Talk:Kappa Alpha Order/Archive 1

message: This not an article!!
I agree, at least partially due to how it is written. I'd hope someone would clean this up and get rid of the loads of pointless information and re-center the neutrality of this page.--68.231.168.20 12:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

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

message: As a current Vice-President of a Kappa Alpha chapter, I wish to at least express my take on any negative reputations of the national fraternity.  
I do acknowledge that the racist stereotype of the KA fraternity did not randomly appear out of the clear skies, but rather there have been isolate incidents of specific chapters engaging in racist behavior, consequentially begetting unfair stereotypes.  You may even find a Confederate flag or two in each house in the KA southern chapters; however, it must be known that there should NOT be a racist connotation with the Confederate flag, especially in this case...as many southerners will tell you (by the way, I'm from the Midwest and not a racist for the record so I can at least partially be objective in that claim).
Racist behavior by an individual chapter is an anomaly.  The national fraternity condemns racism on all accounts (and hazing on all accounts for that matter) and instead advocates gentlemenly and honorable conduct as inspired by our spiritual founder, Robert E. Lee, with an emphasis placed on holding women in high esteem and being faithful to God.  Was General Lee man who was loyal to his home state and lead the Army of Northern Virginia and afterword became the head of Washington College (now W&L, a prestigious institution)?  Yes.  A racist, oppressive Southerner?  Definitely not.
Fraternities across the nation have their share of problems they must deal with.  Many fraternities haze pointlessly.  I can honestly say that what sells KA on my campus (and we are NOT an anomaly, for I know many KAs from many other schools) is that our pledgeship makes each and every KA a better person, rather than the sadistic and pointless hazing that I know for a fact other fraternities engage in.
In summary, KAs are relatively good men, generally speaking.  The few that give the whole chapter a bad name are not accepted nationally.  When word gets out of one isolated racist incident (which unfortunately happens in countless other fraternities besides KA, let me assure you), this racist reputation perpetuates simply because it is easy to slap a racist card against us because of the negative connotation of Southern Values and what some falsely believe Robert E. Lee represents.  This connotation is probably believed by the isolated ignoramous whose actions tarnish what it truly means to be a KA. Let it be known that gentlemen of the Kappa Alpha Order, as a whole, oppose the cowardly ignorance of racism.  
I can even simplify it more for everyone without trying to sound like a 19th century noble Southern gentleman: we are just a bunch of fun-loving, decent college guys trying to enjoy these great and exciting final years of our youth...before the real world hits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CDB3889 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KA Stereotypes 

message: Ignorant vandalist.  Please keep to the article, not personal attacks against other editors.  If it is unreferenced, then the citation can not be claimed (it's the laws of wikipedia, not my own).  If you have such a problem with unreference tags, just REFERENCE them yourself.  It's not that hard to do for a competent individual (please ask your mommy or daddy to help you if you are having difficulty). D-Hell-pers 17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 206.169.45.183, Ignorance Not Welcomed

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

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

message: :Image:KAFlag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:KAFlag.gif

message: Some revisionist historians are trying to remove the following sourced controversy section from the article:
The claim is that the first incident is "too old" and the second incident did not involve Kappa Alpha Order.  However, the provided sources do state that Kappa Alpha Order was initially named and subsequently cleared.  It was controversy, and yes I did add it to Zeta Psi as well.  Why is Wikipedia censoring information?  I feel as though the sections should be restored and will do so.  Per WP:BRD, I appear to be the only one willing to engage in the "discuss" part of BRD. Thank you. 67.52.2.234 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the first "controversy" is no controversy at all.  Dixon was honored at many dinners and his play was not controversial 104 years ago.  There was no controversy surrounding a (more than a century old) dinner at one local chapter of this national organization.  To include it here violates WP:SYN (there are no contemporaneous sources saying the dinner was in any way controversial) and WP:UNDUE (1 dinner at a local chapter, 104 years ago, has no relevance to the current, national organization).  The costume party; the local chapter of the national organization was cleared in this incident, it was another local chapter of separate fraternal organization that was involved.  This incident had nothing to do with the subject of this article so, again, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. L0b0t (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first incident isn't being given the proper context, but I believe the costume party does have relevance and should be included.  It generated quite a bit of national controversy, even if it was only at one school. 98.212.135.1 (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Original research? How so?  The Washington Post article names Kappa Alpha Order, so I would hardly call that original research.  As far as WP:UNDUE goes, the entire article has nothing negative.  I would say that is more problematic than the inclusion of a controversy section. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

text: The section could be expanded to include suspensions due to hazing ( http://www.thedmonline.com/ka-suspended-over-hazing-incident-1.1041126  ) as well.  There were also suspensions at Southwestern and University of North Texas ( http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/022101/pagea7.pdf ), University of Texas ( http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2.8480/national-office-suspends-kappa-alpha-1.1258294 ), University of Florida ( http://reitzrambler.blogspot.com/2005/07/kappa-alpha-order-at-uf-suspended.html ). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: L0b0t, please see FUTON bias. If you have serious concerns that the article doesn't exist, I'd suggest finding (offline) archives of the newspaper. A few of us might be able to help. However, it appears you are biased to FUTON more than legitimately concerned about a hoax. If the latter applies, let me/us know. tedder (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree that every organization should have a controversy section when there is sufficient controversy.  We should strive to make these articles more balanced and factual, and less like a recruiting website (advert). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, could you relist those sources here?  It will be helpful once the protection is lifted to give a more balanced account of the controversy. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

message: On 7 December 2010, Zeta Psi's page had the controversy section removed, and has not been re-added.
How is there a controversy when all groups involved were cleared of any wrongdoing, and no one involved with the incident has any standing with the current chapters?  This section should be removed, since it was only newsworthy for originally being incorrect.  Unfounded allegations do not make a controversy that should be credited to the organization that was targeted (unfairly).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.45.183 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy revisited 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kappa Alpha Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090106103737/http://www.sigmanubsc.com/index_files/Page704.htm to http://www.sigmanubsc.com/index_files/Page704.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Kappa Alpha Order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123200835/http://www.nicindy.org/blog/kappa-alpha-order-surpasses-150000-initiates-in-its-history/ to http://www.nicindy.org/blog/kappa-alpha-order-surpasses-150000-initiates-in-its-history/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713131149/http://www.ka-zetazeta.com/page.php?page_id=4348 to http://www.ka-zetazeta.com/page.php?page_id=4348
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094716/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/resources/varlet_materials/missionstatement.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/resources/varlet_materials/missionstatement.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094924/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2004_archive/2004_3fall/kaj0304_kcmessage.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2004_archive/2004_3fall/kaj0304_kcmessage.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094916/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2004_archive/2004_3fall/kaj0304_mulberryhill.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2004_archive/2004_3fall/kaj0304_mulberryhill.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094909/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/undergraduate/2007NLI_final.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/undergraduate/2007NLI_final.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094902/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2003_archive/2003_1spring/kaoef_descrip.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/2003_archive/2003_1spring/kaoef_descrip.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094853/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/ to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928094931/http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/renew_subscription.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/ka_journal/renew_subscription.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923062010/http://kappaalphaorder.org/resources/varlet_materials/varlet_insigniapublications.asp to http://www.kappaalphaorder.org/resources/varlet_materials/varlet_insigniapublications.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The paragraph below has no relation to the page and should be removed. Boomerbuzz (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got lost on this and at the moment I agree. I will look at this again tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 22:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It was always relevant and you should have known that. I've fixed it by reinstating versions of some of the text you added - but you'd misrepresented the text considerably. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this paragraph is not relevant to this page, it is misleading and defaming.Boomerbuzz (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Paragraph Removal