Talk:Kappa Kappa Gamma/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Revision to "Other Facts"

What is the publicly available source behind the assertion that only 3 actives at DePauw hazed pledges, and that the actives were dismissed from the organization? (I found an ABC television website containing an interview by Elizabeth Vargas of two of the pledges who were hazed. The pledges indicated that there were at least 10 actives in the room where the events were being conducted.) If the publicly available information can't be provided, then the revision should be removed. - jf

What is the publicly available information that Angela DeAngelis Atwood was dismissed from the Fraternity? Simply saying that the information comes from the Fraternity is not sufficient. As has been pointed out previously, information presented on Wikipedia should be publicly available, not just available to a few or a select group of people. - jf

I have a copy of the Kappa Kappa Gamma Ritual, so can I cite it as a source? That would make any ritualistic information published here verifiable. Just because only initiated members are supposed to have it does not mean that other people do not.~~eelmonkey

Eelmonkey, I'm not a member of KKG, but at one time I had a copy of the Book Of Ritual. I'm familiar with their secrets and rituals, but I don't think that the organization would want them revealed. I would respectfully suggest you ask the opinions of some of the Kappas who have posted here. jimmyflathead 19:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eelmonkey, I also want to add that unless you have a copy of the KKG Cipher (decoder), or you have a decoded copy of the Book of Ritual, simply having the Book of Ritual won't do you any good...unless you got the information from the Fraternitysecrets.com message board which has now been down for quite some time. For example, do you know about the ***** room and *** room services? Do you know the secret names of the chapter officers? Do you know the terms for voting "yes" and "no?" Do you know what the Three Ideals of KKG are and what the Spirit is? Do you know what the ΚΚΓ Greek letters stand for? (It's NOT Key to the Kingdom of God, by the way.) The ritual book without the cipher is useless to you.jimmyflathead 19:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Angela Atwood, DePauw hazing and Candice Bergen

I reverted information concerning SLA member Angela Atwood and the 1997 DePauw hazing incident because publicly available information wasn't provided to allow verification of the recent changes. If it can be provided, please list it, and then feel free to change the information to reflect that Angela Atwood was removed from the Fraternity, and that the DePauw actives were dismissed from the organization. Also, I found a Wikipedia entry for Candice Bergen that says she was a KKG while a student at Penn. I can't find any public information that says she quit or was kicked out of Kappa, but I added her into the "Other Facts" section. - jf

By the way, can anybody tell me why she's listed as a member of KKG in several places, but she was removed from the "Notables" section of the Wikipedia page on the Fraternity? - jf

According to the RITUAL AND SECRETS section above, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The ritual and secrets of Kappa Kappa Gamma are recorded in the "Book of Ritual", encoded in cipher. The book is not a published work nor is it made available to non-members. As such, it does not provide a source text that can be verifiably referenced. Editors should avoid using "...it's in the Book of Ritual" as a crutch for true verifiability. Instead, please provide a reliable primary or secondary source:" I certainly don't disagree, which is why I have to ask that information that is either added or removed to the KKG page has a publicly verifiable basis. I admit that it doesn't look good for an organization to have caused serious cigarette burns in pledges and to have had a former sister that became a terrorist-murderer. I have no idea why Kappa insists on removing Candice Bergen from its list of sisters, especially since she is in Wikipedia, and she is listed as a KKG member in several places. - jf

>>>>http://greekchat.com/gcforums/printthread.php?s=3697ecb9c8c93529e5a75d1b8a71b94b&threadid=1144&perpage=15&pagenumber=10 This is the only public information I can find that Candace Bergen is no longer a member of Kappa Kappa Gamma (about halfway down the page). While it would be nice if the Kappas could claim her as a sister, we must also respect Ms. Bergen's decision and not list her as a famous alumnae.

As far as Ms. Atwood is concerned, the membership records of Kappa Kappa Gamma would be the ultimate reference for whether or not she is recognized and members confirm she is not in the database. As they are not public, though, it is not a viable reference.

As unfortunate as the information is on the "Other Facts" section, I've noticed Kappa is the only Wiki page with any sort of negative information. Surely other NPC organizations have similar facts. It seems unfair to single out Kappa Kappa Gamma.--Ripley2003 02:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)R

It is correct to assume that other fraternal organizations have "Other Facts" that they would rather people not know. For example, Symbionese Liberation Army member and confessed murderer Emily Harris was a Chi Omega. Charles "Tex" Watson, mass murderer and member of the Charles Manson "Family," was a Pi Kappa Alpha. Many organizations have been cited for hazing violations. If people want to add such information to other Wiki pages, please do so. If these pages are intended to be honest and provide a look at a bit of the negative (as well as a lot of the positive) information about organizations, then good for honesty. If they're meant solely to be commercials or advertisements, then that should be made clear, so that individuals reading the pages will know that what they read has been carefully crafted to present the organization in a totally favorable light. - jf

While Kappa Kappa Gamma may be the only NPC organization to have negative info, they are not the only Greek lettered society. IFC organizations such as Pi Kappa Phi and Lambda Phi Epsilon also have negative info. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not delete Other Facts?

I'm going to re-open this issue. After the last deletion vandalism, ImmortalGoddezz added a fact template next to the other facts. But before we validate, lets justify their existance. I think we should deleting the entire Other Facts section. I looked at the Pi Kappa Phi and Lambda Phi Epsilon pages, which were also listed as having negative facts. Frankly the information on those pages is equally un-notable. The hazing incident is bad, don't get me wrong - but every single greek organization has some hazing story and I don't see what makes this so significant that it deserves to be called out. Rather than cite, lets just kill the whole section. While we're at it, most of the items in the "Kappa Firsts" section are probably subject to deletion too, for the same "who cares" reason.
Discuss.... ppfleiger 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I reinstated it because it was deleted by an anon user, I have a tendency to do that especially since there has been a lot of deletion/insertion of 'secrets' vandalism lately. The hazing/pledges as far as I can see is not really significant unless it was the first publically recognized bout of hazing by the sorority (doubtable), or unless it was extremely notable (i.e. reported nationally). The legally blonde reference and the sharing a house thing can be integrated into the article if properly cited. This is a good wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles, the stuff is just waiting to be integrated. Realistically the 'Kappa Firsts' should really be renamed Timeline, since it seems to be more of a timeline than a 'firsts' section. Over all I wouldn't say 'who cares' because I find some of the things interesting, and I'm sure others do as well. Additionally it's really not a good reason to go around deleting things on wikipedia because "who cares" if you have something that you can have citations for and the references pass WP:V and WP:RS it usually merits inclusion into the article. Thus my {{fact}} tag, if they can't be cited properly then they should go. Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page before just deleting it. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It probably is good to just revert anon users deletion vandalism on principal, so I'm fine with that practice. Its just, these have gone back and forth for a while... the only reason the Other Facts section is even there is another contributor put them there, and I don't think this article should be a bash kappa page anymore than it should be a rush brochure by members. Being bold here... I think these are insignificant, so I'm removing them. Placing them here on the talk page for further discussion: ppfleiger 15:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually upon doing some research some of these things do deserve to stay. The DePauw University incident while might just be an act of hazing actually is written about in a book Wrongs of Passage: Fraternities, Sororities, Hazing, and Binge Drinking by Hank Nuwer and a few other sources. If you feel that this page is a rush brochure then please feel free to stick an {{NPOV}} tag on there, it will be fixed but that doesn't mean that if an event is negative and notable that it should be deleted on principle. Wiki isn't here to bash a place but neither is it here to exemplify something either. It's here to present the facts, unbiased, and sourced. I'm moving the In 1965, University of Pittsburgh Kappas were the first to share a house with another sorority, Kappa Alpha Theta to the time line section, and I'm creating a hazing section since it has been written up in a book and I have found a couple of other articles attesting to the incident. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - but what makes the incident notable is that is was national news and shined a spotlight on to the overall problem of hazing. I think that context is important. p.s. - can I get a little help with the citation format? its not quite showing up right. -ppfleiger
This, Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles, is a good source/help for citation. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality article

I'm pleased to see this page is rated so highly. I'd suggest two reasons: 1) The page has been very well written and set up by the Fraternity; 2) It's included factual material that would definitely not be categorized as an "advertisement" for the Fraternity. Indeed, a willingness to admit past member or chapter errors publicly (and not sweep them under the rug) is a definite "plus" for organization. jimmyflathead 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandra Day O'Connor

Could someone please provide verification that Sandra Day O'Connor is a member of KKG? Several women's fraternities appear to claim her as a memnber. jimmyflathead 23:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been busy lately or else I would have caught this and taken it off, I've never been able to find verification for this just a lot of 'Sandra Day O'Connor is in XXX' until references can be found I've taken it out. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, ImmortalGoddezz!!! jimmyflathead 03:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I can (almost) confirm that Sandra Day O'Conner was not a Kappa. She attended Stanford for her Batchlor of Arts and her Law degree, graduating in 1950 (I've read in one biography that she graduated Law school in 1950, in others that she got her undergraduate then). Since she was born in 1930, and I assume she went to college at the standard age of 17-18, so we can assume she attended Stanford around the 1945-1952 range. The Stanford Chapter of KKG was active from 1892 - 1944, at which point (1944) it closed and was not re-opened until 1978. So given the fact that the chapter was most likely closed, Kappa itself does not claim her, and that there is a lack of any additional evidence that she was ever a member, I think we can safely declare that she is not. Thanks Jimmyflathead/ImmortalGoddezz for the catch!

Kappa Timeline

I am going to revert the Kappa timeline entry on Knox college. There are 130+ active chapters of KKG, this is the only installation date on the timeline. Theres nothing unique or notable about this particular installation, other than it is the most recent.

  • In 2007 Kappa Kappa Gamma installed its newest chapter at Knox College

ppfleiger 18:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Information accessible by KKG but not by non-members

Can there be a mutually acceptable way between members and nonmembers as far as information that's put onto the page by Archivists or others privy to information that's not publicly available. For example, what famous people are no longer members of the organization - can there be some information that allows non-members to confirm this? Candice Bergen's bios say she's a member of Kappa, but here they say no. Another example...the hazers at DePaul in 1997...were they permanently expelled from the organization, or only suspended for a certain length of time...and how can non-members confirm what the archivist says? If the information (like the deciphered ritual book) isn't publicly available, is there a way for others not in the organization to veryify the information. Perhaps people can receive scanned pages from KKG that document what they've said(?) Otherwise, non-members can site only fully open sources, but members can site privileged sources and there's no way to either confirm or challenge.

Also, I'd like to see some Kappas put down for their scientific achievments. It's not my job to do it, but I can think of Dr. Nancy Haigwood and Dr. Gail Williams Wertz immediately as alumae who have distinguished themselves. It would look good, but I'm not about to go create a Wikipedia page for them just so they can be on the Kappa page. I just get tired of seeing lots of TV and moviestars, but scientists get short shrift. jimmyflathead 03:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

a) Information that's not publically available should not be on here at all. Things that cannot be sourced need to go. Ideally everything on here needs to be sourced or at least have references that pass WP:RS and WP:V.
b) If an alumnae actually has an article and you can without a doubt prove via WP:V and WP:RS that they were a member and you can source it, go ahead nobody is stopping you. Right now I'm working my way through the other twenty six NPC organizations taking my time out to reference these alumnae and make sure they're actually apart of the organization they say they belong to I'll get to this one one day or another.
c) If you don't want to make a page about a person then it may never get made. If you feel that these people are important but you don't want to create an article about a person who else is going to do it? I have no interest in those people, they're not in my sorority or fraternity, I don't know what they've done etc. so it's not like I'm going to take my time out and do it. Why not request the article if you're not going to do it and feel like these people are getting shifted. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the notable alumnae section to remove the two actresses (?) from "Laguna Beach"; I don't think they're notable enough to be worth mentioning. If someone disagrees, please say so.
I also removed Hilary Salvatore because she was unsourced, but have no objection to re-adding her if that makes sense. (She is at least someone notable as an actress).
Last, I created a stub for Nancy Logan Haigwood, but she does not currently meet the criteria of having a wiki page. If we are going to keep her on the list, I think it at least makes sense for a page to be created. I don't know enough to make one - but jimmyflathead please go ahead and do so. See WP:LIVING and WP:BLP for guidelines and information about creating pages. Agree with ImmortalGoddezz that if something isn't on wikipedia that should be, you should always create it yourself. ppfleiger 15:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I just noticed that the archive link above leads to a previous history of the page, which is not the correct way to archive. I'm going to re-add the old threads, add unsigned templates where necessary, and then archive some of the older conversations correctly. So if anybody sees stuff appearing and disappearing that's why. --ImmortalGoddezz 06:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Notables again

I've been editing the rest of the 26 NPC sororities and citing every alumnae, taking out redlinked and/or unverifiable alumnae. I'm planning on doing the same with this list. Except this list has more information that I'm taking out that might be disputed so I'm leaving a message just in case; I've changed the greek letters from the Greek letter itself to being spelled out, I've also removed the initiation date and the school. I've removed the initiation date because it's hard to reference each individuals initiation date so instead of having a few without initiation dates I've just removed them all. I've also removed the school because really it's saying the same thing that the chapter is saying, except a little bit more specific besides the rest of the 26 don't have them either with the exception of some that cite 'Florida Beta'. I've removed four people that I cannot find sources for online, the link at the end of each is how many hits they get on google when searching for "Kappa Kappa Gamma" "first last name".

If you have any problems with this please state so on the talk page before reverting. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of removing Dr. Haigwood's name from the list of notable Kappas. I believe that her accomplishments warrant her inclusion and I know for certain that she is not only a KKG member, she was the chapter adviser (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) while in graduate school. I don't believe that fame or renown must derive from an individual's GLO membership and, as such, we may barely see a reference to it when describing the chief of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, or a Nobel lauriate in one of the scientific fields. There is certainly sufficient knowledge that the public can obtain (such as college yearbooks and the student newspaper, "The Daily Tarheel," to verify membership.jimmyflathead 00:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't side either way; whether they're conventionally famous or well noted for their work in other fields, I give each an equal amount of attention and don't exclude either. What I do really care about for the alumnae, and if you notice all of them have this, is that they're cited and not redlinked. If I may ask specifically how do you know she's in KKG? I've googled and the only thing I come up with is references to wikipedia. You say just look in these places, but if you know specifically where it is stated that she's a KKG then I'd like to know so I can look it up and add it back in. I mean I've searched for her name in the Daily Tarheel, which probably would barely squeak by as a reliable source, but each search turns up zero.
She needs to be referenced before adding her back onto the main list. The reason why I say that she has to be referenced, so you know where I'm coming from, is because the rest of the 'notable alumnae' sections of the NPC's are referenced. The reason for that is because so many people just know that so and so is in a fraternity or sorority, when that's not the case. For example Sandra Day O'Connor, some people have heard that she's in KKG and keep adding her back in, but she's not. If just one person is left in without a reference then that allows room for Sandra Day O'Connor to be added here because somebody just knows that she's in the sorority and "well if Heather Locklear is in such and such group without a reference I want to add so and so because obviously I don't need a reference". All of them need to be cited, so the list is factual; or none of them need to be cited which allows random people to add whoever to the list. Anyway this is longer than what I expected but I hope you get my drift. I just want all of the NPC's to be good articles.. which I'm slowly working towards and this is just one step closer to having a factually accurate and sourced article. --ImmortalGoddezz 18:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The other issue at play here is that most of the notable members in questions are still living, and that means their biographies probably need to adhere to the Biography of Living Persons rules, which generally states that the biography for notable individuals should focus primary on their area of notability, not other personal details. I'm not sure if membership in a GLO is notable or not. (For anyone, celebrity or otherwise). I agree with the reference concept, but I don't think google is the only sources of reference. I think the issue is the internet/media covers entertainment celebrities in far greater volumes than it covers notable members of other fields, so that is going to always bias the list of notable people towards celebrities. I think the question is whether it is more important to have a balanced list or more important to have a referenced list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.167.209 (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hadn't seen this when it was posted or else I would have replied sooner. I'm going to keep this short and sweet since I'm in the middle of something else right now. This is the internet and for whatever reason celebrities are of interest to a lot of people so yeah that's going to be a big thing on wikipedia at least initially. This doesn't mean that other people aren't notable just that that person hasn't been added yet. Like I've said before, if you think they're notable what's stopping you from creating an article about them? Should I be the one to create an article about a person that i've never heard of or researched when you think they're notable, you have the information on them, and you know the subject better than I do? It makes sense for me for you to do it, especially when you'd probably write a better article than I could since that's not my strength.
Regarding information in articles themselves if it can be sourced via WP:V and WP:RS it can usually be added into an article and why shouldn't it be if it's factual? However google/the internet is not the only reference out there (though it is the fastest), which is why I asked for the physical references so I can add her back to the list. I might add that asking KKG if she is in the sorority is original research and wouldn't be accepted. I would rather have a list that's referenced because even though it might have a disproportionate amount of celebrities to 'real people' it's a factual list. When it's not factual a whole lot more celebrities get added to these lists than what's true. --ImmortalGoddezz 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

motto

I've just removed 'remember always to be womanly and true' from the motto section in the infobox. When I do a search on the KKG page I'm not finding anything on an open motto. However when searching for open kappa kappa gamma motto I come up with something similar to that one and a few others (example [1]). Anybody care to clarify? I might be missing the motto on the KKG site since my head is currently stuck in school and other projects. --ImmortalGoddezz 20:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the Kappas who have contributed to this page can help, but I thought that the motto was for members only. I could certainly be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time on these pages that I was, but Kappa Kappa Gamma should have the final word on something like this. Wikipedia isn't Fraternitysecrets.com. jimmyflathead 19:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmyflathead is correct, Kappa Kappa Gamma has no open motto. The closest to an open motto that might be used is "A Tradition of Leadership", but this is more a marketing position statement. ppfleiger 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, figured that since I wasn't finding anything on the main site. Thanks for confirming. --ImmortalGoddezz 14:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that the motifs on their coat of arms are a key and an owl, the secret Greek motto probably is something like κλεὶς καὶ γλαῦξ 'key and owl'. Too bad there are no external sources to confirm this. 88.193.104.174 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kappa_Kappa_Gamma/Archive_2&oldid=1088799315"