Talk:Alpha Chi Omega

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Alpha Chi Omega 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Ritual Available Online[edit]

There is a Ritual of Alpha Chi Omega available on the internet, dated from 1994. There appears to be no copyright info in the material itself. Due to WP:NOTCENSORED and the fact that a lot of material in their ritual is notable, should we post information from their ritual book in the article? Ejg930 (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Violation[edit]

You may only make personal use of the materials on the Site and may not reproduce, adapt, distribute or otherwise use the materials without the permission of Alpha Chi. ALPHA CHI OMEGA and the ALPHA CHI OMEGA logo are protected trademarks of Alpha Chi. From the site. All the info on this page looks like it was copy pasted into here. It needs to be re-written or permission from Alphi Chi Omega granted to use the information directly from the site like this. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Within the past year, many fraternity and sorority articles have had copyright violations. It probably comes from the fact that people who are not familiar with Wikipedia believe this site to be just copy and paste. Several of these articles had to deleted because of this and re-started again. However, I fail to see the need for this particular copyvio tag. I would undertstand if the entire article was copyvio but a copyvio of one section can easily be remedied if one were to take the time and be so inclined. I've done my best to revert copy and paste work from many fraternity and sorority articles to save them from the deletion block. Re-starting a fraternity and sorority article inevitably leads to the same copyvios that put them up for deletion in the first place. The best way to combat them is to fix them when you see a copyvio instead of readily tagging it. Just my two cents. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 19:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with it as well, other than the fact that this whole page is copy vio. Granted it's not all taken from the one page that I listed but from many various ones on Alpha Chi Omega's site (I just listed the heritage one due to the fact that it's obviously copied from there, etc.) The reason I listed it as copy vio was that somebody who perhaps watches this page would pay attention to it and rewrite or fix it. I am working on a few, talking to site administrators and such trying to get these articles in shape/out of copyright vio status, but I'm also full time in school dealing with my own life so don't have the time to pay meticulous detail to each and every one of them, not to mention fixing something as blatantly obvious as this. I could just ignore the article, and leave it as is, copyright violation and all and just hope that somebody notices and fixes it, or I could post it as being a copyright violation and hope that somebody fixes it before it gets deleted. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fun Facts[edit]

Somebody keeps adding the 'Neil Armstrong's wife's badge is on the moon because she was in Alpha Chi' Given the fact that being the wife of Neil Armstrong would be notable enough, neither of his wives (He was married twice) is on the notable list on Alpha Chi Omega's site. I cannot verify this info on the official website at all. If you want to add this again please cite sources so it can be verified (keep in mind a link to a chapter website is not a valid source). Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

EVERY SORORITY CLAIMS TO HAVE A BADGE ON THE MOON OR IT HAS BEEN TO THE MOON. IT IS ALL MYTH. URBAN LEGEND.-jackjackattack

No need to yell (Capitalize everything), and I am aware of that which is why I asked for sources before reinstating that particular piece of information or else it'll be removed. That's all. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Neil Armstrong's first wife, Janet Shearon, is indeed an Alpha Chi Omega, from Purdue University. I found her name in the membership records and on a public website [1]. QueenKelly 02:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, she is an Alpha Chi Omega, however there are no sorority badges on the moon. Amysue2 (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

/* Reaching for the Heights */ I added in the values Amysue2 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

CSU chapter[edit]

I added this in light of the recent Delta Zeta Dupaw incidents and news coverage. Since the Matthew Shepherd incident at CSU was a national story and anti gay sentiments are still an issue in this country, I felt it was pertinent to the historical context of the organization.Eelmonkey 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)eelmonkey

As long as it can be properly sourced. Though I would highly suggest that you add references to back up what you've written that way it doesn't look like you're bashing a particular organization. Additionally if you type in four tildes ~~~~ after commenting on the talk page like so your name will automatically be signed along with the date you posted. --ImmortalGoddezz 15:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote this section with complete citations. I agree that it is part of the historical context of the organization -- a positive one in light of their immediate reaction to rectify the horrible actions of one member. I don't see how this compares to the Delta Zeta controversy which involved the actions of the adult officers of the national organization. SmallRepair 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


This section is inaccurate, irelevant, and clearly serving someone else’s agenda; it provides no pertinent information about this organization. Has nothing to do with Delta Zeta disagreement (that is not a reason to post is on the Alpha Chi Omega page).

This CSU issue seems to have more to do with the Fraternity, but when I checked their article, there was no mention of it. Why is that?

This section does not deserve to be a part of this page. Please remove it immediately. Amysue2 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. It is sourced, is written in a neutral point of view, did receive national attention in the media, and the chapter was a part of Alpha Chi Omega. Why isn't it in the fraternities article? I don't edit it so I don't know, so if you feel that it should be both here and in that article, go ahead and add it in there. However do not remove this section just because you feel it is "inaccurate, irelevant, and serving someone else's agenda" because plenty of people feel that this is worth mentioning as evidenced by the past discussions on the content. Not every organization's history is perfect and you have to take the bad with the good. --ImmortalGoddezz 15:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this, "I added this in light of the recent Delta Zeta Dupaw incidents and news coverage" a reason to has this on the page? What does one have to do with the other? I don't think we have reached a consensus. Amysue2 (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You would have to ask the individual user who stated that in the first place; however whether content is added with an agenda or not the information has been rewritten since it's first insertion and, as stated previously, cited so it now follows the neutral point of view policies. Delta Zeta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and others not within the NPC have had controversial incidents happen and they are mentioned within the article. In anycase how the information was added to the article is irrelevant as the information passes guidelines now. Please clarify what wikipedia policy would justify the removal of this information given that it has had widespread media attention, it is properly sourced, and is neutrally written. Your statement, "This section does not deserve to be a part of this page." does not clearly state why you think the information should be removed, besides giving the impression that it is your personal opinion that it should be removed because it does not cast a positive light on the sorority. If that is the case please read over the censorship policy. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 02:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

please note that Alpha Chi Omega is a women's fraternity. I have made that correction. Amysue2 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the chapter was closed, shouldn't the title of the section reflect that? And miss Immoral-godezz (intentional), I don't see why your opinion overrides mine? Why do you just arbitrarily change my edits? What makes you think you have this special power?

I actually think this incident reflects very well on the national organization since they responded so quickly. My problem with this section is that someone who clearly had no clue about this issue wrote a brief, inaccurate overview and it shouldn’t be a part of the page unless it is explain fully. The few random bits of info paint a different picture. Rather than spend my time correcting, I’d just get rid of it. Amysue2 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have in no way insinuated that my edit is more important than yours, if you feel that way I apologize. I have also in no way or form insulted you, and I ask you to do the same. My intention is to keep discussions civil, also another policy you should read over WP:CIVIL. I have very specifically asked why you feel the information should be removed. Since you have not provided one I have endevored to improve the article using reliable sources to clarify the information about the incident. If you feel that the information is inaccurate please fix it but do not remove or delete information that is clearly cited. Adding information or rewording it, with proper citation, is the way to go. I do not have to be a part of this organization or any other organization to edit wikipedia as it is the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Please read over WP:OWN. If you don't want to take the time or effort out to correct whatever problems you feel are evident, following wikipedia policy, in that article then please don't. However just because you feel that the section doesn't belong or can't be fixed doesn't mean that others feel the same. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmm... sounds like you immoral-goddezz, "But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it." Amysue2 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would make clear that it's immortal however I don't think you care about the distinction. Other than that I have no clue what you're talking about. I've asked for nothing but a clear reason as to why you want it removed and have not received it; I will not get into an edit war with you over vague and unspecified reasons. --ImmortalGoddezz 14:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I do care about the distinction; you are not immortal, however you seem to be highly immoral. I will continue to edit this page until my satisfaction. I welcome your suggestions, and consensus from the Wikipedia community, but just because you worked on this page first, immoral goddez, does not me you get to control it. Amysue2 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Amysue2, a current discussion is going on at the Fraternity and Sorority Wiki Project talk page. I suggest you take your arguments there for a better consensus of the issue at hand and gain outside voices. However, I highly caution you regarding personal attacks against editors. Please read Wikipedia's policy on civility and personal attacks when it comes to editing. Comment on content and not the contributor. Repeatedly violating these will get you blocked. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you had it before implied that many Alpha Chi Omega's were involved. I am trying to correct this.Amysue2 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


this is a good argument from that and other discussions: " I'm not a fan of its inclusion in any event. I'm not sure that a single event like that rates mention as the percentage that it is of a page representing a Sorority that has been active for that long. I seriously doubt that it is the only chapter that has been declared inactive by the Sorority. Also, no mention at all is made on the Pi Kappa Alpha page. If every fraternity and sorority on Wikipedia had that much text for each event which people would consider that serious or more so, *many* of articles would look different. For example, I would personally count hazing incidents that led to hospitalization (or death) of a pledge more serious. Naraht (talk) 08:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.231.218 (talk)

At least one was removed from the chapter and 11 members from both Alpha Chi Omega and the other fraternity were brought up on charges. That was cited from several highly reputable sources. I would suggest that you look over the welcome message that I posted on your talk page for more information about editing wikipedia and about the various policies that make up wikipedia. Yes, community consensus rules however the deletion of cited materials that you view as being inappropriate on the page is violating WP:CENSORED. If you stated a reason why you wanted it removed then I could probably say 'I don't agree with it, lets get community consensus' however it seems like you are removing the cited information deliberately, to censor the article. If that is not your intentions I apologize, however I have asked several times why you want the information removed since several reputable newspapers have reported on it. The only response I've gotten is that the information is inaccurate and you don't want to take the time out to fix it and want to just delete the whole section. Since I refuse to get into an edit war over this I am going to request comments on this content dispute, besides the comment that I've made on the wiki project which hasn't been commented on in a few days. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:TALK please do not reticulate or remove another editors comments without their prior agreement, because this has been done I have reverted the changes. If you want to edit your own comments please read over the talk page guidelines. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't revert far enough back, my apologies. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Crystal Smith[edit]

I've just removed *Crystal Smith (chef) (Nu Xi) - World Renowned Chef from the list of notable alumnae for a few reasons. Googling ""Crystal Smith" chef" I can find nothing specific on a world renowned chef, or a chef of any kind, so the notability is very much in question. When googling ""Crystal Smith" "Alpha Chi Omega"" 9 unique hits come up, none of which deal with a chef. Please establish the notability of the person besides 'world renown chef' in and add references that pass WP:RS and WP:V regarding her membership in Alpha Chi Omega before adding her back. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 00:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed a section that made no sense Amysue2 (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Chi Omega RfC[edit]

The inclusion of a controversial section (the Closed Colorado State University chapter) in the Alpha Chi Omega page is being disputed, along with some of the content within the section.

(More detailed summary) An editor believes that the section should be removed because it doesn't accurately portray the situation that occurred. Upon further edits all association by Alpha Chi Omega in this incident were removed despite being sourced. Another user believes that this section does merit inclusion since it is well sourced (newspaper and book) and has attracted national media attention due to the homophobic nature of the event. There are concerns from that user that this article is being censored.


First off, I think you should state your points WP:CIVIL under the request for comments so I know what we are talking about. I am assuming we are talking about the colorado incident. after reading through your posts and checking the section, this is my opinion. in 122 years, is the colorado incident the most noteworthy thing that this fraturnaty has done? has it ever hit the newspapers for anything elce? I am a member of a fraturnaty who has hit national headlines a few times, but none of that stuff is on our page, because it dosn't give any information about who we are (except blacklites and pringles...we invented them!)(Oh and the patriot act).

what the section looks like now is a collection of news reports on an individual chapter, and how it got disbanded. personaly I don't think it is noteworthy enough to grant inclusion in this article, but it probably deserves a place in the matt shepard page. Coffeepusher (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the incident was mentioned by Nuwer (Wrongs of Passage) in regards to racist, homophobic, and barbaric practices by fraternities and sororities. Since I was just able to check the book out again yesterday I haven't had a chance to insert the more detailed information from the book into the article. The incident was noteworthy enough to mentioned in several notable newspaper publications and earn a mention in a book. Since notability guidelines do not directly limit article content and the section is well sourced I really don't see why it should be taken out besides that it sheds a bad light on the fraternity. Though the information in the section might be more relavent and better served on the Shepard article. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)