society" is wholly appropriate in the article as the name of the organization is "The Kappa Alpha Society" not "Kappa Alpha". RarefiedDeer 01:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No, incorrect. Just because it's called 'The Kappa Alpha Society' does not call for extended use of 'The Society'. You are wrong. But leave it that way, it just makes Kaps look stupid.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Alpha_Society/Archive_1&oldid=1139817872"