Talk:Pi Kappa Alpha

Question

Any particular reason why some chapters on the link page has (SMYTHE AWARD) after their name, while other winners from this year don't? I'm changing VaTech's link to reflect this. There should be another chapter or two, but I don't have the data for this year's winners on hand. Could someone look into that? -JHolmes

Not sure, but I wouldn't worry about it too much. Jmlk17 08:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Symbols and Motto's

The open Motto of Pi Kappa Alpha has been changed from "Once a Pike Always a Pike" to the current "Once a True Pike Always a True Pike" to reflect the True Pike Initiative passes at the 2004 Convention. The new motto is reflected in the 2007 Edition of the Pi Kappa Alpha Garnet and Gold Pledge Manual and reads: The greatest tradition of Pi Kappa Alpha... "Once a True Pike Always a True Pike". I am not a fan, but it is indeed the current open motto, I believe that this should be reflected but users keep editing my changes.

Also noted in the New Garnet and Gold Pledge Manual is that the White Horse as an open symbol for the fraternity. There are a lot of other symbols so this could be a bit confusing but all the other symbols are listed.

Famous Pikes

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

The TB guy IS a Pike, UGA initiate, but as this is for "famous" Pikes and not "infamous" Pikes, he should be left off. I'm just hoping I never attended an alumni reception and met him! PikeBoy 2007

TB guy? On another note, why were the two members from Hinder removed?D2zL (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Watson is a famous Pike. Remember he was involved with the Manson Family killings. He was Pike at UNT before moving to cali and meeting Manson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.240.92 (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Format

This does not appear to be written in the proper format of an encyclopedia article. I believe it is not impartial.

I find this hillarious that me and my suitemate got listed as famous pikes. I salute any person that has that pathetic of a life that they would add that fact to wikipedia.

No, what I find hilarious and pathethic is how you would disrespect your own fraternity and don't care about the information posted here. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 18:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...it is pathetic. Jmlk17 22:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Cite This

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

I'm a Pike and I have looked everywhere and cant find any source where they are mentioned. Jmlk17 03:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverted AGAIN the Karl Rove as a Famous Pike section. Vandals keep removing his name. Hey, I'm a Pike and I'm not too big of a fan of Karl Rove, but like it or not, he's a Pike...just leave it. Jmlk17 20:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

6 students, not 5 like the website says, are generally regarded as the Fraternity's founders. The missing student is "Frederick Southgate Taylor." Not only was he a founder, he was the initiator of the entire thing. You need to fix this website mistake.

This article seems a little partial towards the fraternity, especially the last statement.

THE OPEN MOTTO IS "ONCE A PIKE ALWAYS A PIKE" -- please correct this

Revisions

Started revising the page to meet the proper guidlines for a fraternity page; and Karl Rove is listed as an alumni on the official Pike website. Sorry :)

Well, of course he is an alumni...everyone else listed there is as well :) Jmlk17 10:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How can someone be an alumni if they didn't graduate from college, regardless it is worth mentioning since many greek organization take graduation and academic achievement seriously, even social ones. I wouldn't be surprised if PIKE took academic achievement seriously, but that they are trying to grasp a little of Rove's dubious fame. Regardless it is worth noting.--M4bwav 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, PIKE does have a policy, especially in the chapter I am in that just because you don't graduate, does not mean that you simply give up your association with the fraternity. He joined the frat, was an active member, and will always be. One of our mottos is "Once a Pike, always a Pike", and I think that right here in this case it does matter.

Jmlk17 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as there is a mention of that fact.--M4bwav 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that your entry refuses to acknowledge the associated problems that your fraternity has. It's all well and good saying you stand for peace, justice and love of the world, but you cannot ignore the banning, the rape charges and all that alcohol abuse. It's like reading an article on Ted Bundy that says he was someone's son and he graduated from high school - and was in Gainesville for a period of time. 71.43.157.76 02:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Def Jam Joe

That makes NO sense...what banning for one? One guy rapes one girl and suddenly my fraternity is BAD? I am sorry for that, but Pike as a whole doesnt condone that whatsoever. And alcohol abuse is rampant in college...it's called college.Jmlk17 09:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Because EVERY month this fraternity has some bullsh*t in the news. This month it's the house they destroyed at UCF. Last month Florida suspended Pike. This fraternity routinely exercises racism,and sexual aggravation of women...and it's ALWAYS just one or two ba guys giving all of us a bad reputation. Do a news search on google for Pi Kappa Alpha and then Dela Sigma Phi and report the difference. Even if you look at news for Sigma Pi - you'll find issues, but the fraternity is taking action t ocut them off. So it makes LOTS of sense. This is not an advertisment for Pi Kappa Alphs - it's supposed to be an unbiased encyclopedic entry. If the Kim jong il page was represented to the world as it likely represented to North Koreans, you'd be outraged. It's on a lesser scale, but same principle.

-- Yours GI Joe

Yeah, because as a Jewish Pike I was definitely banned or something right? Give me a break.Jmlk17 03:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[deleted]

First off, sign in to start an argument; second, your claims are based on what, personal opinion? What basis are they on? What Pikes have you dealt with? What, if any, fraternal organization are you in? Jmlk17 06:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have reliable and consistent information that you would like to add to the article in accordance with WP:NPOV, please do so and cite your sources. Thanks. --Rodzilla (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The total chapters should be revised from 280 to 220 per the official pi kappa alpha website stating, "Chapters & Colonies: More than 220 groups across the United States & Canada." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.242.209.13 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders

Was he really a Pike? If so, he would have had to be honorary...anyone?Jmlk17 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Sanders was a 1965 initiate of Alpha Eta chapter at the University of Florida. In 1991 he was recognized posthumously with the "Order of West Range."

Because he was born in 1890 and age 75 at the time of initiation, I'll assume it was a special initiation.

Perfect. Let's keep him on the list then. Jmlk17 09:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed him again. Just verified him on the "pike finder" on MHQ's website. Truett Cathy was a special initiate too. PikeBoy

—Preceding unsigned comment added by PikeBoy (talk • contribs) 19:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC) 

Scale Rating

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

Jon Stewart

Until you can add a citation that confirms that Jon Stewart was not initiated, do not remove him or mention that he is not a Pike. He's on national's website and that overrides any one editor's personal opinion unless a citation is provided. --Rodzilla (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's on national's site, he's in the G&G (I believe; it's been a couple years since I went through), and many of his biographies online have his membership included. Hence, he is a Pike. Someone just seems to not like the idea! Jmlk17 22:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To whomever keeps reverting the Jon Stewart entry; We are NOT claiming him as a die-hard, super-extreme member. He gained membership, and a motto of Pike is "Once a Pike, Always a Pike". I believe that statement alone says it. Jmlk17 00:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I found a reference and this stupid little revert war can end. The person reverting seems to be someone not familiar with wikipolicy and has had a brief history of vandalism with other articles. Acidskater 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright; I'm still personally not so sure of the source (I do see it, and I have read it), but I suppose it should stand. Thanks for the research. Jmlk17 04:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm using a public computer, and have no personal history of vandalizing any wiki articles. I'm sorry I didn't know correct policy, and I'm sorry another brother added the Piven shot. But I'm glad you finally got around to realizing you were wrong. Oh, and here's even more proof -- "Was briefly a member of a fraternity. Quit after six months, in part because he did not agree with the hazing. [San Francisco Chronicle, 4/23/02, "Comic Release 'Daily Show' Host Jon Stewart is King of Irony," by Jane Ganahl]" http://www.jonstewart.net/bio/index.html#ed 09.20, 14 May 2007.

If you had sources all along why didn't you just say so instead of creating that stupid little revert war? Its not that people were wrong, the fact was there wasn't a source thus it didn't fit wikipedia policy. If you want to quickly learn how to constructively add to wikipedia go here. Acidskater 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It was almost entertaining to watch you guys freak out over it. Plus, I couldn't find the sources until a brother emailed them to me. I have, however discussed the matter with Jon personally, and seen him publically remove himself from the Pika shadow, so I was just waiting for someone to back me up on it. Turns out I didn't need it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.1.2 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Stewart "left after 6 months"

The highlighted segment below has been removed from the article. Pi Kappa Alpha confirms that Stewart is currently an alumnus member of the fraternity in good standing. Therefore, I would characterize the highlighted segment as misleading and, moreover, not encyclopedic and irrelevant. I have removed it and included it here for discussion per content deletion guidelines in accordence with the policies Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

• Jon Stewart - actor, Daily Show Host (left after 6 months, purportedly due to hazing-related events)

67.100.185.234 05:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - It is a sourced statement showing that he disassociates himself with the fraternity even though they still recognize him as a brother. I am putting it back up because it is encyclopedic as well as sourced. If this edit is reverted I will be contacting an administrator to set semi-protection for the page because there have been way too many revert wars on this little section. Acidskater 05:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a straw poll so there is no reason to vote to keep or not. The fact of the matter is that it is not encyclopedic because the section is a list of members. The specific circumstances of Stewart's relationship with the fraternity is not relevant to his being a member. The place for such information is the article Jon Stewart. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is an overriding reason to include the information despite its non-encyclopedic nature. Furthermore, there is no revert war in progress. Rather, you simply disagree with my reasoning per your argument above. I would caution you about seeking administrative involvement, however, as you have violated 3RR on this article (I have no intention of seeking anyone's involvement on the matter). Hopefully, we will have comments from other interested parties shortly. 67.100.185.234 06:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The cited source is questionable since a primary source directly contradicts it. It also makes no mention of Stewart disassociating as you have suggested, nor does any other source I am able to find. 67.100.185.234 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)|

There has been a revert war and you said it yourself (3RR means 3 Revert Rule, even though I had 2 reverts in this particular matter). This statement is needed because while he may be considered a brother still he does not associate himself with the Pi Kappa Alpha. To me this statement follows WP:NOT and WP:LIVING, so in order for it to be deleted you need to prove why it doesn't fit them. Acidskater 06:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

By your reasoning, the information should be included in the article on Stewart and not on this article. I agree with that assessment. Aside from the fact that the sources are contradictory and make no mention of disassociation at all, I do not find how Stewart's personal feelings about the fraternity and his individually determined relationship with it has encyclopedic relevance in a list of its members. It is comparable in such relevance to stating that one member was a very active brother while another joined it just for the social scene benefits. What specific language in the policies you've cited do you contend the inclusion follows? 67.100.185.234 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just gonna weigh in and say that AcidSkater's reasoning seems perfectly valid to me and I don't understand how you can't comprehend it. Despite what Pika may want to claim, Jon Stewart deactivated from the brotherhood and distanced himself from the fraternity. He did not stay active, he did not graduate as a Pika, he does not consider himself a brother. Thus, Pika is only hanging on to him for the publicity. What's the problem in the logic that the list should note the fact that there is a dispute in his status? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.8.1.2 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Since you were previously involved in edit warring with the intent to remove Stewart from the list completely several times, it's not a surprise to find this is your position on the matter. That said, I have no problem at all comprehending AcidSkater's argument. My contention is that the information should be properly included in the biographical article on Stewart and not in a list of the fraternity's members since he is considered, without challenge, a member in good standing. There is no source that confirms either an actual disassociation or a want to do so by Stewart. The source cited (and the many like it that appear in a Google search) are tertiary sources, which are themselves thrown into question by contradiction from a primary source (Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity), none of which make any mention of a disassociation at all. I have no doubt that some statement or acts gave rise to the notion that Stewart "left after 6 months," but no verifiable information has been cited to that end. Again, more importantly, such information would have its place in the Jon Stewart article, not the Pi Kappa Alpha article's list of prominent members; no more here than, as I wrote, noting that a particular member was either very active or active only in the fraternity's social scene. 67.100.185.234 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you fail to comprehend the simple fact that Pika has nothing to lose by claiming this man as a brother? If I had a transcript of the part of his speech at William and Mary where he told a Pika brother, "Fuck off, you're no brother of mine," I would gladly cite it right now. However, there is no said transcript. I realize that the Stewart article could discuss his disassociation, but by claiming him an out right brother on the list, you are providing false information to the circumstances of his status in the fraternity. As this site serves to perform an encyclopedic function, blatant falsehoods in articles should not be permitted. Or do you advocate lying in the Wikipedia pages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrandedKSig (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

PiKA has nothing to lose by claiming him as a brother (except perhaps some dignity, depending on your perspective) and, no, I don't fail to comprehend anything. While I suggest you review Wikipedia's civility program, the fact of the matter is that Stewart did become a brother of the fraternity. He did become an alumnus member of the fraternity by graduation and never disassociating from the fraternity. As no such transcript, nor apparently any record whatsoever, of any conversation like the one you have described exists, there's no reason to even think that Stewart actually said such a thing. Any discussion of his dissatisfaction with the fraternity should be discussed in his article and not here. 67.100.185.234 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Has this issue finally resolved itself? I haven't seen anything here in over a week, and am still curious. Jmlk17 09:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Alright. I appreciate the help Acid. Jmlk17 09:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation re; Jon Stewart?

Does anyone think we should perhaps bring in a mediation on this? I'm probably going to somewhat distance myself from this argument for the one key fact: I'm a Pike. I must admit that I have researched this entire issue, and I keep finding more and more information that is contrary to each side. I can only find "facts" about certain key parts, and I no longer am convinced of either side. I would appreciate it if someone could comment on a possible mediation on this whole issue. Thanks. Jmlk17 18:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with mediation. I was trying to let the issue just dissipate but I have no idea why the rules of fact-based information need to be superceded simply because it's a Greek Rush page. I'm not trying to point fingers because the vast majority of the Pikes have been pretty fair about it, but I don't think it's fair that Jon Stewart be listed without some sort of asterisk or disclaimer. Jimmy Buffet, for example, was listed as a Sigma Pi pledge at Auburn, but it's noted that he later went on to pledge and initiate into Kappa Sigma at Southern Mississippi. Couldn't the same thing be done for Jon? StrandedKSig 14:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

After going over everything it seems a mediation really isn't required. This fact is cited and as it pertains to Pi Kappa Alpha it should stay. The editors disputing the fact being kept in the page were unregistered users and they have seemed to let it go. If they were to come back and complain more then a mediation would need to take place, but it seems that all registered users that have contributed to this dispute have all taken the same side of keeping the fact as long as it is cited, which has been now for sometime. Acidskater 14:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you guys are so desperate to include him among your ranks that you're going against documented fact that he left the fraternity. I thought we were supposed to treat the Greek pages as if they WEREN'T rush pages and use facts and not opinions in these pages. It's really sad that corners are cut and special treatment is doled out as long as it makes a long-term contributor look better. Really sad, indeed. StrandedKSig 16:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As per WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, and WP:CITE this statement will stay. As Jon Stewart is a notable living person and is included among notable alumni for Pi Kappa Alpha through it's listings he will stay in the list. Also as Stewart disassociating himself from Pi Kappa Alpha is a cited claim it shall stay as well. This is not a rush brochure or a page to bash Pi Kappa Alpha, this is an encyclopedic page which states facts. The fact is Stewart is considered a brother of Pi Kappa Alpha but dissassociates himself from it. Acidskater 20:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any kind of notation on the article that Stewart's standing with the fraternity has been called into question or that his disappointment in the fraternity has been cited. You said that would stay, but all the article shows is that Jon Stewart continues to be a brother in good standing. Screw it, Pika's a waste of time - always has been, always will be. StrandedKSig 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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

This conversation full of incivility and trash-talking needs to stop...now. If you guys want/wish to actually TALK as the section conveys, then feel more than free to do so. If you want to trash-talk and serve no purpose, than go to another website. Jmlk17 19:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A cite to the San Francisco Chronicle that is making the rounds is bogus. The claim is Stewart was a member for 6 months and left because he did not agree with hazing. However, everywhere that claim is made uses the exact same cite to the same article in exactly the same way (the cite is written identically an does not contain a link). The actual article, available online, says nothing of the sort. It does not mention Pi Kappa Alpha at all. The frat's official website says Stewart was a member, and so should we. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In agreement with the preceding comment, I have gone ahead and added John Stewart to the list of notable members of Pi Kappa Alpha. If the national organization is comfortable with identifying him as a notable alumni, I see no reason that we should not do the same. Until the point at which someone can show that John Stewart is NOT an alumni of Pi Kappa Alpha, his listing will remain. Dylanstaley (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Notable Chapters

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

Notable Pikes

There are no citations listed for the possible membership of all those people, beyond what's listed on the fraternity's website. That website is not a true source as accepted by Wiki. Editors need to find a reliable source for membership that meets the requirements of WP:BLP; then feel free to put the person back on the page in a manner acceptable to Wiki editing standards. Likewise, the list is found on the website and so would be redundant and unencyclopedic if reproduced in whole here. Portia327 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What a load of bullshit Portia327. So I take it you've removed the list of notable members of every fraternity and sorority? Pure garbage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.184.18 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a false argument, and I've removed the list. Just because some other page has it doesn't make it right. Please find a reliable source. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

All you've done is make this page less informing than it used to be several months ago. Way to go. Who died and made you god of wikipedia? Self-righteous much?

Fighting Gravity

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

Copyright problem removed

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

Needed Revisions

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

Essentially Deleted?

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

Edit request on 5 July 2012

News, Art, and Entertainment

Virginia Tech Epsilon Chapter Fighting Gravity Entertainment Group -was finalists on America's got Talent and now tours internationally

74.107.164.64 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

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

BUTT CHUGGING

"significance to history" is not a requisite for inclusion. Though recent, the incident incited a nationwide, notable, press coverage through multiple credible media outlets. You could arguably say that alumni list shouldn't be here as well as they're not necessarily more significant to the history compared to this incident. Please do not revert without discussing here first, and providing a relevant wikipedia poicy citing why it shouldn't be there. After reviwing WP:EVENT It seems like this incident has a lasting effect on the reputation of the fraternity. It is a verified incident with wide coverage. So, please explain why you contend this doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Pike is a fraternity with over 220 chapters and colonies and over 250,000 lifetime initiates in the United States and Canada and a history of over 140 years. Recent widespread media coverage of one isolated event at one of the 220 chapters shows no indication of being more than a pebble in the road over the long term, and its immediate inclusion here – in a separate two-paragraph section, no less – is pure recentism and clear undue weight. In line with WP:BRD, I have again removed this contested addition, pending a consensus for its inclusion developing here. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. " Policy not provided. Per WP:EVENT guideline, inclusion is not subject to waiting period. Another user already requested an inclusion, so so far its 2 to 1 with you being the sole objector. That's an essay someone wrote up and it is not a policy. Look at Columbine HS, Virginia tech, etc, though "isolated" one time incidents, they're on the page. You're removing my referenced, good faith.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons to Columbine and Virginia Tech are way off the mark here. We have clear indications that the incidents at those schools have had a lasting impact on the institutions involved. Those events sparked national debates over gun laws (a recurring theme in the U.S., but true nonetheless). The terms "Columbine" and "Virginia Tech" (in the U.S. anyway) are solidly associated with gun violence.

OTOH, the "butt chugging" incident has not received nearly as much attention. The average person probably cannot name the fraternity involved or, if given the frat's name, is unlikely to be able to connect it with this incident in particular.

Longer term, I'm neutral on the inclusion here. It seems like recentism, but I could be convinced otherwise. Coverage well after the fact (or lack of same), legislative discussion/action (or lack of same), etc. will probably make this quite clear in 6 months' time. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In the event this is re-added, I would suggest a toned down version, focused on the fraternity. something like: "In September 2012, the fraternity's Zeta chapter was indefinitely suspended by the University of Tennessee after a member was hospitalized after receiving a wine enema, referred as "butt chugging" by the media." Unless something else comes of this, further detail is, IMO, unwarranted. Even this is, at the moment, of debatable significance. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say something involving immediate eviction with indefinite suspension and the national office getting involved is a noteworthy event. Compound this with the same chapter's 2008 hazing incident. UT PIKE CLOSURE. Currently the page is written like an extension of Pi Kappa Alpha's official page and only publishing favorable things for them. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

F&H, why do you contend that this is insignificant and undue? I don't agree that something unflattering counts as undue.

This is a repetition of dangerous activities involving this chapter. Since Wiki isn't a place to have a page for every chapter, just as not a place for every 7-11 store,notable incidents at a location/store would be appropriate for inclusion in the main page. "it's an independent chapter/franchise" is not a reason to refuse inclusion.

"When Broughton was delivered to the hospital after midnight on Sept. 22, his blood alcohol level was measured at 0.448 per cent — nearly six times the intoxication that defines drunken driving in the state. Injuries to his rectum led hospital officials to fear he had been sodomized. "

"In 2008, the chapter was placed on administrative suspension after a hazing incident where pledges were allegedly asked to do push-ups on broken glass.

Three students were later hospitalized with staph infections. A member of the fraternity said pledges were asked perform a 'lateral ab movement' known as 'bows and toes' on the bathroom floor.

The university's Office of Student Judicial Affairs charged the chapter with hazing and it pleaded guilty.

After completing its suspension, the chapter served several months of probation. The international PIKE organization investigated and kicked out 25 of the chapter's active members. "

DAILYMAIL UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Connecting this chapter's past problems to the alcohol enema incident is synthesis. Until we hear whether Broughton was assaulted in a hazing incident or was just involved in stupid frat tricks, it would violate policy to include this event as reflective of the fraternity's culture and be undue to include news of individual members' poor judgment in an article about an organization they belong to. Jojalozzo 23:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to assume this was hazing would be synthesis. This is not like a member doing drugs in their room covertly, but 12 members were cited in this event and the fraternity was letting this go on in the house as a group, so there's something to be said about the collectively condoning this to go on. With careful phrasing, this incident should be included as note worthy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I am not very familiar with all the sources, but I have not seen reports that the organization sanctioned the enemas. As I said in the RFC, we need to wait for the investigation to conclude and be reported out or for a reliable party to conclude that the fraternity is at fault. It would be undue to include this in the article without a source that says the behavior was organized by the fraternity and not independent activity of some of its members on fraternity property. The closest thing I can find is "several members handed out rubber tubing to give each other alcoholic enemas" which of itself does not indicate organizational sanction. I leave it to the investigators to determine that though I'd guess it would depend on the relative status of those handing out the equipment and those using it and whether there was coercion. Jojalozzo 04:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Butt-chugging incident

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anyone unfamiliar with the RfC process should first read Responding to RfC's. The RfC process is for new comments from uninvolved editors. Please do not repeat the above debate in the RfC.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

Statement by Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs)

Include Butt Chugging incident. Hazing and dangerous activities are commonly discussed topics about fraternities. This is one of the few major coverage about such about Pi Kappa Alpha. I think this is notable enough for inclusion. If no:t now, maybe after some time? BUTT CHUGGINGCantaloupe2 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's now an international news. Coverage about it on UK's The Register.

the register Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by SummerPhD (talk · contribs)

I am neutral. If it is included, stick to the sources and watch the weight. Nothing I have seen calls this "hazing". Lack of other sources for the article is not a reason to turn this article on Pi Kappa Alpha into a coatrack about this incident. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved parties

Firstly, I assume that the dispute is over whether the butt-chugging incident should be included in the article.

Statement by edgarde (talk · contribs)

I suggest including the "butt chugging" incident. This article is currently lacking independent citations (not counting tangential mentions at host college sites); in the context of this subject, this is a notable incident. Notable Press Coverage is a WP:PEACOCKy term for this section — if Jon Stewart leaving due to hazing can be confirmed (I'm not finding a solid source for this) Hazing incidents could be a better section heading.
Here's a local source for chugging:

• Hickman, Hayes (24 September 2012). "Alcohol 'enema' sends student to ER; fraternity chapter suspended". Knoxville News Sentinel. Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 14:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jojalozzo (talk · contribs)

This incident is just a few days old and I think we should wait for the conclusion of the police investigation or bringing of charges. If this was a voluntary act on the student's part, then I think including it is undue - stupid but not notable in relation to the fraternity. If it was a hazing assault then it certainly merits inclusion. Jojalozzo 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)

I suggest that you do not include the but-chugging incident. In my opinion, including this news item, notable or not, serves no encyclopedic purpose. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nouniquenames (talk · contribs)

It's cited, so it passes GNG. The page is a bit shiny (read: VSCA), and its inclusion would help with that too. I would support its inclusion. The section title could be changed. --Nouniquenames 21:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The GNG applies to notability of a topic for an article, not inclusion of content in an article.

If the article seems spammy/advert-like, the solution is neutral writing. Inclusion of trivial negative material (if this is "trivial" is the question) is not "balance". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs)

Given the coverage in reliable sources, when compared to the relative paucity of sources in the rest of the article, the incident should be included. Also agree with Nouniquenames that the article seems a bit advert-like. It should also be edited for more neutral wording. LK (talk) 07:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that lack of sources for the article in general justifies poor sourcing for specific content, though my objection to including this content is not based on a general lack of sources for the incident but a lack of sources that describe the organization's role in the incident. Jojalozzo 20:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly right. There is no doubt that the incident occurred the question is, 'Is this a significant fact about PKA that should be included in an encyclopedia article about the organisation?'. To include what is essentially a news item in this article we need a source saying that the incident is significant to the organisation as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 4 October 2012

Under influential alumni in Government I'd like to see Karl Rove, Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff (2005-2007), from Alpha Tau at University of Utah, as well as Ibra C. Blackwood, Former Governor of South Carolina (1931-1935), from Nu Chapter at Wofford College.

WestBellTower1891 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now:; you have provided no reliable source references for either of those individuals, and neither of their articles has a reference verifying their membership in this fraternity. The source used to verify most of the names on this article is currently not working; if the link starts working again or if you can provide another reliable source reference please provide it and reactivate this request. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Biased coverage

As noted by myself and mentioned by some in the prior RfC, the article only includes flattering aspects of this organization. Each alumnus comes from a single chapter and if they're considered worthy of "notable" alumni under the main article, controversies that receive national media attention are equally deserving of inclusion for balanced coverage. There are many nationally covered Pike hazing incidents out there. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. If PKA has a particularly bad record of hazing incidents, and this fact is stated in a reliable source, the we should say something here. Otherwise the matter has been dealt with by the RfC above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Felonious Hazing at Northern Illinois University

I have included the incident taking comments from RfC into consideration. As noted by Jojalozzo in "If it was a hazing assault then it certainly merits inclusion." I believe the NIU incident merits inclusion. If "noteworthy" alumni from various chapters deserves inclusion, this certain is noteworthy.1 2 Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the tag and the section referring to the NIU incident. The Wikipedia guideline is "to not mention incidents when they relate to a single chapter and not the fraternity as a whole." And referring to the notable alumni: each alumni has their own Wikipedia page. If you feel they are not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a whole (and thus warranted in this article), I ask that you take that up on the respective person's talk page. Should it be found that the person is, in fact, not notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, following the removal of their article, you are free to remove their row in the notable alumni list. Dylanstaley (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What I'm saying is, does Wikipedia policy say to use this page as an advertising medium to list notable alumni to make PKA look flattering? Why should there even be a NOTABLE ALUMNI section while controversy section shouldn't be there? I think RfC above shows that there's general consensus that while there's no consensus on BUTT CHUGGING, actual hazing incident would be worthy of inclusion. I readded a different tag, because it does represent an issue I raised and reflects expressions shared by some participants in RfC. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has no policy dictating that there need be a notable alumni list. However, there are six featured articles in the WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities, and three of them are lists of notable alumni. As such, it has been shown that a list of notable alumni does contribute to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and is not considered advertising in nature. Although, I do not believe there are enough notable alumni listed in the article to justify their own list, yet. Dylanstaley (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you link me to a guideline or a policy and not an essay that reads ""to not mention incidents when they relate to a single chapter and not the fraternity as a whole."? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I implore you to read the policy that I have linked several times in this discussion and the one on the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject: WP:WEIGHT (a subset of the NPOV policy, not an essay) clearly states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Incidents at individual chapters, without reliable secondary sources that synthesize the incidents and place them in the proper context to the greater organization lend undue weight to those individual incidents, and any attempt by editors on Wikipedia to use multiple incidents to show a pattern of any sort without a reliable source is WP:SYNTHESIS. There is no indication that the various scandals you have dug up have had any lasting impact on the general fraternity, which is what this article is supposed to cover. It would be an entirely different story if Pike had, for example, adopted a policy banning firearms from their chapter houses in the wake of a shooting death in a chapter house, because that would be an incident at single chapter that had a lasting impact across the entire fraternity. As it stands, however, that has not been the case with this article or the incidents you have presented. Sycamore (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Go read the RfC. Two other editors expressed the opinion that it is ad like. "how its done on other articles" is not a basis to see if the article is POV or not. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you feel it reads too ad-like, let's work together on figuring out what changes we can make to fix that. I, personally, feel that the inclusion of the recent hazing incidents does not warrant inclusion as they were individual instances, and are not indicative of a larger phenomena within the fraternity. As there was a recent RFC regarding a similar issue, and it's something that the WikiProject is dealing with as a whole, I think our efforts would be better spent on other changes. Putting those aside, what are some other changes you think we could make to make the article more neutral?Dylanstaley (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As it stands now, this looks like a PR piece for PKA posted on Wikipedia starting with the description that looks appropriate for their own webpage, and a tacked on list of notable alumni which are entirely sourced off PKA website. I think the Notable Alumni list has got to go without a secondary source that discusses notable person as notable as well connect with PKA. This page only disseminates things in positive light for the frat. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Following the convention of other pages, I suggest we move the list to its own article, that way we can primarily focus on the text of the article. Ignoring the list, what are some specific textual changes you'd suggest to increase neutrality? Dylanstaley (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I have no objection to negative information about the fraternity on this page but it must be information that relates to the fraternity as a whole, not individual members or chapters.

I also would like to ask Cantaloupe2 what changes to the text are suggested so that we can remove the tag. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We should confer with the two editors who commented in RfC as well, but it would be to remove contents that would make it a like a PR article for the organization. The list of notable alumni it self proclaims is already on their site and there's no reason to have a list here. Also, inclusions of issues that go around PKA like controversies is important IMO. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the optimal compromise would be to remove the notable alumni list and move it to its own article, following the convention set by other, more well-developed Greek organization articles. Cantaloupe2, can you offer any more specific edit suggestions to modify the pre-existing text to make it more neutral? If more information regarding the fraternity's history would help, I'd be happy to find some more resources to pull historical information from. Dylanstaley (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

balancing out

First, look at all the references. This article is more or less a spokesperson for Pike with disseminating contents from their own site which basically speaks of it in the way they want. We need to add sources that discuss PKA in significant depth, from third party sources. Even if controversial issues are negative, they do fit the criteria. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty in this comes from the fact that the most accessible sources discussing items like the fraternity's history are their own materials, such as their website and pledge handbook. I do agree that the fact the majority of the information presented is from PIKE themselves, but it is all factual, verifiable information. The only issue is verifying it with accessible sources. I've gone ahead and placed the list of notable alumni on their own page. List of Pi Kappa Alpha brothers Dylanstaley (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If there isn't considerable published material about the organization from independent sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia. This applies to companies, organizations, fraternities, student clubs, and what not. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

POV issues

To my eye, as someone who is not a member of this fraternity, it looks like the "Rituals" section and the last paragraph of the History section have antagonistic POV elements. The "Rituals" section in particular seems like a WP:COATRACK to add information about hazing incidents while purporting to give information about the fraternity's Ritual, which is not mentioned outside of a throwaway line that is taken wholesale from a "For Dummies" book, which seems like a questionable source. User:Cantaloupe2 seems to have been the source of these and several other antagonistic edits over the past few months. Sycamore (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The cited sources expand on existing history section. The "white only" thing is as much of a history as anything else. Prior to my edits, the article actually did not even meet notability criteria to have its won page on Wikipedia, per WP:ORGDEPTH which requires substantial coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. A page that is basically a collage of Pike's own pages is absurdly useless. It would be like an extension of its official page. My understanding is that fraternities are NOT exempt form notability requirements, If you don't like what I've added and you can't locate additional independent sources covering PKA in depth, article could be a candidate for deletion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article as it stands may be a "collage of Pike's own pages," but instead of seeking out reliable, independent, secondary sources to improve the article's coverage of the fraternity, you have sought out the most scandalous incidents involving the fraternity (butt chugging, the Northern Illinois hazing death, the "whites-only" rule, hazing traditions). You did not expand on the existing history section as you say except to add that Pike had a whites-only rule. That addition is well-sourced and should be included, but I think that with the brevity of the rest of the history section, a great deal of (not necessarily undue) weight is put on the fact that it was once a Whites-only fraternity. I think that 1964 is very late to abandon that requirement in the Greek system, but I don't know of a source that compares the dates of fraternities abandoning racial barriers to membership to be able to say where Pike stands.

However, I take greater issue with the entire "Rituals" section, which you did not address in your comments. It looks to me like nothing but a WP:COATRACK and given your edits I have a hard time assuming good faith in your approach to this article. Sycamore (talk) 07:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There was an RfC on the butt chugging incident which concluded that there was no consensus to add it.

The question we must ask ourselves regarding the negative information added is, 'How significant is it to the organisation as a whole'. PKA has over a quarter of a million members so it is not surprising that some of them get up to mischief from time to time. Regarding the racial bar, we should ask whether PKA was significantly more racist that other fraternities at the time. WP must give a balanced view of the article subject taken as a whole. It is not a forum or noticeboard for gripes and complaints. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Degree of racismness is not something easily quantified, although we could add racist behavior incidents from source to establish this. [1] the previously referenced source in article describes "fraternity's[PKA] blatant racism", PKA's "party in the projects" [2] so on and on. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Because someone voiced there's a "project wide issue" I have a thread going on there as well. Even though it discusses Pike, it should provide a path for how things will be handled in general for "GLOs" where Wiki policies are murky on how we should proceed.

project discussion -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that the Goat Brothers ritual, though sourced in both primary and secondary sources, is too detailed (and undue). However, I think that if someone had the interest and opportunity to read Colton's book, it could be a useful source for general historical content.

I think that information on the organization's racist past is not POV and belongs in the article.

Overall, I think the sources used in these two additions are and will be helpful in providing dimensionality to what has up to now been a fairly flat, uninformative article. I hope we can locate more of them to supplement the subject's documentation. Jojalozzo 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the organization's racism is not POV, but I worry that including it (currently two sentences with my edit) when the rest of the History section is only eight sentences (six before the addition of information about the Pike Foundation) lends undue WP:WEIGHT to the fraternity's racism. I also do not understand why Cantaloupe2 reverted my edit to the history section without discussion and accused me of WP:EDITORIALIZING when I did not use a partial tone and in fact read the source in question which says that Pike expanded to Howard in 2006, not the 1990s as originally written. Furthermore, the source does not include any reference to "charges of institutionalized racism" which is far more editorial than a true reading of the source, which is reflected in my edit: "This and other contemporary racist incidents at individual chapters caused the fraternity's move [...] to be met with disapproval from many students and alumni." Sycamore (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After reviewing the edit, I find no justification in the original revert. Cantaloupe2, due to the nature of our discussion here, please discuss with other editors before outright reverting their changes. Furthermore, as Howard University never actually began a colony of Pi Kappa Alpha, I believe the reference to it should be removed until the depth of the History section warrants the inclusion of a minor factoid such as this one. However, the inclusion of the fraternity removing barriers for other races to become members should remain as it is a significant moment in the history of the fraternity. Dylanstaley (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dylansaley, there was very much a colony at Howard University. I was an active Pike at another DC school during their attempts to gain full recognition by their University. I have more details about the specifics, but a simple Google search will find plenty of articles from Howard's student newspaper to back up he fact. If you don't think that an IFC fraternity starting a colony at an HBCU is NOT a significant historical event, then I really can't help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.118.156 (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure of conflict of interest

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

Ritual Section

As it stands currently, the Ritual section makes absolutely no attempt to discuss the Ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, and instead sensationalizes an isolated incident of hazing. The actions described are not a part of the ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, and we should not make attempts to justify their inclusion as such. Unless we can add more information about the actual Ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha, which is near impossible considering that it is a closely guarded secret, I believe we should completely remove the section. Dylanstaley (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we describe whats "isoalted" and what isn't? This is something that has been reliably published in multiple books. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

By "isolated" I mean it isn't a ritual event that was performed by a significant portion of the fraternity, and as such shouldn't be considered part of the fraternity's ritual. Dylanstaley (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts. From the weight policy page. I don't find that association of hazing as a fraternity ritual as a minority viewpoint. Due Undue weight evaluation is more challenging than i was expecting though. PKA eventually established anti-hazing policies which says something on its own. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a change here because the citation from the source says based in the past tense, but the article says present tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:1FD0:A4E1:9DB9:8DEF:251B (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The year PKA removed white only restriction

A previous secondary source reported 1964, but it was replaced with 1960 which is what is supposedly reported in Pi Kappa Alpha self published reference called oak. I found a reliably published academic journal that also corroborates 1964, so that reference has been inserted and reverted back to 1964 figure. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The changes to the constitution were made in 1960 at the Miami Convention. In 1964, the Supreme Council "issued several statements, one of which stated, 'There is no authority or justification in the constitution or ritual of Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity in withholding membership from any person on account of race, color, sect, or creed." In an effort to be more accurate, we should use the 1960 date to reference the constitution's changes. Dylanstaley (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of 1964, which have been published in reliable third party sources. Can you please locate a reliable independent source that validate the 1960 as well? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Will work on that! Furthermore, neither of the sources that use the 1964 date cite their source, so it may be a simple misunderstanding that has since then been purported as factual information. It is true that actions took place in 1964 regarding membership eligibility, but official records of the fraternity indicate that the constitution was actually changed in 1960. I'll work on finding an independent source that uses the accurate 1960 date. Dylanstaley (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge of accuracy can be considered if you have another equally heavy weight source refuting it. That article was written by a sociology professor and published in a very respected journal in the field of education while you've only offered me "trust me" type counterpoint. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the location the article was published in is quite notable, and I'm not refuting that. None of the sources using the 1964 date cite their location, and as such I believe they're confusing the statements of the Supreme Council in 1964 as the point at which the race clause was lifted. The only authoritative source would be the actual minutes of the 1960 convention, which constitute a primary source, from which all other secondary (and thus independent) sources must draw from in order to reflect the 1960 date. So, even if I were to find an article published in a notable source that cited the original minutes of the convention, would you feel it would be inadmissible? Dylanstaley (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is covered in reliable secondary source, my understanding is that it is admissible, however careful attention must be paid to how it is presented. If it reads "according to..." or "supposedly" "appears to be" it suggests the author is unsure about the accuracy. See WP:RS and it explains about what constitutes reliable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are not inadmissible in WP, especially regarding simple matters of fact. Are the minutes publicly available or available online? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed

I have removed this. In 1964 racism was rife in the US, especially in the south. To put anything in the article we need a source which shows that PKA was worse than other organisations at the time. Comments about institutional racism might be better in the Fraternities and sororities in North America article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ReplyThis source specifically expresses it blatant racism by PKA even though it does not make comparative analysis with other organizations. reference. Comparative analysis with other organization is not required. "but other articles don't have it".. we obviously can't tend to every article. Go add to other ones if you want. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is undue weight to mention something about PKA that would have applied to many organisations at that time. What is your reason for wanting to add the comment to this specific fraternity? There may be a story to tell but this is not the place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that you read the source. This is published discussion of causality link in how Pikes were perceived at HBU Howard University. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read through the cited sources and it is clearly quite a complex situation which has not been properly summarised in the article. There seems to be deep rooted ill feeling and institutionalised racism on both sides of the racial divide, which I see no benefit in propagating here. The actual events were some time ago and relatively minor. I think it is undue weight and unencyclopedic to mention the rather sorry state of affairs which existed nearly a decade ago. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

So what's the excuse? When I inserted butt chugging in the past, it was criticized for recentism, and suggestion was given that to be worthy of inclusion it needs coverage beyond brief period. The newly added source does this. Though the incidents were at independent chapters, it was nonetheless notable events that affected the perception of the organization and a documented one at that. It is placed chronologically and its important part of the history. Several other editors state that its important as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not need any excuses. I have no connection or interest in US Greek letter organisations only an interest in creating a good encyclopedia. That does not mean that we must add every detailed event that we can find to the article, rather it means that we should write a balanced article giving an overview of the subject.

In addition to giving undue weight to a single incident in the organisation's history, the current text does not properly summarise the events described in the sources. I would be happy to discuss your understanding of them here so that we can come to a consensus over what, if anything, we should write in the article, but just adding negative news snippets, out of context, is not acceptable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

A published article in respectable academic journal covering issues of racism in fraternity is hardly "negative news snippets". Trying to discredit the addition by calling sources "news snippets" is unacceptable. In consideration for due/undue, strength of source is a factor. In the history, you've removed dates of factual events and reverted back to uninformative dulled down euphemism "contemporary racist incidents". Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to know the dates, they can check the original source from the References section. This article is not "Pi Kappa Alpha controversies" or "Criticisms of Pi Kappa Alpha". It is "Pi Kappa Alpha", and you are placing undue weight on the controversial aspects of the fraternity. Sycamore (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hazing

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

(‎History: Remove comment about racism. Racism was rife in the US before 1964. Can we show PKA was special?)

User:Martin_Hogbin asked the above question in edit comment. I'll attempt to answer it. I think an analysis by a professor in a respected journal serves as a verifiable evidence and since this article isn't about a person, the burden of proof is not nearly that of the WP:BLP

"Recent debaucheries by Pike chapters--from parties in which members donned Klansmen outfits in 1999 at Auburn University to events in which members and pledges wore blackface in 2004 at Georgia State--have led many to posit an inherent racism amidst the Pikes." The source specifically attributes to the frat Pikes. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition to my concerns about your placement of undue weight on the controversies that surround Pi Kappa Alpha, I'm also concerned by your close paraphrasing of the sources you have cited so far:

• You: "... racist debaucheries in 1999 at Auburn University chapter and a 2004 incident at Georgia State chapter ..."
• Source: "Recent debaucheries by Pike chapters from parties in which members donned Klansmen outfits in 1999 at Auburn University to events in which members and pledges wore blackface in 2004 at Georgia State"
• You: "In the early 1960s, there was a hazing ritual at Berkeley Pi Kappa Alpha in which pledges were obliged to wear a Kotex pad in their crotch while drinking a 'goat shake' made of molasses, vinegar, Worcestershire sauce, mustard, coffee and prune juice'"
• Source: "... the Berkeley Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity's tradition in the early 1960s wherein pledges were obliged to wear a Kotex pad in their crotches while undergoing such ordeals as drinking a 'goat shake' consisting of 'molasses, vinegar, Worchestershire sauce, mustard, coffee, and prune juice'."
• You: "Its rituals are based on Independent Order of Odd Fellows."
• Source: "Pi Kappa Alpha, for instance, based its ritual on the Independent Order of Odd Fellows."
• You: "In 1964, Pi Kappa Alpha lifted "whites only" clause."
• Source: "Pi Kappa Alpha did not lift its 'Whites only' racial clause until 1964."

Can you explain these close similarities? Sycamore (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your issue? They were worded to reflect what the source says as close as possible without copying and pasting. Accurately conveying what is said in the source without editorializing is how we're supposed to do it. Is it not? discussion here says properly attributed paraphrasing of a small amount is generally ok while an entire section would not be. Since there's proper attribution, there is no plagiarism. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits made a significant portion of the History section a close paraphrase, and if you notice, the entirety of your additions to the "Rituals" section was a close paraphrase—if not outright copy-pasted. You can introduce facts to an article without closely paraphrasing OR editorializing. If you're so concerned that not reproducing words like "debaucheries" (which is borderline NPOV in my opinion, regardless of what source you copied it from) and instead using your own words is "editorializing," that reads like you're essentially admitting that you're editorializing through the words of the sources you are citing. We are not supposed to retype almost word-for-word what our sources say and slap a citation at the end of it—that's still plagiarism. There is no Wikipedia policy that says we cannot or should not use original text to state a summary of what is contained in the sources we cite. Sycamore (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Weight and treatment of controversial incidents

Should controversial incidents at individual chapters of an organization with over 200 local chapters be included while the article is so short? Sycamore (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors

Unlike the prior RfC over University of Tennessee butt chugging issue, the notable racism incidents that you're objecting were reliably covered in Educational Foundations journal which is a legitimate credible source. It's not "news snippets". The source reports that these incidents were a hurdle for acceptance of the frat PKA at Howard University. WP:UNDUE says "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. ". This is not a sensational news page. It is a legit journal hosted on the US Department of Education server. I'm ok with it if you have objections with the butt chugging or the hazing one. "there are 200 chapters"... and suppressing every edit prevents any improvement that can be made to the article. Before my edit, this article was one flat reiteration of Pike page. To the point it got blanked out for WP:COPYVIO. When I came into the article first it looked like a Pike Press Release Wikipedia edition. Representing things solely from Pike's perspective is extremely biased POV. I added independent sources for 1948 Pike Foundation which was not contested, but the later historical event in 1960s were contested. This is basically saying that this historically significant event should be greatly trimmed because rest of the story is lacking. I find this removal contentious. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not questioning the credibility of your sources and I have no doubt that the events that you mention did actually occur, but that does not mean that we must put them in an article about an organisation of over 250,000 people. I presume the point that you are trying to make is that PKA wore more racist than other similar fraternities. If that is the case then you need to find a source which says that.

I am not sure what you think the Howard University source shows but again, if you want to make a pint about the organisation, you need to find a source which actually makes that point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of expectation of how it compares to other fraternities nor is it necessary. The source already says "have led many to posit an inherent racism amidst the Pikes."Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is WP:undue weight to mention something about one fraternity that was common at the time. You also give no follow-up information, for example what is the situation at Howard University now? Have the problems been resolved.

It really is not fair to mention the racism of one fraternity if it was common to many other fraternities and the issue has now been resolved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the subsequent event just yet. I don't think its undue to add information as one comes across them. It was suggested that this be added once the article grows. Under your philosophy, its a major hurdle to do so. If the addition is something flattering like an award or recognition that is a historical milestone just like this racist incident, playing "fair" means that it would have to be disputed as WP:UNDUE and have the insertion revoked therefore the expansion of article stalls. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not quite the same thing. An award or other recognition is likely to stand, regardless of what happens next. On the other hand I suspect that the racist attitude shown by PKA in 1960 has changed by now as will the response of commentators at Howard University. The current wording does not even properly reflect the source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional include - If sources do not make a connection between incidents at chapters and the national organization other than the name of the chapter or the national organization's disavowal or disapproval then I think it's undue. If there are reliable sources which connect incidents at chapters with the national organization and conclude or imply that the incidents reflect on the character of the organization, especially if the sources identify a pattern of behavior in chapters, then I think the content may have a place. It may even sometimes be sufficient for a source simply to mention previous incidents at other chapters in a report of a new incident, since the implication is that the incidents are connected via membership in the national organization, though it would be much preferable to have sources that make the generalization to the national organization explicit. Jojalozzo 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • So, how would you feel about published doubts by Howard University community to establishment of PiKA due to 1999 Auburn and 2004 Georgia State incident? While they occurred at individual chapters, it influenced perception of PiKA by Howard community. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that a connection between the local chapter and the national organization necessarily needs to be made, or that is it appropriate to mention the incident if the response of the organization is to suspend or revoke the charter of that chapter (and reported in a college newspaper). (See the discussion of religion in the Kappa Sigma Membership section and related talk page). My point is: if there is a controversial incident involving one chapter that is, by itself, notable, it may be appropriate to include the incident. --Enos733 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of notable incidents at chapters, however can you expand on your interpretation of notable? The NIU incident that caused one student to die and 22 PiKA members to face criminal charges; as well as the butt chugging at Tennessee that received multi-national coverage are notable and I feel they both merit inclusion. Opponents say WP:UNDUE because the current article is too short, or that they're "one time events" however if anything inserted is rejected on the ground "these things are too short" it would never get long, therefore it makes it impossible to add anything. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that an isolated, notable incident at a chapter carries due weight for mention on the national organizations page. There need to be sources that bring the incident into a bigger picture that reflects the nature of the whole organization. Jojalozzo 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I will discuss the Howard U situation as an example because it is not the topic of this RFC and is not helpful to digress into specifics except where they serve as examples. The source for the Howard U situation connected chapter incidents of racism with the national organization. The racist history of the organization and various chapters led alumni and students to question the benefits of PKA opening a new chapter on their campus and I think that content could be included without being undue. I do not think it is pertinent that such racism was common in white GLOs and white society at large. This article is about the organization and the source addresses PKA in general, not particular chapters.Jojalozzo 02:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So, do you all have an issue with this version ? I didn't include NIU hazing or UTN Butt Chugging. I used neutral wording and addressed the close paraphrasing that someone complained about. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I do have an issue with it for the reasons I have outlined countless times here and at WP:FRAT, which is why I reverted your edit. It doesn't matter that you're not including info about NIU or Tennessee. You're still putting WP:UNDUE weight on the Howard University expansion by making 15% of the article devoted to that single incident by including a disproportionate amount of detail. If a reader or editor wants to know the specifics of why Howard University students and alumni objected to the Pike colony, they can read the sources you have cited. Sycamore (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

substantial editing by closely affiliated editor

I also feel that this WP:COI reversion by user Dylanstaley is highly controverisal given his prior statement of close affiliation and strong exhibition of skewed view in this edit " I noticed that the article was seriously lacking, so I took it upon myself as a brother of PIKE to restore it to a respectable state". So, after it was blanked for copyvio, he directly edited in significant amount, taking it upon himself as a brother, based on Pike self published materials rather than use {request edit} through a neutral party. I think this means dissemination of cherry picked desirable public relations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better if Dylanstayley had asked a neutral editor to add material. This article must be neither promotion nor critical but present a balance view of the organisation as a whole. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors

I don't think this RfC is really worded as neutrally as it should be. Outside of that, I would think that any major incidents that received a large amount of coverage should be included. If the coverage is significant enough, it might be possible to spin off a separate article for the chapter and include the information there. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I know there was a move about 5(?) years ago to get rid of chapter pages. The only chapter page I can think of is Zeta Phi, which was a long standing local before affiliating. Does anyone know of any pages for chapters of National Fraternities that didn't have a long time as freestanding locals?Naraht (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's my understanding as well, that is, no page for individual chapters. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Yes, controversial events should be included in the article, provided that (1) they mention the national organization; and (2) they are covered in major media (not just, e.g., a local campus newsletter). For instance, if CNN covered an event at campus X, and the coverage mentioned Pi Kappa Alpha - regarding it as a national organization - then that is suitable for this article. Borderline events perhaps could be included as footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The question becomes, 'What happens if the news article only talks about what Omega Psi Psi chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha?' Or 'What happens if the news article only mentions Omega Psi Psi chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha other than a mention at the end that "North Vermont U. and Pi Kappa Alpha national have both suspended the chapter"?

Jesus Christ

Was Jesus Christ seriously a founding father? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.97.28 (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Did Pi Kappa Alpha have a chapter at the University of Nazareth 2000 years ago? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph on Racial change.

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

Location of racism clause

According to the Wikipedia page for lead paragraphs, the lead is an introduction and summary of the most important points of the subject of the page. A summary is a brief statement about the main points of something. The article is fairly short with the history, Rituals, Shield & Diamond, and Foundational and Educational programs, and one single sentence about the past racial restrictions. The last sentence in the article is about the past racial restrictions of the fraternity, abolished in 1964 as has been determined in the Talk page. The inclusion of this statement gives undue weight to this unimportant fact about the organization. As an unaffiliated person, this seems more than unnecessary but prejudicial to an organization of over 200,000 people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.244.186 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems there are a number of sources for which the facts around PKA's racist history is not "unimportant" and we use the sources to determine weight, not our own opinions. I also don't think there is policy that calls for special treatment for organizations with lots of members. Jojalozzo 02:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP's statement is also slightly misleading, as the sentence about racial segregation was part of a larger paragraph about the issue. For matters of WP:DUE weight, it is good to rely on WP:SECONDARY sources. If these sources emphasize that Pi Kappa Alpha was segregated until 1964, that should be included. It's certainly not the only example of racism in the fraternity's history. I've just added another one, and that was after a very brief search. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory & Secret Societies as a Reliable Source.

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

Alcohol and Hazing

Correction to reference that assault at University of Mississippi was part of initiation activities. 1) Initiations are ceremonies. 2) These five individuals were immediately expelled from the chapter using the judicial process allowed per the chapter bylaws and the fraternity's constitution. 3) This was a wrongful act committed by individuals. The university of Mississippi found the chapter was not hazing and these individuals acted on their own.Gudgeon87 (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect reliable sources with a strong preference for secondary sources. The brief, boilerplate press release from the fraternity isn't a secondary source for info about the fraternity, and it didn't really support anything about the University's findings. Grayfell (talk) 02:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

University findings: http://m.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/oct/24/fraternity-says-it-cut-ties-students-after-assault/?templates=mobile

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/10/23/fraternity-says-cut-ties-students-after-assault/74467372/ Spokesman Danny Blanton says the students told investigators they were trying to steal the statue from the Sigma Pi house. Blanton says the university recently determined the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter could not be held institutionally liable after an Oct. 6 assault against a member of the Ole Miss chapter of the Sigma Pi fraternity. Blanton says the students' actions were not part of what the university considers organized hazing, although one student faces misdemeanor hazing charges. NOTE: Danny Blanton is spokesperson for the university.Gudgeon87 (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pi Kappa Alpha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324093235/http://www.davidson.edu/student/organizations/pika/ to http://www.davidson.edu/student/organizations/pika/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversies and sexual assault cases

A bloated section had been expanded to take up half of this article, under the heading "Controversies and sexual assault cases." I don't mind framing the good and the bad about any of these organizations in an article, but WP:PROPORTION and WP:WEIGHT should be considered; too much of the article was a recitation of individual chapter failings, often leading to suspensions or closures over a 50 year span. Yet every day, hundreds of chapters and many thousands of members go about their daily activities, innocent of these failings. Hence, on the balance, I think these individual chapter notes should be inserted as references adjacent to any list of chapters, either active or closed, possibly closed for cause.

Is there a place for a Controversies section in a fraternity article? Sure. Some of these events were tragic, some annoying and reflective of dumb decisions by collegians but not criminal. Some occurred decades ago. My instinct is that a section like this ought to be included where the events are:

1. Systemic; if a national fraternity is discovered to somehow support hazing or abuse.
2. Notable, where an event garners its own Wikipedia page or is otherwise national news, like the Duke lacrosse case. --Later found to be fraudulent.
3. The cause of state or national legislation, such as Ohio's tightening of hazing laws, or the development of a named law in reaction to a scandal or worse, a death. For example, the DePauw discrimination fiasco
4. The cause of a death, in a criminal hazing event. Such as at Chi Tau (local)

Editors, your thoughts? Jax MN (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

For reference, here are the bullet paragraphs that were formerly listed under this header, in the article:

• In 1976, Samuel Mark Click, a pledge at Texas Tech University, was killed participating in a scavenger hunt as part of a hazing event. He was trying to collect a letter that was under a railroad tie when he was hit by a train.

• In 1988, three Pi Kappa Alpha members at Florida State University were charged in the sexual battery of a freshman female student. The victim was left in the hallway of another fraternity house. The case made national headlines for weeks. The fraternity members all struck plea deals, and the fraternity was banned from the school for twelve years. Pi Kappa Alpha was allowed to return to the school in 2000 despite strong protests.

• In 1988, several members of Pi Kappa Alpha were arrested for a sexual assault that took place at Stetson University.

• In 2002, Albert Santos, a pledge at the University of Nevada at Reno, drowned in a lake participating in a hazing ritual. He and several pledges were told to swim in a lake in their underwear but Santos could not swim. The fraternity was banned from the campus after his death. Santos' family sued the university and fraternity for negligence.

• In 2007, the chapter at the University of Central Florida was shut down after the fraternity racked up more than 20 misconduct and hazing violations.

• In 2008, 10 Pike members were arrested at Tulane University for pouring boiling hot water on pledges. The chapter was also accused of drugging and sexually assaulting several female students at the fraternity's annual bacchanal.

• Florida International University suspended the fraternity in 2013 after the discovery of photos on Facebook of hazing and drug deals, as well as sexually explicit photos of women taken without their consent.

• The UNC-Charlotte chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha was suspended after student placed in IC for alcohol-related hazing in 2013. In 2014 a county judge dismissed charges against three members, and found the fourth not guilty. The university found the fraternity guilty of hazing, and suspended its charter for eight years.

• In 2010, the chapter at Cornell University was placed on suspension for four years “due to its history of alcohol and hazing-related infractions over several years, which culminated in a Jan. 22, 2010, incident involving underage and high-risk drinking,” according to the Cornell Chronicle. The chapter was suspended again in March 2017 for violating university rules.

• In October 2012, the fraternity was suspended at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville following the hospitalization of a member for alcohol poisoning due to alleged "butt-chugging".

• In 2012, Pi Kappa Alpha pledge David Bogenberger died of a cardiac arrhythmia triggered by alcohol poisoning. According to police, Bogenberger and other pledges at an unsanctioned Northern Illinois University event were pressured into drinking large quantities of alcohol in a two-hour time. Bogenberger and 18 other pledges drank to unconsciousness. Five fraternity officers and 17 other members were convicted of misdemeanors in one of the largest hazing prosecutions in U.S. history. The chapter was suspended by the fraternity.

• In 2014, the leaders of the fraternity's University of Arkansas chapter were asked to resign following an unauthorized Martin Luther King, Jr. Day party that incorporated racist stereotypes.

• In 2014, the fraternity lost its charter at the University of Southern Mississippi following a hazing incident that led to the death of two mated flamingos. Pledges stole a flamingo from the local zoo, and in the struggle to defend its mate to her dying breath, the male was killed. The next morning, after being left on a bicycle path, the other died. In 2018, the fraternity was allowed to return to the school.

• In April 2014, the fraternity lost its charter at the University of Virginia due to hazing pledges, however the school and the national fraternity agreed to let the chapter return for fall 2014 under an agreement that moved most Juniors and Seniors to early Alumni status and appointed a board of local fraternity alumni to oversee the group.

• In 2015, the former fraternity chapter president at Utah State University was charged with forcible sexual abuse, a felony, after allegedly inappropriately touching a female fellow student passed out at a party.

• In 2015, one member and four pledges of Pi Kappa Alpha from the University of Mississippi were arrested and charged with assault for leaving a Sigma Pi fraternity member with a concussion, broken ear drum, and broken teeth after a violent beating. The Pi Kappa Alpha member and pledges were trying to steal a donkey statue from the Sigma Pi house as part of a fraternity initiation task before the fight. The students involved were dismissed/expelled from the fraternity.

• In March 2015, the chapter at the University of South Carolina was suspended after a Pike member was found dead in a private home near campus that had beer kegs and St. Patrick Day decorations on the porch. The Richland County Coroner's Office called it a "suspicious death".

• In November 2016, the chapter at Louisiana State University placed itself voluntary suspension after a woman reported to authorities she was a victim of sexual battery by an unidentified white man in the backyard of the fraternity house during a "PIKE's Peak" party. However, the school's investigation of the chapter was closed in early December due to insufficient evidence and lack of contact with the victim.

• In March 2017, a Harris County Grand Jury indicted the University of Houston chapter for extreme hazing. Their pledges were severely deprived from adequate water, food, and sleep, and one was body slammed resulting in a lacerated spleen. The chapter was placed under suspension until 2023 and given a $10,000 fine.

• In May 2017, the chapter at California State University, Chico was charged with illegally cutting down 32 trees in the Lassen National Forest during an initiation of new pledges. They were also charged with possession of a firearm and conspiracy to commit offense or defraud the United States. The chapter was placed on suspension pending the outcome of the federal investigation. In October 2017, the chapter was sentenced to 9,800 hours of community service and a $4,000 fine after pleading guilty to cutting down and damaging trees in the Lassen National Forest by the U.S. District Court.

• On October 2, 2017 the chapter at Kennesaw State University was issued a cease and desist order by the university administration for repeatedly violating the student codes of conduct.

• In September 2017, the chapter at Iowa State University was suspended for misuse of alcoholic beverages, and for failure to appear at a university adjudication. The suspension was lifted on August 20, 2018. The chapter was placed on social probation for one year immediately after being lifted from suspension.

• In the fall of 2017, the chapter at University of Massachusetts Amherst was indefinitely suspended for hazing allegations. Members of the chapter were procuring alcohol for a minor during a hazing ritual which led to hospitalization due to alcohol poisoning.

• In March 2018, the chapter at Southern Methodist University was suspended for four and a half years for hazing pledges that included forcing them to drink alcohol, and forcing them to eat foods like onions and habanero peppers and drink milk. The Kappa Alpha Order and Phi Gamma Delta fraternities at SMU had also been recently suspended for similar offenses before the Pikes were.

(This was a rather lengthy list.)

I'd suggest that a separate chapter list page be developed, and that these incidents, and their references, be inserted as refnotes adjacent to each chapter. They provide valid detail about events at specific chapters; none appear to show systemic failings by Pi Kappa Alpha national. Jax MN (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

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

It is a very long list indeed. At the very least, I think some do deserve to be included in the article, notably criminal incidents, inlcuding the recent death of Stone Foltz. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored this section, but only kept the most notable incidents (IE: Confirmed Deaths, Sexual assults, and general large news stories), and noted that these are on a local level rather than a national level. I agree that they belong on more specific pages, but until such pages exist, I think simply deleting well written, cited material of interest to the reader is not a solution either. --Mbrickn (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your decision completely and I like the way you handled it. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I support this step, prior to creation of a list of chapters. Gotta say also, I like the heading choice of "Local Chapter Misconduct" far better than "Controversies." I will borrow that for other articles. Jax MN (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Columbia Missouri

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