Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha

message: Any particular reason why some chapters on the link page has (SMYTHE AWARD) after their name, while other winners from this year don't? I'm changing VaTech's link to reflect this. There should be another chapter or two, but I don't have the data for this year's winners on hand. Could someone look into that? -JHolmes
:Not sure, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Jmlk17 08:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I'm currently in the process of refining, updating, and linking famous Pikes in their correct sections.  If I have made any mistakes, please feel free to correct them (as per usual), and notify me if there are any glaring mistakes.  I appreciate any help anyone is willing to give on this little project of mine, and welcome anyone to refine with me.  Jmlk17 09:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Pikes

message: This does not appear to be written in the proper format of an encyclopedia article. I believe it is not impartial.
I find this hillarious that me and my suitemate got listed as famous pikes.  I salute any person that has that pathetic of a life that they would add that fact to wikipedia.
No, what I find hilarious and pathethic is how you would disrespect your own fraternity and don't care about the information posted here. --† Ðy§ep§ion †  Speak your mind 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: This could be considered derogatory so I ask that you cite your source. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find this name.
"Ryan Kauffman and Andy Acs - Founders of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Alliance (GLBTA)" Iheartwiki19 01:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Cite This

message: Was he really a Pike?  If so, he would have had to be honorary...anyone?Jmlk17 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect.  Let's keep him on the list then. Jmlk17 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colonel Sanders

message: I was on the verge of giving the article a rating of B but decided to use a Start because while it is somewhat extensive most of it consists of the alumni list. If anyone really disagrees with this rating at the current moment please let me know and we can discuss it, but the article does need more extensive information as well as more references. Acidskater 08:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scale Rating

message: Until you can add a citation that confirms that Jon Stewart was not initiated, do not remove him or mention that he is not a Pike.  He's on national's website and that overrides any one editor's personal opinion unless a citation is provided. --Rodzilla (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's on national's site, he's in the G&G (I believe; it's been a couple years since I went through), and many of his biographies online have his membership included.  Hence, he is a Pike.  Someone just seems to not like the idea! Jmlk17 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To whomever keeps reverting the Jon Stewart entry; We are NOT claiming him as a die-hard, super-extreme member.  He gained membership, and a motto of Pike is "Once a Pike, Always a Pike".  I believe that statement alone says it. Jmlk17 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference and this stupid little revert war can end. The person reverting seems to be someone not familiar with wikipolicy and has had a brief history of vandalism with other articles. Acidskater 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright; I'm still personally not so sure of the source (I do see it, and I have read it), but I suppose it should stand.  Thanks for the research. Jmlk17 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you had sources all along why didn't you just say so instead of creating that stupid little revert war? Its not that people were wrong, the fact was there wasn't a source thus it didn't fit wikipedia policy. If you want to quickly learn how to constructively add to wikipedia go here. Acidskater 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was almost entertaining to watch you guys freak out over it.  Plus, I couldn't find the sources until a brother emailed them to me. I have, however discussed the matter with Jon personally, and seen him publically remove himself from the Pika shadow, so I was just waiting for someone to back me up on it.  Turns out I didn't need it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.1.2 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Keep - It is a sourced statement showing that he disassociates himself with the fraternity even though they still recognize him as a brother. I am putting it back up because it is encyclopedic as well as sourced. If this edit is reverted I will be contacting an administrator to set semi-protection for the page because there have been way too many revert wars on this little section. Acidskater 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not intended to be a straw poll so there is no reason to vote to keep or not.  The fact of the matter is that it is not encyclopedic because the section is a list of members.  The specific circumstances of Stewart's relationship with the fraternity is not relevant to his being a member.  The place for such information is the article Jon Stewart.  The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is an overriding reason to include the information despite its non-encyclopedic nature.  Furthermore, there is no revert war in progress.  Rather, you simply disagree with my reasoning per your argument above.  I would caution you about seeking administrative involvement, however, as you have violated 3RR on this article (I have no intention of seeking anyone's involvement on the matter).  Hopefully, we will have comments from other interested parties shortly. 67.100.185.234 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source is questionable since a primary source directly contradicts it.  It also makes no mention of Stewart disassociating as you have suggested, nor does any other source I am able to find. 67.100.185.234 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a revert war and you said it yourself (3RR means 3 Revert Rule, even though I had 2 reverts in this particular matter). This statement is needed because while he may be considered a brother still he does not associate himself with the Pi Kappa Alpha. To me this statement follows WP:NOT and WP:LIVING, so in order for it to be deleted you need to prove why it doesn't fit them. Acidskater 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your reasoning, the information should be included in the article on Stewart and not on this article.  I agree with that assessment.  Aside from the fact that the sources are contradictory and make no mention of disassociation at all, I do not find how Stewart's personal feelings about the fraternity and his individually determined relationship with it has encyclopedic relevance in a list of its members.  It is comparable in such relevance to stating that one member was a very active brother while another joined it just for the social scene benefits.  What specific language in the policies you've cited do you contend the inclusion follows? 67.100.185.234 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just gonna weigh in and say that AcidSkater's reasoning seems perfectly valid to me and I don't understand how you can't comprehend it.  Despite what Pika may want to claim, Jon Stewart deactivated from the brotherhood and distanced himself from the fraternity.  He did not stay active, he did not graduate as a Pika, he does not consider himself a brother.  Thus, Pika is only hanging on to him for the publicity.  What's the problem in the logic that the list should note the fact that there is a dispute in his status? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.1.2 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you were previously involved in edit warring with the intent to remove Stewart from the list completely several times, it's not a surprise to find this is your position on the matter.  That said, I have no problem at all comprehending AcidSkater's argument.  My contention is that the information should be properly included in the biographical article on Stewart and not in a list of the fraternity's members since he is considered, without challenge, a member in good standing.  There is no source that confirms either an actual disassociation or a want to do so by Stewart.  The source cited (and the many like it that appear in a Google search) are tertiary sources, which are themselves thrown into question by contradiction from a primary source (Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity), none of which make any mention of a disassociation at all.  I have no doubt that some statement or acts gave rise to the notion that Stewart "left after 6 months," but no verifiable information has been cited to that end.  Again, more importantly, such information would have its place in the Jon Stewart article, not the Pi Kappa Alpha article's list of prominent members; no more here than, as I wrote, noting that a particular member was either very active or active only in the fraternity's social scene. 67.100.185.234 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you fail to comprehend the simple fact that Pika has nothing to lose by claiming this man as a brother?  If I had a transcript of the part of his speech at William and Mary where he told a Pika brother, "Fuck off, you're no brother of mine," I would gladly cite it right now.  However, there is no said transcript.  I realize that the Stewart article could discuss his disassociation, but by claiming him an out right brother on the list, you are providing false information to the circumstances of his status in the fraternity.  As this site serves to perform an encyclopedic function, blatant falsehoods in articles should not be permitted.  Or do you advocate lying in the Wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrandedKSig (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PiKA has nothing to lose by claiming him as a brother (except perhaps some dignity, depending on your perspective) and, no, I don't fail to comprehend anything.  While I suggest you review Wikipedia's civility program, the fact of the matter is that Stewart did become a brother of the fraternity.  He did become an alumnus member of the fraternity by graduation and never disassociating from the fraternity.  As no such transcript, nor apparently any record whatsoever, of any conversation like the one you have described exists, there's no reason to even think that Stewart actually said such a thing.  Any discussion of his dissatisfaction with the fraternity should be discussed in his article and not here. 67.100.185.234 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has, but it seems 70.61.253.50 has taken it out as well as other information. I will be putting that information back into the list. I think a mediation may be helpful as well. Acidskater 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright.  I appreciate the help Acid. Jmlk17   09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with mediation.  I was trying to let the issue just dissipate but I have no idea why the rules of fact-based information need to be superceded simply because it's a Greek Rush page.  I'm not trying to point fingers because the vast majority of the Pikes have been pretty fair about it, but I don't think it's fair that Jon Stewart be listed without some sort of asterisk or disclaimer.  Jimmy Buffet, for example, was listed as a Sigma Pi pledge at Auburn, but it's noted that he later went on to pledge and initiate into Kappa Sigma at Southern Mississippi.  Couldn't the same thing be done for Jon? StrandedKSig 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After going over everything it seems a mediation really isn't required. This fact is cited and as it pertains to Pi Kappa Alpha it should stay. The editors disputing the fact being kept in the page were unregistered users and they have seemed to let it go. If they were to come back and complain more then a mediation would need to take place, but it seems that all registered users that have contributed to this dispute have all taken the same side of keeping the fact as long as it is cited, which has been now for sometime. Acidskater 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you guys are so desperate to include him among your ranks that you're going against documented fact that he left the fraternity.  I thought we were supposed to treat the Greek pages as if they WEREN'T rush pages and use facts and not opinions in these pages.  It's really sad that corners are cut and special treatment is doled out as long as it makes a long-term contributor look better.  Really sad, indeed. StrandedKSig 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:CITE this statement will stay. As Jon Stewart is a notable living person and is included among notable alumni for Pi Kappa Alpha through it's listings he will stay in the list. Also as Stewart disassociating himself from Pi Kappa Alpha is a cited claim it shall stay as well. This is not a rush brochure or a page to bash Pi Kappa Alpha, this is an encyclopedic page which states facts. The fact is Stewart is considered a brother of Pi Kappa Alpha but dissassociates himself from it. Acidskater 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any kind of notation on the article that Stewart's standing with the fraternity has been called into question or that his disappointment in the fraternity has been cited.  You said that would stay, but all the article shows is that Jon Stewart continues to be a brother in good standing.  Screw it, Pika's a waste of time - always has been, always will be. StrandedKSig 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would anyone waste time wanting to be a Pike?  I was simply pointing out the legacy of Pika - lying and then trying to cover it up.  Pathetic...StrandedKSig 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Stewart 

message: The highlighted segment below has been removed from the article.  Pi Kappa Alpha confirms that Stewart is currently an alumnus member of the fraternity in good standing.  Therefore, I would characterize the highlighted segment as misleading and, moreover, not encyclopedic and irrelevant.  I have removed it and included it here for discussion per content deletion guidelines in accordence with the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
* Jon Stewart - actor, Daily Show Host (left after 6 months, purportedly due to hazing-related events)
67.100.185.234 05:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Keep - It is a sourced statement showing that he disassociates himself with the fraternity even though they still recognize him as a brother. I am putting it back up because it is encyclopedic as well as sourced. If this edit is reverted I will be contacting an administrator to set semi-protection for the page because there have been way too many revert wars on this little section. Acidskater 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not intended to be a straw poll so there is no reason to vote to keep or not.  The fact of the matter is that it is not encyclopedic because the section is a list of members.  The specific circumstances of Stewart's relationship with the fraternity is not relevant to his being a member.  The place for such information is the article Jon Stewart.  The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is an overriding reason to include the information despite its non-encyclopedic nature.  Furthermore, there is no revert war in progress.  Rather, you simply disagree with my reasoning per your argument above.  I would caution you about seeking administrative involvement, however, as you have violated 3RR on this article (I have no intention of seeking anyone's involvement on the matter).  Hopefully, we will have comments from other interested parties shortly. 67.100.185.234 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source is questionable since a primary source directly contradicts it.  It also makes no mention of Stewart disassociating as you have suggested, nor does any other source I am able to find. 67.100.185.234 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a revert war and you said it yourself (3RR means 3 Revert Rule, even though I had 2 reverts in this particular matter). This statement is needed because while he may be considered a brother still he does not associate himself with the Pi Kappa Alpha. To me this statement follows WP:NOT and WP:LIVING, so in order for it to be deleted you need to prove why it doesn't fit them. Acidskater 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your reasoning, the information should be included in the article on Stewart and not on this article.  I agree with that assessment.  Aside from the fact that the sources are contradictory and make no mention of disassociation at all, I do not find how Stewart's personal feelings about the fraternity and his individually determined relationship with it has encyclopedic relevance in a list of its members.  It is comparable in such relevance to stating that one member was a very active brother while another joined it just for the social scene benefits.  What specific language in the policies you've cited do you contend the inclusion follows? 67.100.185.234 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just gonna weigh in and say that AcidSkater's reasoning seems perfectly valid to me and I don't understand how you can't comprehend it.  Despite what Pika may want to claim, Jon Stewart deactivated from the brotherhood and distanced himself from the fraternity.  He did not stay active, he did not graduate as a Pika, he does not consider himself a brother.  Thus, Pika is only hanging on to him for the publicity.  What's the problem in the logic that the list should note the fact that there is a dispute in his status? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.1.2 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you were previously involved in edit warring with the intent to remove Stewart from the list completely several times, it's not a surprise to find this is your position on the matter.  That said, I have no problem at all comprehending AcidSkater's argument.  My contention is that the information should be properly included in the biographical article on Stewart and not in a list of the fraternity's members since he is considered, without challenge, a member in good standing.  There is no source that confirms either an actual disassociation or a want to do so by Stewart.  The source cited (and the many like it that appear in a Google search) are tertiary sources, which are themselves thrown into question by contradiction from a primary source (Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity), none of which make any mention of a disassociation at all.  I have no doubt that some statement or acts gave rise to the notion that Stewart "left after 6 months," but no verifiable information has been cited to that end.  Again, more importantly, such information would have its place in the Jon Stewart article, not the Pi Kappa Alpha article's list of prominent members; no more here than, as I wrote, noting that a particular member was either very active or active only in the fraternity's social scene. 67.100.185.234 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you fail to comprehend the simple fact that Pika has nothing to lose by claiming this man as a brother?  If I had a transcript of the part of his speech at William and Mary where he told a Pika brother, "Fuck off, you're no brother of mine," I would gladly cite it right now.  However, there is no said transcript.  I realize that the Stewart article could discuss his disassociation, but by claiming him an out right brother on the list, you are providing false information to the circumstances of his status in the fraternity.  As this site serves to perform an encyclopedic function, blatant falsehoods in articles should not be permitted.  Or do you advocate lying in the Wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrandedKSig (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PiKA has nothing to lose by claiming him as a brother (except perhaps some dignity, depending on your perspective) and, no, I don't fail to comprehend anything.  While I suggest you review Wikipedia's civility program, the fact of the matter is that Stewart did become a brother of the fraternity.  He did become an alumnus member of the fraternity by graduation and never disassociating from the fraternity.  As no such transcript, nor apparently any record whatsoever, of any conversation like the one you have described exists, there's no reason to even think that Stewart actually said such a thing.  Any discussion of his dissatisfaction with the fraternity should be discussed in his article and not here. 67.100.185.234 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think it has, but it seems 70.61.253.50 has taken it out as well as other information. I will be putting that information back into the list. I think a mediation may be helpful as well. Acidskater 06:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright.  I appreciate the help Acid. Jmlk17   09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stewart "left after 6 months"

message: Does anyone think we should perhaps bring in a mediation on this?  I'm probably going to somewhat distance myself from this argument for the one key fact: I'm a Pike.  I must admit that I have researched this entire issue, and I keep finding more and more information that is contrary to each side.  I can only find "facts" about certain key parts, and I no longer am convinced of either side.  I would appreciate it if someone could comment on a possible mediation on this whole issue.  Thanks. Jmlk17 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with mediation.  I was trying to let the issue just dissipate but I have no idea why the rules of fact-based information need to be superceded simply because it's a Greek Rush page.  I'm not trying to point fingers because the vast majority of the Pikes have been pretty fair about it, but I don't think it's fair that Jon Stewart be listed without some sort of asterisk or disclaimer.  Jimmy Buffet, for example, was listed as a Sigma Pi pledge at Auburn, but it's noted that he later went on to pledge and initiate into Kappa Sigma at Southern Mississippi.  Couldn't the same thing be done for Jon? StrandedKSig 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After going over everything it seems a mediation really isn't required. This fact is cited and as it pertains to Pi Kappa Alpha it should stay. The editors disputing the fact being kept in the page were unregistered users and they have seemed to let it go. If they were to come back and complain more then a mediation would need to take place, but it seems that all registered users that have contributed to this dispute have all taken the same side of keeping the fact as long as it is cited, which has been now for sometime. Acidskater 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that you guys are so desperate to include him among your ranks that you're going against documented fact that he left the fraternity.  I thought we were supposed to treat the Greek pages as if they WEREN'T rush pages and use facts and not opinions in these pages.  It's really sad that corners are cut and special treatment is doled out as long as it makes a long-term contributor look better.  Really sad, indeed. StrandedKSig 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:CITE this statement will stay. As Jon Stewart is a notable living person and is included among notable alumni for Pi Kappa Alpha through it's listings he will stay in the list. Also as Stewart disassociating himself from Pi Kappa Alpha is a cited claim it shall stay as well. This is not a rush brochure or a page to bash Pi Kappa Alpha, this is an encyclopedic page which states facts. The fact is Stewart is considered a brother of Pi Kappa Alpha but dissassociates himself from it. Acidskater 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see any kind of notation on the article that Stewart's standing with the fraternity has been called into question or that his disappointment in the fraternity has been cited.  You said that would stay, but all the article shows is that Jon Stewart continues to be a brother in good standing.  Screw it, Pika's a waste of time - always has been, always will be. StrandedKSig 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would anyone waste time wanting to be a Pike?  I was simply pointing out the legacy of Pika - lying and then trying to cover it up.  Pathetic...StrandedKSig 19:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation re; Jon Stewart?

message: I appreciate that everyone feels their own chapter is special, but in order to meet Wiki criteria for inclusion, there needs to be some citable and verifiable notability present to be listed on the main page.  A list of every chapter found at every school is overkill and redundant - it can be found on the source's website.  Portia327 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Chapters 

message: There are no citations listed for the possible membership of all those people, beyond what's listed on the fraternity's website.  That website is not a true source as accepted by Wiki.  Editors need to find a reliable source for membership that meets the requirements of WP:BLP; then feel free to put the person back on the page in a manner acceptable to Wiki editing standards.  Likewise, the list is found on the website and so would be redundant and unencyclopedic if reproduced in whole here. Portia327 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a false argument, and I've removed the list.  Just because some other page has it doesn't make it right.  Please find a reliable source. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Pikes 

message: The Fighting Gravity group from this season's America's Got Talent should be added. They're Pikes from Virginia Tech and are one of the favorites to with AGT this year, and they have millions of fans on social networking sites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.232.91 (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting Gravity 

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.pka.com/infoCenter/about/content.aspx?item=navigable/about/history.xml (http://web.archive.org/web/20050103011931/www.pka.org/webhis.html). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  MLauba (Talk) 14:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: The total chapters and colonies needs to be changed from 280 to 220 to mirror that of the national website which states correctly, "Chapters & Colonies: More than 220 groups across the United States & Canada".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAWebb (talk • contribs) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needed Revisions 

message: Less than a year ago, this page was 40 times longer than it is now. What's the official explanation for this. As a current member of this fraternity I have a huge issue with the fact that such a large organization can just lose its entire wikipedia page instantaneously for no reason. This page was a huge tool for me when deciding where I was going to pledge. I really hope that this can be fixed in time for young men to properly see what this fraternity has to offer. TheGreatFratsby (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essentially Deleted? 

message: News, Art, and Entertainment
Virginia Tech   Epsilon Chapter    Fighting Gravity Entertainment Group
-was finalists on America's got Talent and now tours internationally
74.107.164.64 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 5 July 2012 

message: Police: Student Suffers Alcohol Poisoning After Frat Hands Out Alcoholic Enemas
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/09/25/police-student-suffers-alcohol-poisoning-after-frat-hands-out-alcoholic-enemas/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.21.3.11 (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 25 September 2012 

message: Under influential alumni in Government I'd like to see Karl Rove, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff (2005-2007), from Alpha Tau at University of Utah, as well as Ibra C. Blackwood, Former Governor of South Carolina (1931-1935), from Nu Chapter at Wofford College.
WestBellTower1891 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now:; you have provided no reliable source references for either of those individuals, and neither of their articles has a reference verifying their membership in this fraternity. The source used to verify most of the names on this article is currently not working; if the link starts working again or if you can provide another reliable source reference please provide it and reactivate this request. Thank you. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 4 October 2012 

message: First, look at all the references.  This article is more or less a spokesperson for Pike with disseminating contents from their own site which basically speaks of it in the way they want. We need to add sources that discuss PKA in significant depth, from third party sources. Even if controversial issues are negative, they do fit the criteria.  Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The difficulty in this comes from the fact that the most accessible sources discussing items like the fraternity's history are their own materials, such as their website and pledge handbook. I do agree that the fact the majority of the information presented is from PIKE themselves, but it is all factual, verifiable information. The only issue is verifying it with accessible sources. I've gone ahead and placed the list of notable alumni on their own page. List of Pi Kappa Alpha brothers Dylanstaley (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If there isn't considerable published material about the organization from independent sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia. This applies to companies, organizations, fraternities, student clubs, and what not. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: balancing out

message: Hello Dylanstaley, in this edit I discovered that you're a member of this particular frat and the prose "so I took it upon myself as a brother of PIKE to restore it to a respectable state." appears to indicate substantial COI I strongly encourages disclosure of your potential COI Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure of conflict of interest

message: As it stands currently, the Ritual section makes absolutely no attempt to discuss the Ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, and instead sensationalizes an isolated incident of hazing. The actions described are not a part of the ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, and we should not make attempts to justify their inclusion as such. Unless we can add more information about the actual Ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, which is near impossible considering that it is a closely guarded secret, I believe we should completely remove the section. Dylanstaley (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we describe whats "isoalted" and what isn't? This is something that has been reliably published in multiple books. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By "isolated" I mean it isn't a ritual event that was performed by a significant portion of the fraternity, and as such shouldn't be considered part of the fraternity's ritual. Dylanstaley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. From the weight policy page. I don't find that association of hazing as a fraternity ritual as a minority viewpoint. Due Undue weight evaluation is more challenging than i was expecting though. PKA eventually established anti-hazing policies which says something on its own. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual Section 

message: There clearly is no consensus for the hazing material that you added.  One editor has tagged it and I have removed it.  Itis undue weight to mention one incident like this in an organisation of over 250,000.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hazing

message: I also feel that this WP:COI reversion by user Dylanstaley is highly controverisal given his prior statement of close affiliation and strong exhibition of skewed view in this edit " I noticed that the article was seriously lacking, so I took it upon myself as a brother of PIKE to restore it to a respectable state". So, after it was blanked for copyvio, he directly edited in significant amount, taking it upon himself as a brother, based on Pike self published materials rather than use {request edit} through a neutral party.  I think this means dissemination of cherry picked desirable public relations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be better if Dylanstayley had asked a neutral editor to add material.  This article must be neither promotion nor critical but present a balance view of the organisation as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: substantial editing by closely affiliated editor

message: Was Jesus Christ seriously a founding father?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.97.28 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did Pi Kappa Alpha have a chapter at the University of Nazareth 2000 years ago? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus Christ 

message: I fully support the inclusion of the 1964 change (and with more accuracy if possible as discussed above). But it perhaps would be better if the 1964 change was part of the paragraph before it and the Howard University situation was in a paragraph by itself.Naraht (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on Racial change. 

message: According to the Wikipedia page for lead paragraphs, the lead is an introduction and summary of the most important points of the subject of the page. A summary is a brief statement about the main points of something. The article is fairly short with the history, Rituals, Shield & Diamond, and Foundational and Educational programs, and one single sentence about the past racial restrictions. The last sentence in the article is about the past racial restrictions of the fraternity, abolished in 1964 as has been determined in the Talk page. The inclusion of this statement gives undue weight to this unimportant fact about the organization. As an unaffiliated person, this seems more than unnecessary but prejudicial to an organization of over 200,000 people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.244.186 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems there are a number of sources for which the facts around PKA's racist history is not "unimportant" and we use the sources to determine weight, not our own opinions. I also don't think there is policy that calls for special treatment for organizations with lots of members. Jojalozzo 02:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP's statement is also slightly misleading, as the sentence about racial segregation was part of a larger paragraph about the issue. For matters of WP:DUE weight, it is good to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources. If these sources emphasize that Pi Kappa Alpha was segregated until 1964, that should be included. It's certainly not the only example of racism in the fraternity's history. I've just added another one, and that was after a very brief search. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of racism clause 

message: The statement that the ritual comes from the IOOF is from Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies By Christopher Hodapp, Alice Von Kannon (https://books.google.com/books?id=4htx62wIXIgC&pg=PA256 ) Would it be reasonable to challenge this on RSN?Naraht (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory & Secret Societies as a Reliable Source. 

message: Correction to reference that assault at University of Mississippi was part of initiation activities.  1) Initiations are ceremonies. 2) These five individuals were immediately expelled from the chapter using the judicial process allowed per the chapter bylaws and the fraternity's constitution. 3) This was a wrongful act committed by individuals.  The university of Mississippi found the chapter was not hazing and these individuals acted on their own.Gudgeon87 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles reflect reliable sources with a strong preference for secondary sources. The brief, boilerplate press release from the fraternity isn't a secondary source for info about the fraternity, and it didn't really support anything about the University's findings. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Organized hazing is an important qualifier. A student faces hazing charges, and sources support that the incident was connected to hazing as a behavior. The article now reflects that the fraternity cut ties with the students, so any further elaboration seems undue. I believe that both of those links should be considered the same source, since they share the same headline and are both derived from an Associated Press blurb issued at roughly the same time. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol and Hazing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pi Kappa Alpha. 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/20120324093235/http://www.davidson.edu/student/organizations/pika/ to http://www.davidson.edu/student/organizations/pika/
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) 08:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A bloated section had been expanded to take up half of this article, under the heading "Controversies and sexual assault cases."  I don't mind framing the good and the bad about any of these organizations in an article, but WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT should be considered; too much of the article was a recitation of individual chapter failings, often leading to suspensions or closures over a 50 year span. Yet every day, hundreds of chapters and many thousands of members go about their daily activities, innocent of these failings. Hence, on the balance, I think these individual chapter notes should be inserted as references adjacent to any list of chapters, either active or closed, possibly closed for cause. 
Is there a place for a Controversies section in a fraternity article?  Sure.  Some of these events were tragic, some annoying and reflective of dumb decisions by collegians but not criminal. Some occurred decades ago.  My instinct is that a section like this ought to be included where the events are:
#Systemic; if a national fraternity is discovered to somehow support hazing or abuse. 
#Notable, where an event garners its own Wikipedia page or is otherwise national news, like the Duke lacrosse case. --Later found to be fraudulent.
#The cause of state or national legislation, such as Ohio's tightening of hazing laws, or the development of a named law in reaction to a scandal or worse, a death. For example, the DePauw discrimination fiasco
#The cause of a death, in a criminal hazing event. Such as at Chi Tau (local)
Editors, your thoughts?  Jax MN (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest that a separate chapter list page be developed, and that these incidents, and their references, be inserted as refnotes adjacent to each chapter.  They provide valid detail about events at specific chapters; none appear to show systemic failings by Pi Kappa Alpha national.  Jax MN (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not an expert in Wikipedia's policies on controversy sections, so keep that in mind. I think that any incidents which resulted in deaths should be moved to List of hazing deaths in the United States, though after a quick skim through both lists "In March 2015, the chapter at the University of South Carolina was suspended after a Pike member was found dead in a private home near campus that had beer kegs and St. Patrick Day decorations on the porch. The Richland County Coroner's Office called it a "suspicious death".[26]" appears to be missing. If any significant material or references are missing, I would also move that there. As for content in the article itself, I wouldn't want to deemphasize the pain of any victims of local chapter actions, but I also concede that a list that large does conflict with proportion and weight policies as you mentioned. Perhaps the most constructive option would be to condense the section into about a paragraph or so of the most common factors of incidents specific to this fraternity, and then also a paragraph about the most significant incidents. As an inclusionist, I'd personally like to just move this whole thing to a separate article as is (And then simply link to that from here, solving the weight and proportion issue with minimal effort), but I realize that's unlikely to pass muster with current prevailing Wikipedian culture and is thus an untenable solution. --Mbrickn (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

text: It is a very long list indeed. At the very least, I think some do deserve to be included in the article, notably criminal incidents, inlcuding the recent death of Stone Foltz. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've gone ahead and restored this section, but only kept the most notable incidents (IE: Confirmed Deaths, Sexual assults, and general large news stories), and noted that these are on a local level rather than a national level. I agree that they belong on more specific pages, but until such pages exist, I think simply deleting well written, cited material of interest to the reader is not a solution either. --Mbrickn (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your decision completely and I like the way you handled it. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this step, prior to creation of a list of chapters.  Gotta say also, I like the heading choice of "Local Chapter Misconduct" far better than "Controversies."  I will borrow that for other articles. Jax MN (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies and sexual assault cases 

message: The statement was added that the chapter at U of Missouri (in Columbia, Missouri) is North of the Mason Dixon Line. I reverted that. The Mason Dixon Line is north of there, Columbia, Missouri is actually at the same Latitude as Annapolis Maryland.Naraht (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia Missouri