Talk:Kappa Sigma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Kappa Sigma is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Largest Fraternity? 2 The "early history" 3 Attention 4 Beta Delta Chapter 5 Restructuring of History section 6 Notable Kappa Sigs 7 added to main page 8 Kappa Sigma Fraternity?? 9 Sister Sorority 10 Restructuring of Chapter List 11 Star and Crescent 12 History ReWrite 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Jimmy buffet.jpg 14 images 15 List of Kappa Sigma Men of the Year 16 Primary Sources 17 Ritual 18 Feb 20 rev 19 Future Additions 20 dues 21 Recent Protection 22 Religious Requirement 23 Guards as EC

[edit] Largest Fraternity?

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

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

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

I am not sure where you get your information from, but according to the sources. Kappa Sigma has 304 Chapters, TKE has 269, and Sip Ep has 260.

According to Kappa Sig's own website, they state they have 234. I have no idea where you got that 304 from. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 01:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe he's confusing the Chapter Roll number for the number of existing chapters. The Chapter Roll number is at 304. Unfortunately, some of these chapters no longer exist. For instance, Alpha-Theta over at Union University. From my understanding, the Chapter Roll number records the historical total of Kappa Sigma chapters / colonies -- how many ever existed. This number does not decrease. Thus, the next new chapter that forms will be considered the 305th. However, 234 is the current number of chapters across the United States and Canada. I hope this clears up any confusion. - USLeatherneck 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The "early history"

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

I'm pretty confused by all of this, because according to this page at MIT's chapter's site, Kappa Sigma is "founded in the spirit of," not "directly descended from." It seems almost cut and dry that it's not true, but...who knows?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

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

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

[edit] Beta Delta Chapter

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

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

[edit] Restructuring of History section

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

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

[edit] Notable Kappa Sigs

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

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

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

I agree. I'll investigate this further. Which ever I delete, I'll post here just so that one does not mistake it for vandalism. - USLeatherneck 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted 3 names (Chip Walton, Charlie Kautz, and Matt Burunoff) from the list. I believe more names in red should be deleted unless there's citation or they match national's Notable Kappa Sigma list. Of course, exceptions will be made, including John Covert Boyd. - USLeatherneck 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] added to main page

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

[edit] Kappa Sigma Fraternity??

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sister Sorority

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

• No responses so I am going ahead and removing this reference. QuinnHK 07:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• I'd put it in trivia - as a lot of campuses do not have a Chi Omega chapter.
• Chi Omega is a Women's Fraternity, not a sorority, so how can it be a, "Sister Sorority," to any group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PikeBoy (talk • contribs) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Restructuring of Chapter List

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

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

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

[edit] Star and Crescent

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

I'm not a Kappa Sig so i don't know if it is or not so i haven't been messing with it. If it is or is considered by most members to be then it should stay off but if its open then its good info that needs to stay in. Any Kappa Sigs that can shed some light on this? I'd like to know one way or the otherTrey 23:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Star & Crescent is not a secret, it's more of a defining statement of what it means to be a Kappa Sigma brother ... a "what's in store for you becoming a member." Many fraternity articles shed light on this subject, defining obligations - roles - and character traits 'shared' by the existing brothers. The Star & Crescent is no different - it's just given a title and organized different (instead of bullet listing, etc).

Many things of any fraternity nowadays are no longer "secret." Society is teaching people to be cautious (conservative), by gathering information on a certain subject before devoting one's self interest. I am sure there are certain things that are still kept in confidence (handshakes, codes, etc), but as for obligations, moral codes, and so on, fraternities have made public. D-Hell-pers 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To Add-

Much of the removal of the Star & Crescent has been done by IP addresses, instead of named editors. This is more/less a clear sign of a vandalist. IP addresses can be harder to block, as many potential editors can be blocked with a single IP (take for instance shared internet at schools/college & universities/work areas). Now compare this to an editor, or someone with a wikipedia name/call-sign. An editor has a discussion page, where he/she can be warned immediately, and if neccessary, can be blocked. This block will single out that particular editor, with a temporary 1-3 day block to the IP address (this temporary block may be lifted quickly by following notes left on the discussion page of editors sharing the IP). Singling out a particular editors allows for wikipedia to keep those editors who are adding to the overall cause of the wiki- project, and try to rid of those with negative impacts. For this reason, "editors" (names, not IP addresses) tend to be more of a positive influence, where IP addresses are 50/50 for destructive/positive contributions.

So, for future reference- revisions to any article by an IP address should be scrutinized, espicially for removal/obnoxious additions. This is a quick and easy way to detect vandalism. D-Hell-pers 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Well thanks for your help. I too am working on protection of (5) fraternities now. As a newer editor, i am trying to start small and work my way up to a large watchlist.

As for the Star & Crescent, does your other(s) fraternity(ies) have a similar posting of public knowledge, as mentioned above in my first explanation (whatever it may be called). D-Hell-pers 04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] History ReWrite

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

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Jimmy buffet.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] images

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

[edit] List of Kappa Sigma Men of the Year

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

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

[edit] Primary Sources

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Ritual

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Feb 20 rev

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

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

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

[edit] Future Additions

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

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

[edit] dues

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

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

[edit] Recent Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Religious Requirement

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

• I don't think there would be a problem with that if you could cite some record that proves that that's the case. Do you have a reference? As far as the history, I don't think there is one. It's just the way things have always been. Jason (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Of course there is a history. Many fraternities once discriminated against Jews and/or Blacks but no longer do; this fraternity is probably not an exception. (If it is such an exception, that is extremely notable.)Qwerty08642 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would kind of hope there would be better references than those two (one to a primarily anonymous forum and one to a 4 line blurb from 1982) to make such a change. Perhaps some sort of more recent press coverage, or a response/ explanation/ etc from the Fraternity itself... I would have to say without better references I would be opposed to the addition. Jheiv (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• While shorter than ideal, the NY Times piece is a perfectly valid source. The other source merely confirms it. (Is it wrong?) A "response/ explanation/ etc from the Fraternity itself" would be very welcome, but I couldn't find anything on their website. If they have something, it should be summarized here.Qwerty08642 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I moved the section into the recent history section. I think it fits better and is also more appropriate (and neutral) to place it in the history section rather than the Philosophy section.--Enos733 (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the recent Enos edit portrays the situation most appropriately. Nice work. Jheiv (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have no problem with putting this in the history section if you can cite a relevant, official non-discrimination policy. But the previous edit left it unclear as to what was being refused. I've tried to fix that. We should not revert to a version that leaves that confusing.Qwerty08642 (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I took out the inappropriate blockquote -- it was unnecessary, poorly formatted, and looked out of place. The referenced article has the quote, in fact, thats almost the entirety of the article -- a blockquote is unnecessary. I left the fact tag for the next sentence -- you are right, that should be referenced. Jheiv (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• The paraphrase was mostly fine, but to make sense it needed to explain just what was refused. I've added a brief explanation. Readers can indeed go to the referenced article if they want the rest.Qwerty08642 (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The reference to this at all is inappropriate and unsupported. The article referenced only says that Stanford's charter was withdrawn for not using the entire ritual ceremony. Nowhere in that article does it say that there is any "religious requirement" as is indicated in the language used in the Recent History section. Clearly whoever is posting/edting this material is not a member of Kappa Sigma, as anyone who is involved with the Fraternity knows that there is nothing in the Ritual or otherwise that discriminates against "non-Christians" as indicated in the NYT article blurb. I would suggest that this mate3rial be removed from the page in its entirety. KSigDowntown (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely agree. This has been troubling me since it was added. As I said before, I'm not convinced there is enough detail in the NYT article to verify any claim other than the Stanford charter was revoked. If a third person else agrees, I'll remove it, and make sure Qwerty doesn't keep adding it. Jheiv (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree as well. There is nothing in the ritual or any history that specifies Christianity over any other religion. The focus is on theists and that's as specific as it gets. Jason (talk) 05:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• The mention has been removed per the discussion consensus.Jheiv (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Guards as EC

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

• A chapter's Executive Committee should consist only of the five officers--Grand Master, Grand Procurator, Grand Master of Ceremonies, Grand Scribe and Grand Treasurer. Guards, while they may be elected in some chapters, are not considered members of a chapter's Executive Committee. This is noted countless places, including in Bononia Docet and the COnstitution, By-Laws and Rules. KSigDowntown (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• CBR Article 4 Section 7:

Chapter Officers. Each Chapter shall elect a Grand Master, Grand Procurator, Grand Master of Ceremonies, Grand Scribe, and Grand Treasurer, who shall constitute the Chapter Executive Committee. They shall respectively have such powers and perform such duties as may be provided in the By-Laws and Rules. Jheiv (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's settled. Jheiv (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is not as clear as the Constitution of Kappa Sigma suggests. Section 4 of the bylaws states that Guards are officers of the fraternity. --Enos733 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Article 5 Section 4 of the Bylaws doesn't mention the executive committee, just officers, and also includes Assistant Grand Treasurers and Scribes... I think its most appropriate to mention the EC, otherwise there could be an argument to name committee chairs, etc. Jheiv (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)