Talk:Kappa Delta Rho/Archive 1

Active/Dormant
I believe a section of dormant chapters, in addition to the chapters listed would be good, so they will not be forgotten.

Nicknames
K-Deltas? I've never heard that one before.

I am a member of the Pi Alpha Chapter of Kappa Delta Rho at the University of Toledo. I was just wondering why we got no mention...i believe we are up for some national awards this year...

Who wrote this article?
While it's cool that someone took the time to cut and paste propaganda from national, this article in no way resembles anything close to a neutral point of view. I don't think anybody really cares that much, but this whole article should be rewritten, w/o personal pronouns or pejorative statements (the fact that alpha went coed is just that: a fact. In an encyclopedia, there's no place for calling it groundbreaking or trailblazing.

PLEASE REWRITE THIS ARTICLE, AND DON'T JUST QUOTE THE PATHFINDER!!!

Chris kupka 22:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one responsible
I rewrote this article, I'm a brother of Eta at the University of Illinois, I've been meaning to rewrite it. I thought we got a raw deal when our article was such a short stub compared to other fraternities, so I temporarily copied the Pathfinder history into it from another chapter's website (I think it was Nu/Indiana). I'm going to rewrite the history to make it more neutral, as well as add in inactive chapters when I get some time. Also, for anybody who has more experience with this than me, how would I cite the Pathfinder as a source?


 * Glad to see you've got plans for revising. I stumbled on the page to correct a typo of "Virginia," and made the mistake of attempting to edit this monstrosity. I've edited entries that look like they were written by pre-teen girls, puerile pieces by juvenile delinquents, and articles by non-native English speakers, but this one beats them all for pitiful prose. I got from the beginning through "The Founders," and from "After 1946" to the end. The simplest way to note a reference is to create a new section called "References," and put it there. Do so ASAP even if you don't get to any other edits! Kyriosity 05:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm from the Nu Chapter and you probably did copy & paste from our website. Alot of that information looks like it was from our website as I was one who helped design and build our site. All the history information we posted was compiled from National as well as The Pathfinder and another Alum, who as an Active, had written up quite a bit on KDR....I'm sort of thrilled to see we even had this info posted on Wikipedia, so just having that is a great start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.212.0.104 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Just out of curiosity, does anybody know anyplace online, like a chapter website, that has more KDR history that just the chapter from the Pathfinder? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.126.128.200 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Beta Chapter alum, here. When you say "we got a raw deal," you understand that nobody deliberately short-changed our fraternity, right?  Only what people take the time to add to Wikipedia will appear on Wikipedia.  Since very few people besides brothers of KDR will care about KDR's place on Wikipedia, it falls to us - to you - to make the article not only thorough, but neutral and appropriate.  Simply making it larger does nobody any favors, and I'm glad it has been cut back down in advance of more appropriate revision. Beeeej 07:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT CITE THE PATHFINDER As I understand it that is supposed to be kept secret

There's nothing in the Pathfinder that's supposed to be secret. If there was, it wouldn't be given to pledges.

- It's OK to cite the Pathfinder - the book is printed publicly and distributed to non-members. That will take care of source citation. But when (if?) somebody does this again, please write in the third person, NPOV. Taking information directly from the Pathfinder is ok. When summer rolls around, I'll get around to this. Seems a pity there's no mention of the Credo, the Ratti Stone/Coat of Arms history, chapter service in World War II... 24.213.197.102 04:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea; a good history and chronological section would add quite a bit to the article as a whole. Jmlk17 06:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable
Usually when one claims a number of chapters, it is the number of active chapters. 75 Chapters is a large number for not even having that many, and not having nearly that many active chapters

I disagree with this. The number of chapters should refer to total, since after all, a brother with an inactive chapter is still a brother, correct? A chapter does not lose its place in history due to inactivity.

NPOV
Where exactly is the neutrality of the article in dispute? Is it just in the plagiarism aspect that was previously discussed or what? If there is no NPOV issue, then I will remove the tag soon. Jmlk17 23:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag, since there seems to be no issue on the article page. Jmlk17 08:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat Unique"
"Somewhat unique among college fraternities, KDR's Alpha Chapter at Middlebury was forced to coeducate in the early 1990s, due to a policy at the school against single-sex organizations." - something either is unique, or it isn't. Are there other NIC fraternities that have a co-ed chapter? This could use a source.Greenth (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What was unique about this was the fact that it happened at your Alpha chapter. Several other fraternities are co-ed, or have co-ed "Societies" - Alpha Delta Phi comes to mind.  But for all these, the co-ed movement came from one or more chapters that had been established *by* the national fraternity. By the way, I am a neutral observer, and a member of another national fraternity, Phi Sig.  Jes' helping y'all out. Jax MN (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism, Lack of Content
I redid the "founding history" section, which was plagiarized directly from The Pathfinder. There is hardly any meaningful content on the article right now. Credo, Precepts are just taken from The Pathfinder, and the list of alumni doesn't contribute much. If others have The Pathfinder, I've added a reference to it so that things can be properly sourced. That said, this article would really benefit from some genuinely relevant content from another source.Greenth (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The History section is now recast and expanded with significant facts from the years since 1905, as I was able to rewrite this extensively from the sources provided by the fraternity and in ]]Baird's Manual]], 20th ed. If anyone wants to provide additional references from public sources, these are always welcome.  A public domain photo of a chapter building would also be of interest to potential recruits, parents and general Wikipedia lurkers.  --A friend from Phi Sigma Kappa Jax MN (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Large Changes 7/9/2007
All, KDR Tau #237 here. I just went through an extremely large update of the article, cleaning a few things up and re-organizing the Alumni section to be more reader-friendly. Like all of you, I'm very concerned about the founding text. Since National has almost no information to this topic available publically, I was forced to use what was written by George E. Shaw, '10 (Author of History of National - Mr. KDR) on the topic, which is available in hard copy at the Tau Chapter. It is *not* quoted from the Pathfinder, unless the two texts are the same.

I would like to see this article be in better shape in preparation for the active chapters' Fall Rush in September. Since obviously a majority of college students are net-friendly, it is more important than ever to keep the article in good shape. (National website however, that is another story.) Either way, since I made a huge chunk of changes, I wanted to leave a note and explain why I thought they were necessary and the sources in which they came from.

In Brotherhood, Nik Bonaddio, Tau 237