Talk:Kappa Sigma

Controversy section
In 2010, there was a discussion about how to cover incidents of hazing on this page. In 2013, the WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities held a discussion about when to include notable incidents. In that discussion, Sycamore wrote, "again, it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia articles about fraternities and sororities should not be laundry lists of hazing incidents at chapters of those organizations. If an article is long enough to support information that is unfavorable to the image of its subject, such information can be added if it has been widely covered and is notable." Many of the latest edits to this page are sourced reports of incidents of hazing from individual chapters. I echo what jheiv said in 2010, "I'd like to come to some consensus about what events warrant inclusion (certainly not every event where the word hazing is used) and figure out how to make sure that we're not giving undue weight to hazing incidents with respect to the entire organization." And if it is not individual instances of incidents of hazing which are described in the article, is there a preference for how to explain there have been incidents in a broad paragraph or section? --Enos733 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the section as it currently is seems troubling. The Fraternity and Sorority discussion you linked talked a lot about whether an incident got widespread (distance-wise) coverage.  For example, for local occurrences (e.g. chapters being closed, suspended, etc.) what about a guideline along the lines of needing 2+ distinct sources from outside of the state.  I say this primarily because of "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."  Of course chapters accused of hazing will attract some local attention (especially the campus newspaper), but I don't see such accusations (or the like) warranting mention in the overall Fraternity article if that's the extent of the news coverage (per WP:PROPORTION).  I don't have enough time right now, but I think it might be worth looking at how other Fraternities/Sororities are handling this sort of section and try to identify some sort of "best practices".  jheiv  talk  contribs 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest moving this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities.Naraht (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2020
Lotje (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you may have used the wrong template since you're already able to edit this article. You can request a reduction in the protection level at WP:RFPP – Thjarkur (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * it has all to do me using the ReFill tool that since a couple of days triggers the log out automatically (weird), which means protected pages cannot be edited by users not logged in, so I have to log in again. Hence I tried this template to see what happens. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed
This page includes privileged information that needs edited ASAP. 192.63.2.209 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Privileged, maybe, but relevant and verifiable. We don't censor material to meet the whims of the subject. Ask the Fijis, whose letters are in their article, much to their chagrin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Verifiable to their own national magazine, the magazine of other fraternities at the time and to Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. My guess is that it wasn't privileged in the 19th century.Naraht (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2023
He was later dropped him off at a hospital in a coma but survived. delete "him" in the sentence, add a comma. 2601:5C2:300:5770:5479:3BE:E39A:4724 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ RudolfRed (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)