Talk:Washington College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Important Alumni

what criteria makes some alumni more important than others? either put none or all on the front page. WillC 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

Is it possible, now that most of the discussion is over and terms are reached for further editing are clarified, that we can delete some of this mess? D-Hell-pers 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraternities on campus

Ths issue concerning the fraternities is simple- both the 'Phi Delts' and 'KAs' were found guilty of hazing ... they admitted to it (Spring 2005)! The following Fall, a bunch of guys came together and decided to make another fraternity, the current colony and soon to be chartered Kappa Sigma. Reasons for making this group vary, however, the general consensus was to make a group that did not view hazing as a ritualistic pledging process and to actually follow the fraternities guidelines (something the other male fraternities on campus should learn to do). Pledges from both the Phi Delts as well as the KAs that turned their back on the fraternities for their lies and unfulfilled obligations to the members made this group for fun, ACADEMICS and community workship, not just parties and hazing opportunities.

Documentation is provided for the NON-BIASED correction made on the article about the male fraternities, with cited information proved. If you can find other material stating otherwise, by all means please correct the information provided. Until that time, leave your biased opinion off of this article and take your business elsewhere.D-Hell-pers 18:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir,

I note that your citation is of an article about the fraternities you mentioned RETURNING to their housing after correcting their errors, not losing it. The article as it exists by your alteration is biased towards Kappa Sigma. The latest correction is unbiased. Please do not alter it. Both Kappa Alpha Order and Phi Delta Theta have worked very hard with their respective national headquarters since the incidents to correct the errors of their ways.

Your comments here are EXTREMELY biased - I believe that KAs and Phi Delts who are here on academic scholarships would be very dissapointed to read that Kappa Sigma, which hopes to become part of the greek community at Washington College, looks down upon them as people who are interested in nothing but "parties and hazing opportunities".

It might interest you to know that members of KA and Phi Delta Theta serve as editors of the Collegian and the Elm, are members of honor societies, are involved in both sports and academic opportunities on campus, and complete many hours of community service per year. Phi Delta Theta just hosted a dry superbowl party open to the whole campus in their house in an effort to provide a safe place for people to watch the game without alcohol.

If you can provide documented evidence that both fraternities still haze, despite the feelings of the college, which gave them back housing (I quote the source that YOU provided- "Both groups worked hard to get their housing back," said Park. "I am very optimistic that they will create a good, solid community within the larger [WC] community."), and their national organizations, which took both chapters off probation, please present it. Until then, please leave the article as it is - Kappa Sigma is acknowledged, as are the hazing incidents, but without any bias towards either side.

Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.42.39 (talk • contribs) 10:52, February 5, 2007

I have reviewed your edit, and found that you have re-instated biases.

First, these were not 'allegations' for they were not accusations. Both groups plead guilty, don't cheapen it and make it sound like they were un-reasonably accused for something they didn't do. They were punished because they DID break campus policies and they DID haze their pledges. You sound as if you know the groups well, so we do not have to go into details what they DID do their pledges.

Secondly, if you want to criticize on biases, then state the facts. Probation was over, and neither fraternity screwed up (or at least, were not turned in again for screwing up) during their probational period. As was stated by their probational specifics, they got their housing back by default. If their behavior was so great, they would have had their probation cut short.

Lastly, the previous edition before your edit was not biased toward Kappa Sigma. In the fall after the fraternal incidents, a group came together (composed of former pledges of Kappa Alpha and Phi Delta Theta, as well as supporters for a true, non-hazing, pro-academic fraternity to be established). Looking at fraternal specifics, Kappa Sigma holds the highest GPA of all male fraternities. As a former pledge of one of the two groups, I can state many reasons why this is so: during my pledge process, instead of studying I was out being hazed - scavenger hunts, high consumption of drinking (many times making myself and my fellow pledges to upchuck many times), etc etc etc keeping me out well into the A.M.; having to run errands for established brothers; and my personal favorite- having to choose, many times, whether to study for an exam/do my homework or continue my pledging. Being a good sport about it, I took this abuse until I got smart and asked myself why? When I told the fraternity I was leaving and asked for my money back since the chapter did not follow it's national guidelines, I helped turn in the fraternity when I was denied.

I believe ... I know that non-biasy has been re-established. I kept some of your edits, but deleted the "ahh, they are super terrific" crap that was tagged along.

Thanks for your insight and help though. D-Hell-pers 18:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will not continue to argue whatever bias you may hold.. I was not involved in whatever hazing you may have gone through, as I joined after the fact, found all hazing to be eliminated by the hard work of the existing brothers (which included the expulsion of those who would not comply to the new standards) and I have worked and continue to work hard to rebuild the fraternity I am proud to be a part of.

As you say, I am familiar with both organizations (although after the fact of the hazing incidents), as well as their efforts to correct the errors of the past, and I can assure you that, in fact, the governing bodies of both fraternities do not make it easy to come off of probation; hence the original exemplary wording. Both have specifically created disciplanary arms and action programs for dealing with hazing, and both fulfilled the rigorous improvements and reworkings required of them. However, I will not argue the point.

I hope that in the future, all four fraternities can move towards less mistrust of one another and closer to the true meaning of Greek fraternity as a positive influence on campus and in the lives of its members. I, for one, have many friends in Kappa Sigma who do not share your obvious (and somewhat understandable, considering your description of what you went through) hatred of KA and PDT and their members despite knowing little about their current status and new members, and I look forward to the day when you all recieve your full place in the Greek structure at Washington College. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.42.39 (talk • contribs) 14:24, February 5, 2007

I too have those friends. Like I mentioned, the group was not all former pledges. The group could be split into factions, however, we all share a common goal. I have moved on from hatred and onto openmindedness, finding ways to improve the campus fraternal programs. If what you say is true, then my sacrafice has made way for your enjoyment, as it has for many new pledges. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Hell-pers 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hazing

one thing you forget in all of this....it actually happened. don't sugar coat it. WillC 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

exactly my point Will C. I have moved on from hatred, I am better than that ... I am better than those who are responsible for the actions that brought so much discredit to both groups. I was always taught to stand up for my beliefs, and never settle for less. One's actions do make a difference, and although I may have had to been put through hell for the rest of my stay at Washington College, I am happy to report that I started a movement that may have set the fraternities straight on campus (from what 209.____.___ mentions). The point is, IT Happened! And I seemed to be one of the few strong enough maturely and emotional to make a change for the better. D-Hell-pers 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please post credible sources for claims of this caliber. The current citation does not make any claim as to why two Washington College fraternities initially lost their fraternity housing. If you can properly cite your claims, by all means, follow through with them. Until then, stick to the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.8.166 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

141.157.8.166, before editing factual additions to this article, think to yourself .... "why in the world would not one, but two fraternities be booted from their housing, be placed on probation, and need to show that they could have it back?" It was not because the organization was becoming 'too cool' for campus and had to be split up for a period of time to lose their 'coolness,' it was their hazing crimes that was responsible for the fact. Other ###.###.#.###'s and members have discussed this fact, even on this page. Everyone knows that many fraternities still haze in all parts of this country (check their individual websites-there are many postings of where chapters have been temporariliy closed due to hazing). Edits and discussions have been held about how the groups have evolved (or at least note they have evolved) away from hazing rituals (good job guys!). Wikipedia is an excellent source for information, however, sometimes it requires users to be able to think for themselves. Try it.

For more insights, please refer to my talk page where I have continued this explanation in detail. I like feedback to all my edits, and open for discussion. However, do not touch this article when your insight falls short of reason. D-Hell-pers 13:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can think of many reasons why organizations are removed from their housing. These include but are not limited to: fire extinguisher disposal, general vandalism, malicious distruction of property, sexual misconduct, and other things. You, nor the other people editing this wiki, have shown what exactly occurred through proper citations.

It is even more suspicious to me when I read the previous edits. They started out biased, harsh, and without sources. Granted they have toned down, they are still based on these factors. Now you throw up a source that does not make ANY mention of why these organizations were thrown out of their house, just that they were, and try to claim that as a viable source. I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong. As much as you are complaining about them breaking the rules, you seem to have a very easy time doing it yourself.

Until a credible source is applied to this matter, I will continue to correct your additions to this page. Since they are not FULLY supported by credible sources, they are regarded as hearsay. You are saying "Well the newspaper says they were kicked out, obviously it was hazing". Collusion does not imply causation my friend. Until you find a credible source, this will continually be taken down.

Additionally, I will begin the process of dispute resolution through wikipedia.

And for the record D-Hell-pers, from your most recent post, it is obvious that you are a cool and intelligent man. This has been saved and quoted, and will be presented to wikipedia's arbitration hearing on this matter. Wikipedia is great because it is FACTUAL. Not based on personal insight, deception, and bullying. Which are exactly the kind of methods that have been used by me here. If you would like to use personal insight into a matter, please take this argument to a message board or forum, not an educational resource.

The term was used to prove a point. Let's for example change the wording then, for your 'benefit.' "....a group of really cool guys would not all be kicked out of housing, just because they were getting 'too cool' for the campus." And if you read those policies, only the person(s) responsible would be kicked, not an entire group of 24-guys. Nice of you to, also, not be able to read between the lines, or for that matter, general facts.

Again, multiple editors have tried to fill you (a person bias and most likely part of one of these two organizations) that these are not allegations, these are facts (not like your accusation of me being a bully-I am sorry some people have trouble understanding information). Both KA and PDT plead guilty to hazing. Like you, I will continue to edit and CORRECT other edits to represent the FACTUAL information provided by this great Wikipedia.D-Hell-pers 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line

Please consider this a final and only warning in regards to our three revert rule for all parties. I have temporarily protected the page to avoid having to block individual users - that makes dispute resolution much more difficult. I'm looking through the edit history now to familiarize myself with the dispute. Kuru ^talk 18:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

One of our core policies is verifiability. More specifically, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." In this case, is there any source that can be verified for the contested statement? I do not see anything in the cited article regarding the cause of the subject action. Kuru ^talk 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me the night and you'll have itD-Hell-pers 18:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

D-Hell-pers, in an effort to help you with citations, I have found one regarding Phi Delta Theta. If you access the Washington College Elm's website, proceed to the March 4, 2005 edition. On page 6, there is an article dealing with the Phi Delta Theta hazing incident. I have yet to find anything on the other organization however.

Please understand that I have always simply wanted factual references to claims presented here, and then to be presented in an un-biased way. Natural22 19:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, I too found this artcile. I wrote a post on your discussion. I am currently gathering the missing artciles from the college's database ASAP. The facts will be preserved, and hopefully will not be continually editted out just because members of the fraternity do not want this publicized.D-Hell-pers 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to see them. Let's please keep the comments here focused on the content of the article, not on other editor's motives for making changes, though. Kuru ^talk 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As was posted on Kuru's talk page, I have done research into this matter. That includes reading all college articles during the time frame in question. Furthermore, I have contacted the editor-in-chief of the college newspaper. She said I was the second person today contacting her regarding this. She received an email from a suspicious hotmail account earlier today, claiming to be the administrator of wikipedia. They asked for the release of all newspapers, especially ones pertaining to Kappa Alpha Order and hazing. As she informed me, there are no, and have never been any, articles pertaining to that subject. Furthermore, all college newspapers are posted online already.

Knowing this, how can we go about preventing people from spreading unfounded biases in the future? Natural22 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Natural ... please refer to the following subject, for you have been mis-informed. Secondly, when did you start fighting for KAO and not PDT? Is this possibly because you are in KAO and biased to the fact that it did happen and want to cover it up? This just proves the point of which group you are part of, as well as why you are so biased to the fact. D-Hell-pers 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

More Proof of Hazing Found, Proving Fact

http://elm.washcoll.edu/past/076/17/76_17_2005.pdf

Please refer to the link above, page 6 of issue 17 (2005). Read Article "Letter to the Editor- Writer's Response to Reporting of Alleged Phi Delta Theta Hazing Incident" in full. Note the writer's mention of the article's previous title of article in issue 16, as well as the follow-up in 18.

Simply just ask for article 16 & 18. As shown above, article 17 refers to an article about the Phi Delta Theta hazing, and how a person's response may have been 'altered' for the articles use. Page 6 of issue 17, 2004-2005, mentions a letter to the editor "Writers response to reporting of alleged phi delta theta hazing incident." The article was called “Did the Phi Delts Revamp Their Pledge Process?" Further reading of this article, about the 5th paragraph, writer notes that her original title for the article was called "Brothers With a Conscience: Phi Delta Revamp Pledge Process." Editor's Note on 17's article even states (at the end) Please check out the NEXT issue (missing 18) for the follow-up artcile on the hazing incident.

For those who can not break this down, i'll try an upfront summed approach: issue 16 has not been placed on the online database + article 17 making mention of issue 16's article (noted above) = article exists. Issue 17 mentions a third follow-up article in Issue 18 + Missing 18 = another article exists, just not posted on database. We are just having trouble retrieving both. So, why in the world would a fraternity (kicked out of housing) need to 're-vamp' it's pledging process? Was there a problem with a fraternity's pledging process, and if so what could it be? Simple Kappa Alpha + Phi Delts HAZED their pledges, in what was referred to as a 'ritualistic' induction.

The issue posted, however, should be enough to prove, at least, that Phi Delta Theta was in trouble for hazing, coincidentally at the same time they lost their housing. Point proven. When these 2 issues can be retrieved, I am sure I'll prove the Kappa Alpha incident as well. So please Natural, if you are so "connected" ... obtain the articles and have them displayed online so we can all get over this war and prove the actually FACTS of this matterD-Hell-pers 01:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the probations is not explicit in any of the references provided so far. I think it's fair to call it an incident, and the article does specifically mention probation by name. I can also see the word "alleged" thrown around in there, so you need to be quite careful with your citations. As it is, I would propose: ":"When the Kappa Alphas and Phi Delta Thetas were removed from housing in Spring 2005, the fourth fraternity was established on campus, Kappa Sigma. Since this incident, both the Kappa Alphas and Phi Delta Thetas have returned to the Quad after their probation was fulfilled." As frustrating as it sounds, we cannot cite "common sense", so you'll need to keep digging for another cite, or find another way to present the material. Kuru ^talk 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Kuru, is there any possible way that you could contact the editor, refer to these exact articles, and somehow obtain this material online? I only ask this because the proof is there, we see the mentionings in issue 17. D-Hell-pers 02:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, would you agree that the two groups were kicked out for "alleged" hazing (just your quote, adding what has been stated).D-Hell-pers 02:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no connection illustrated in a verifiable fashion between the hazing and the probation. There's not even a way to currently verify the hazing or even the accusation of hazing at the moment, but it looks like you could get to that with the "missing issues". Kuru ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not hiding information, nor do I personally know the editor. I simply corresponded with her through email. As for the page, I am happy with Kuru's suggestion "When the Kappa Alphas and Phi Delta Thetas were removed from housing in Spring 2005...[etc]". Thank you for for your time Kuru, is there anyway we can update the page with that text? Thanks again. Natural22 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We can open it back up as soon as the dispute is resolved. Are there any other resources you can find, DHP? Kuru ^talk 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Working on it. We know of the articles, just have to find a way to get them online. I am contacting some of the people at the college to help get into contact with the editor (since Natural is fighting the inevitable, and not cooperating in aiding this article to obtain the facts). D-Hell-pers 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, is there anyway you can 'correspond' with the editor to obtein these artciles then. If you do not wish to help in obtaining these articles, then please dis-continue your 'help' in editing this article.D-Hell-pers 02:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I just want to note that referenced articles do not have to be located online. It's certainly convenient when they are online and everyone can very easily access them but that's certainly not a requirement. If you or someone else can find a hard copy of the articles then that should suffice. --ElKevbo 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I did think of this too. However, because this is so controversial and the fact that members of both fraternities (as well as some of the public) deny that the articles exist, I thought it may be easier on all of us if I could push for the articles to be placed online first. If the articles were online and could be viewed by the public, editors like Natural22 could not say "well, DHP only says this is what he reads ... but I think DHP is biased and altering the facts" like he has in the past. Even with the material online, I guarantee it will still be difficult for these biased 'editors' to finally admit the facts, and allow the article to be. The back-up solution is to have these issues obtain'd in paper format, and if other editors wish to argue over the facts some more, they too will have to obtain a copy on their own time.

Let's just push for the articles to be placed on the online database. D-Hell-pers 15:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a member of KAO, I believe you can ask your older members what happened as well. D-Hell-pers 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid we will need to stick to our reliable sources policy and the original research policy, which excludes asking friends. Sorry to be such a tool about it, but it's a bit of a slippery slope. Kuru ^talk 02:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what friends are you noting? I am saying let's ask the newspaper Editor to upload the missing issues. Is this a problem?

The last msg was for Natural's personal clarification from his KAO brothers.D-Hell-pers 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Yup, sorry, I mis-read you. Yes, the editor putting he newspapers online is great. Kuru ^talk 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not a KAO member, and I graduated long before any of this happened. I was a friend to many greek members during my time (in the late 90s) at the college, thus my natural interest in this. I came into this picture as a third party observer, and I simply want people to play by the rules. So please stop labeling me as something I am not, and claiming I'm part of some conspiracy.

So let me reiterate: I do not know the editor of the elm, I simply corresponded with her through email. I am not a KAO member, I am simply an inquisitive alumni. And there is no conspiracy here. And also, I was watching Lost, then the news. Don't take the silence as some conspiracy confirmation.

Conspiracy? Are we an X-files fan or what? It's not conspiracy, it's called ignorance. Your bias views are trying to distort the truth, and you continue to fight what you say you have no clue on. You say you are for the facts, yet make it impossible to conclude anything even when the facts are presented. You are truly bias, confued and out of your place. As a 2005 graduate, I was there, I continue to present the information and continue to correct you. D-Hell-pers 16:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion, unless you find a phantom article (which the editor confirmed has never existed) please abide by the terms Kuru is trying to get us to commit to (which I believe to be the most rational, and most giving to both parties). Simply state the facts. Here is what I propose

In 2005, Kappa Alpha and Phi Delta Theta were removed from their residencies by the college administration for college policy violations. Both fraternities served a probationary period, and have been since returned to their respective housing. As a reaction to such incidents, Kappa Sigma fraternity has started a colony at Washington College.

Those are the cold hard facts. And I believe all parties would agree to that.Natural22 04:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For my benefit, as well as many others, could you be specific in which policy(ies) both fraternaties violated? If I was a stranger, I would not be familar with what policy(ies) two whole fraternities could have loss'd their housing for. Were they 'too cool' for the public to handle?

Omission is not fact, it's deception. Just because you agree to it does not mean everyone does ... you can not speak for everyone. Just to prove it though, I do not agree, so all parties are not in agreement here. Anyone who was present on campus for Spring 2005 knows what happened, and I believe this 'party' would disagree with you as well. D-Hell-pers 02:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Natrual22's personal knowledge is not something that can actually be verified or used as a cite. Omission is not a deception, it is simply the absence of a verified datum. Is there anything you would care to add or modify in his current proposal that would be within the policies you have already been presented? Kuru ^talk 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Time will tell, Kuru. I am hoping the editor will come through with the articles. It is then, with these 'phantom articles' that we all can move forward in the proper edit of this article. If time does lapse, we can simply throw something together now, and when the articles are obtained, modify the article later.

Proposal: In 2005, Kappa Alpha and Phi Delta Theta were removed from their residencies by the college administration for college policy violations, including acts of [possible insertion of 'alleged,' with current citation provided] hazing. As a reaction to such incidents, the Kappa Sigma fraternity was formed and started a soon to be chartered-colony at Washington College. Both fraternities served a probationary period, and have been since returned to their respective housing. D-Hell-pers 03:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the word 'hazing' is the entire sticking point of this discussion. Why in the world would you put forth a proposal with the word in there when you have not been able to support it? I'm going to have to assume you are simply not reading this discussion or the links to the policies. Is there any other question I can answer for you about verifiability or original research before I unlock the page? Kuru ^talk 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, could you give it one more night, as mentioned below. It was not me that made the date, it was the editor of the newspaper. What's one more day?

And not playing dumb, but have we not established that they did haze and were placed under investigation? In my proposal, I did not say that the fraternities were booted from housing solely on this fact, however, I did include it as one of the violations (issue 17, 2nd paragraph: "Phi Delts hazing investigation"). According to the college's handbook WaC 2006-2007 Handbook, punishment of hazing include "... loss of college housing." If you read the handbook, the only mentioning of a group losing their housing is under the "Anti-Hazing" policy. So if nothing else, have we not established "alleged hazing" currently? D-Hell-pers 04:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait, could I not add this as a citation? Pg. 36 of Wac Handbook. "Any allegations of hazing reported to the College will be investigated. If the investigation yields evidence of hazing, the College will then take appropriate disciplinary action against the individuals and/or organizations deemed responsible for the hazing. The Honor Board may hear charges against organizations and individuals. Disciplinary action would include both punitive sanctions (e.g. fines, loss of privileges, disciplinary probation, suspension or expulsion of the organization, loss of college housing) and educational sanctions (e.g. programs,workshops, community service)." It clearly states that hazing results in loss of housing. Issue 17 notes hazing investigation, and house was lost. What else could the whole fraternity do to lose their housing?!?!D-Hell-pers 04:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You've doing what's called original research. You've collected a bunch of random facts and come up with a conclusion. While I agree with you that it is probably the correct conclusion, it simply cannot be stated here. Again, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Here's another proposal - drop the entire paragraph until other other source can be found. I'm not even sure the entire thing is all that notable, and probably not worth the time spent. Kuru ^talk 04:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(Stupid Rules- *laughs*) you are saying, delete all mention of fraternities/sororities from this article until the newspaper issues are obtained?

I am somewhat crossed in what to do. We all knew that my conclusion is correct, because it WAS the reason they lost their housing. And because of the fight for omitting the truth, I am somewhat compelled to agree with deletion of the paragraph (maybe this will light a fire under someone's behind to help obtain these articles). However, my good nature tells me that being submissive (for now) to Natural's proposal is better for the public than to just delete the entire paragraph (even though it lacks the greater part of the truth). So if it's deletion or submission, I'll submit for now, until I obtain the documents. And instead of just editting this article off the bat, I'll submit a proposal to you, Kuru, for the adoption of the edit (making sure you agree verifiability has been concluded) when Issues 16/18 are gathered. Is this suitable? D-Hell-pers 04:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let's just please agree to talk here once the other documents are found before any other reversions are made to the article. Kuru ^talk 05:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's unlocked. Off to sleep. Thank you both for your patience - if something comes up, please drop me a message or contact any other admin on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents noticeboard. Kuru ^talk 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The person I contacted from the college who is in contact with the editor says that she (the editor) will be looking into it tonight/friday night to see what she can do. So I must ask that the protection remain for it's full (3) day extent. D-Hell-pers 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Kuru for sorting out this mess, and also cleaning up my personal talk page that was apparently vandalized while I was away. Natural22 22:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yo I Got It

So I got my hands on Issue 18 of 2005 (the issue of 'non-existence' and the one that probably will solve of all these citation problems of the fraternal hazing).

Quick citations from the article:

"The ELM received a story stating that the fraternity had already admitted to previous hazing practices in an amnesty program developed by the National Headquarters and have been given a "clean slate for being for being honest."

"[Province Representatives] had the current job of discuss[ing] the issues with hazing, and to help develop a new program for New Members."

"[Brothers of the Chapter] admit that [they] made a mistake..."

"[the current Brothers] were honest about the hazing, and were working on preventing it from happening again."

The article clearly states they were busted for a specific campus policy violation ... HAZING! The article is (2) pages long describing that the brothers were honest in fessing up to their hazing activities (although we will never know how much they truly admitted) - were punished - had help from 'district' leaders to make things better - were at the time developing new Pledging Programs - and believed they could be trusted because they were truthful in owning up to their hazing rituals.

For all editors who appose reverting the revision back to the TRUTH, please state your business here. After several days, the revision WILL be made unless discrepancies can be made & cited.WaC05 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Several days have passed, no objections stated. Revision has been made. D-Hell-pers 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ain't That Funny

Yo I must admit, watching this article for the past several months has been some funny shit. What's even funnier is that for months people have been content arguers on the fact that the hazing didn't happen, that the proof was made up and didn't exist ... now the issues have been documented and these so called truth experts and editors fall silent. I guess it just goes to show you that this is the reason why Wiki can't achieve a greater level that it should be- because of the morons that lie, vandalize and all around fight the truth, just because it suits them. 134.192.191.132 14:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally could not agree more with you 134.192.191.132. Just because the truth hurts does not make it any less truthful. Shit happens, and those who committ the "crime" should be prepared to accept the "responsibilities" of their "actions," as well as the "fame" that goes with it. It just goes to show you the immaturity that surrounds those "editors" who support the actions of these (2) groups- constantly editing out the facts and then pissing and moaning that it never happened.

In some of their defense, however, I will agree that at the beginning the comments were slightly radical ... then I took over. And yes, further citation was required to complete the revision, I will note this. But looking over the entire article, further citation is required everywhere (many editors and admins have noted the fact). Why "editors" decided to pick on this revision over any other revision requiring further citation is nothing more/less than the small # of persons that wish the truth to be kept quiet. To those individuals, all I have to say is ... "Ha! The truth can't be stopped." D-Hell-pers 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Intervention

I have contacted Kuru to once again mediate this matter. There are still no reliable sources or citations to warrant a reversion of this article.

Additionally, after repeated vandalism of my discussion page, I took the effort to trace IPs, and run a thorough WHOIS of all parties involved not only with vandalizing my talk page, but pushing to edit this page. Ironically, they all come from the same Baltimore MD Comcast address.

Guesstimating that this could be (and probably is) the work of a single individual posting under multiple wiki accounts to try and give the illusion of consensus, I contacted Comcast to discuss their policy on online harassment from one of their customers. Not only can it result in loss of internet service, but they will additionally help the plaintiff file charges with the FBI's Cyber Crimes Task Force.

While something this insignificant probably would only result in loss of internet service, let it be known, that if I am harassed anymore over this, I can and will provide Comcast with your information. I have saved all of this information, and you've left a horribly long trail here on wiki, that leads all the way back to your posts on Kappa Alpha Order's discussion page.

With that said, keep it clean here. Play by the rules, and I will not pursue action with your Internet Service Provider, Mr. Baltimore Comcast user.

Natural22 06:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Intervention Not Required

Natural22,

What you have failed to realize is that a discussion was open well over a week ago about this matter (please refer to "Yo I Got It"). One of your "phantom" articles has emerged finally. If you would take the time to refer to the references section of the WaC article, you would see that the first (2) articles are referenced as well as the new third (that is why I placed those blue boxed with numbers in them ... for you to refer to references).

As for availability, you are right ... it is not posted online. This does not mean I do not possess it. As mentioned well above in the discussion page by El Kevbo (and on Kuru's webpage):

I just want to note that referenced articles do not have to be located online. It's certainly convenient when they are online and everyone can very easily access them but that's certainly not a requirement. If you or someone else can find a hard copy of the articles then that should suffice. --ElKevbo 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There was no argument about the validity of a reference as long as a reference was obtained.

Back to the discussion of what the article mentions. There were quotes documented up above. Unlike the previous (2) articles, hazing is mentioned up-and-down the article: what happened - who was involved - what was done about it. Take the time to refer back up this discussion for the argument.

Because clarifications have been made of "what happened" and "what was done about it," the revision can clearly stay as it is the truth of the matter. D-Hell-pers 07:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And we're supposed to just go by someone's word that posts "I Have it!". Who's to say they simply did not just make those quotes up. Until PROPER citations are presented, please revert the article back to agreed upon format. Natural22 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper citation has been presented. If you have a problem with it, I guess you too will have to obtain this issue for yourself and read. Until then, you have no base for continuation of the argument. I have the proof, I have the citations, and I have made reference to the article in question. D-Hell-pers 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Someone simply posted on this discussion board "I have it" followed by a vague and disconcerted "article". All this is posted by a new user to boot. Please provide proper evidence of this article, or revert to original agreed to terms.Natural22 07:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the "quotes" from this new found "article" by the new user do not even mention any organization by name. Once again, you are reaching here, and are wrong. Revert the article to factual information. Natural22 07:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, let me help you find those blue boxes: [[1]] D-Hell-pers 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And to make it even easier for you: Last, K. (2005). Phi Delta Theta Leadership Consult Speaks Out. The Elm 76 (18), pg. 1-2. (please take notice that this is indeed out of issue 18, one of your "phantom" articles).

I believe it was you that said "In conclusion, unless you find a phantom article." Here it is for ya. Now what is the problem, difficulty reading? D-Hell-pers 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the problem is that you only mention Phi Delta Theta, not Kappa Alpha Order. Yet you seem to enjoy lumping the two organizations together in this issue. Until you have proof of Kappa Alpha Order hazing, please refrain from grouping them together with other organization's college violations. Natural22 07:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I will get back to you sometime later about this. I am trying to study for an exam Friday which is difficult to do while trying to enlighten others of their ignorance. D-Hell-pers 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Good luck on your exam. In the meantime, I have edited the article to properly represent the citations and information you have provided.Natural22 07:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Before I leave, you had the grammatics backwards ... KA = undocumented, Phi Delts = Hazing. Cheers D-Hell-pers 07:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! Silly me. Thanks for the fix.Natural22 07:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fraternity Issue

With the addition of some more references, now totalling (4), the fraternity issue can now be placed to rest. The proper, and final, revision has been made. D-Hell-pers 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole hazing issue isn't really an issue any longer. No one cares. I would like to see it removed from this page. And KS wasn't formed as a result of the hazing incidents, it was simply the wish of a sector of the student body to form another fraternity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.43.185 (talk • contribs) 22:45, May 7, 2007

What's amusing about this IP address bringing this "thought" up is the only edits it has made before this talkpage addition/article material deletion, were vandalistic attempts to delete the addition of a 4th fraternity, failure to acknowledge that the fraternity hazed by deleting the material, etc ... and now this. How shocking this is to me, and probably all who look at this, that you would again attempt to delete the material. Ironically, someone else at the school re-added the information, so I guess the WaC community does consider it to be an issue still. I believe 24.whatever was correct in wanting to remove your non-sense again, but because s/he is not allowed to delete material I'll go ahead and put it into words that your opinion is what people don't care about, but this issue still stands. D-Hell-pers 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it still holds some relevance, as hazing incidents continue to occur. However, who ever is in the new chapter of KS needs to watch out that they dont use the page as a repository for chapter history, as the national organization is notable, not the individual chapters. If one does say that KS was formed in response to the hazing incidents, you have to qualify how it was formed in response to the incident, not just state it and leave it.Samwisep86 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try, as it was attempted in the past and turned down for being "bloggish." Admins have asked for what is currently written on the article, not more or less (as long as the four citations were present). But again, anyone can try again. D-Hell-pers 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the situation to do so (i.e. I don't go to WC), but anyone who attends WC should try to do so. Samwisep86 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fraternal Edit Wars, Again

For those "editors" who wish to delete selected sections of this entry, please note in archives the 3/4-month long debate over this topic as well as the fact that the current entry is supported by Wikipedia, overseeing admin and other users. Instead of just removing this section, use the discussion page to bring forth your ideas of why you wish to edit it instead of just deleting randomly when you please. D-Hell-pers 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not really any such thing as an 'overseeing admin'; I'm simply trying to help y'all resolve a dispute as any editor can. I have not paid attention to this in several months, I think I last left off when you were trying to find sources for your hazing claim. You seem to have found them in the missing issues of a newspaper and cited them properly. The image of the letter is not really appropriate as it is not covered by a secondary source, but I fail to see how it is needed in this case. Can I please ask that we stop using the blind revert scripts and use edit summaries on reversions? I'm not sure what the actual dispute is from reading through the history, other than a few polar reverts. Kuru ^talk 04:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much, some admins do not want the image of the letter being used in the article. IMHO, I tried to find other sources about the hazing from newspaper articles, but I have not found anything at all (except for us). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The image is actually necessary, as it is the only piece of information actually mentioning the words "Kappa Alpha" and "hazing" in the same sentence. Referring to the other sources:

• one of the college articles states Phi Delt & Kappa Alphas returned to housing after being kicked out as a punishment, but lacked specifically stating they hazed
• two of the articles actually mention Phi Delts hazing and what they "said" they would be doing to correct it (no mention of Kappa Alpha)
• the "image" mentions Kappa Alphas hazing

Without this as a reference, there is no other published article that actually mentions KA & hazing together (there is an article, it is just not uploaded to an online database, yet). I tried referring to the letter from WaC Student Affairs as a reference months ago by just citing it, and it was actually questioned whether or not it existed. The image was uploaded to put that argument to rest, and I insist that it remain up to solve any type of dispute of its existence in the future.

Plus, there has yet to be an admin actually state that s/he would like to remove the image as a reference, contrary to Zscout's comment. There was some clown that mentioned images are not reliable sources, however, this is not just an image ... it is documentation of the existance of the letter (used for a reference). I would easily just cite the letter as a reference, however down the line I can already see another user questioning if it really exists, creating a snowball effect. D-Hell-pers 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the great outline. I'm afraid that the image of a letter falls into a "primary source" category in my opinion. If there's nothing else in those articles mentioning KA, you'll need to find another secondary source; I incorrectly assumed the newspaper articles covered both. You can read about the distinctions at WP:OR. Again, my opinion based on experience, but I'll do some searching and see what I can find in other cases. Kuru ^talk 05:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So are you stating that letters (whatever the source be, ie: branch of government, government official, college official, etc) are not verifiable primary sources? What defines a primary source? According to UCLA:

• "actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, (etc)." The page contains a list of types of primary sources, including "... letters ... in which individuals describe events in which they were participants or observers."

In this case, WaC Office of Student Affairs would constitute an observor to the fraternal crimes. The letter actually is the primary primary source, as articles in the collegian newspaper makes references to the article (making it a secondary primary source).

So back to my original thought, the letter is considered to be a verifiable source to be included in the references. D-Hell-pers 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to using the letter as a source. Nothing in that policy prohibits the use of primary sources. The rub is in exactly how the source is used. --ElKevbo 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My objection for the inclusion of primary sources is from the way most people use them to support their own commentary, as opposed to letting a secondary source do so. I concede that this particular letter was pretty specific to the point of the text and probably appropriate. Kuru ^talk 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

To continue with El Kevbo's thought, I also read the WP:OR page; at the bottom, under verifiability section: "insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia." Since when does a liberal arts college not count as a reputable publisher? D-Hell-pers 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion, should the image stay, or be deleted? D-Hell-pers 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• What you have here is one letter about one incident. It is not independent, so does not qualify as a source. It is also not provably significant without third-party sources to show that it is widely considered significant. So what we're left with is a strong suggestion of involved parties on a mission. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Saying that it "does not qualify as a source" is ridiculous. The point about notability/significance, however, is legitimate. --ElKevbo 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Meetup

	Great American Wiknic - Chestertown, MD
	You are invited to the third Great American Wiknic taking place in Chestertown, MD, on Saturday, June 22, 2013 starting at noon! This is a chance for all of the wikipedians in the Eastern Shore to meet for an afternoon of fun and fellowship. This is a bring your own lunch event, if you have special treats you would like to share feel free to bring them. We would love to have you there!

Message delivered by Guerillero | My Talk at 20:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Washington College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120519054204/http://revcollege.washcoll.edu/firstcollege/index.html to http://revcollege.washcoll.edu/firstcollege/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Watch for COI

Washington College presently has an employment advertisement for a "Digital Content Specialist" whose responsibilities include "monitor Washington College’s presence on the Web at other sites such as Wikipedia to ensure content is accurate and positive" (emphasis added). When this individual comes on board they may need some guidance as to best practices for COI editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

SliceLife

corrected spelling SliceLife (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Added the number of majors offered as of 2020 SliceLife (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, SliceLife. The talk page of an article is for discussing the article. Not keeping a log of the changes, because the software does it for us --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)