Talk:Kappa Kappa Gamma/Archive 3

edit wars

Smoking gun article about this wikipedia article: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0806081anthrax6.html --John Bahrain (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been incorporated into the article. 207.237.33.6 (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the News

This article has been featured on CNN, relating to one of the heavy editors 'jimmyflathead' has been said to be responsible for the anthrax attacks of 2001. I'd keep a heads up on vandalism, haven't noticed anything so far but we'll see. TostitosAreGross (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This information has now been incorporated into the article. 207.237.33.6 (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

this should be included in the article

we should include in the article the fact that kappa kappa gamma was bribed by FBI and US government to provide false testimony against Bruce Ivins, an unfortunate scientist falsely accused of bioterrorism. It appalls me to know how low they can go doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.234.103 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I consider it either slander or vandalism to imply members of Kappa lied under oath or accepted bribes. Striking this comment out for now. ppfleiger (talk) 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The FBI made a big fuss about Ivins posting here as User:jimmyflathead and you accused of being obsessed.[1] Anyone contact you about it? Kauffner (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial post to this thread is a troll looking to get a rise out of people. Best not to feed the trolls. This is a talk page for Kappa Kappa Gamma, if you have a question for me directly, my talk page is the place for it. ppfleiger (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Give the user a vandalism warning...that's not considered feeding the troll, it's feeding the troll PeptoBismol. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Anthrax

Given the New York Times article below and the multitude of references to and relationships with the Ivins case, I don't see how there can be no information about this in the article. It is notable and verifiable and relevant.

Please be reminded that one of the information can and should be included based on each and every one of the 5 Pilars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pilars

I will be adding info later this week unless somebody else does first. Since I'm not involved in KKG, I think it's only fair to let somebody who is get first opportunity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/us/04anthrax.html

207.237.33.133 (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This has already been addressed at the Bruce Ivins article, and is a more appropriate place for this in my opinion. This info is mostly 'this guy was obsessed with this fraternity and probably did bad things' which doesn't really affect the fraternity as a whole and strikes me as being more trivia than anything else. Others may disagree, wouldn't mind getting a few more opinions before anything goes into the article. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this information shouldn't be placed in both articles. It's not like we only keep information about Lee harvey Oswald in the Kennedy article. But I'll agree to wait and will agree to come to consensus about the wording before it's included. Please remember NPOV...all notable, relevant, and verifiable info related to a subject should be included, not just information that affects "the frat as a whole". 207.237.33.133 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think it's notable really. Yeah it's notable enough to be added on Ivin's article because he was obsessed with KKG and he edited wikipedia to that effect but it didn't really affect the fraternity. If you look at other controversial section throughout frat/sororities such as the hazing section in this page, the prior section in the Alpha Chi Omega page, the Delta Zeta controversy page it all boils down to is this an isolated incident or not. Eg. has it only affected a chapter - which is dubious in notability - or has it affected the fraternity as a whole, which I don't think it really does in this case, I might be the sole holder of that opinion. It discusses the fraternity but the fraternity hasn't been affected by it. Mentioning it, as I said before, in a sentence or two wouldn't really be anything more than trivia and writing two or three paragraphs seems to give undue weight to the situation as far as KKG is concerned. As far as relevance is concerned things to ask about this situation: is this situation relevant to the fraternity's history? Has it affected the fraternity in any noticable way? Also is this situation worthy of notice or is it just popular news? In any case I've left this note asking for comments on the Wikiproject:Fraternities and Sororities talk page. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 07:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

It is no matter if the frat itself has been affected (either as a whole or as an individual chapter) or not. This is a part of the fraternity's history and it's greater place in American History, and should be included in this Wikipedia Article according to every one of the 5 pillars. This is true despite the 'unseemliness' of the matter per NPOV. It's kind of like not wanting Lee Harvey Oswald being mentioned in the Texas School Book Depository article.

Regarding undue weight: I'm not suggesting a whole section on the matter, but to have no mention at all is outright bias by omission.

While trivia sections are indeed discouraged, they are not out of the realm of inclusion in articles.

Lastly, you have included a Request For Comment in a completely inappropriate place. To avoid any appearance of intent toward bias, I have removed that comment and moved it to the correct RFC page (via sociology, not history, bio, politics, or media: I did this in your favor) as listed here, will be listen under "manual entries" once bot has it included.

Thanks again. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've said before I'm probably alone in this opinion. This is most likely due to being involved in past debates over other controversial sections on the frat/sor pages especially since the inclusion criteria seems to change per situation. Also point: Wikiproject Frat/Sor is a relevant place to ask for comments initially, as far as I remember RfC even suggests to go to the relevant wikiproject before going to RfC route. They're not there to bias an article, if they were the wikiproject would be shut down, DZ, KKG, and others wouldn't have controversial sections at this point, and we wouldn't have a few FA's. Also HTML markup isn't necessary here.. * Creates a bullet like at the beginning of my reply and spaces create spaces. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 15:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's very notable: I think this page is getting a lot of hits right now looking specifically for this info, for one thing. It's true that KKG seems more of an object than a subject in this whole matter--but that isn't one of the notability criteria. The first thing that pops into mind in the spinach article -- it has a section on Popeye in it. Certainly the anthrax situation is more notable. DarwinPeacock (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually KKG was looked at more in Feburary 2008 well before the info was public than last month. Doesn't mean they're not looking for that info but it doesn't seem as if they're pouring in. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 15:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Ivins involvement is trivial but including "Charlotte York, a character from Sex and the City" as a notable KKG isn't trivial? The argument could be made that a bulk of the 'notable' KKG members aren't significantly so and should be reviewed...and as the article reads now, it's beginning to sound a bit like a fan page. Just a heads up of something to be careful about. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability = article, if you think these people aren't notable then feel free to tag them as such but please be careful not to use this to make a WP:POINT. Also see my response on my talk page regarding your other concerns. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. Didn't mean to grandstand...was only trying to give others more involved with the article the first chance to make the edits. (I was trying to be as civil as possible.) I want to be clear that I hope we both have the same goal: to make this Wikipedia article as efficient and fair and within all standards as possible. I removed the link to the uncited, fictitious KKG member as well as the hyperlink to the external site for KKG members. I'm going to review the fan page guidelines to make sure the article does not cross the boundary. Thanks for the suggestion. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a neutral party (for a variety of reasons) but I will add my opinion anyway. I think that the before anything is added to the article more people need to weigh in. I tend to agree with the trivia position. On the other hand, I think a good analogy is the Jodie Foster/John Hinckley, Jr. connection. Certainly Ms. Foster did nothing to warrant the connection to this mentally ill murderer, but his obsession with Ms. Foster was relevant to both her and Reagan. However, in that case the obsession with Jodie Foster is more relevant - the obsession caused Jodie Foster to drop out of school for a year, and the obsession also explained the nature of the crime (presidential assassination, like the main character in Taxi Driver). I am not sure that Bruce Ivins obsession with Kappa had any impact on Kappa (as an organization). - ppfleiger 70.110.31.10 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe the issue is whether Ivins' obsession had impact on KKG. That is an issue for KKG's website, not for the Wikipedia article. If the information stands up to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia (which it clearly does), it should be included here. 207.237.232.51 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been 10 days since I first posted the reference. RFC's have been created and posted on the Frat Project page as well as the relevant RFC project page. When should we decide to include the info? How much time is reasonable to wait? 207.237.232.51 (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After a certain amount of time without any comments (14 days I think?) the RfC will be archived and the discussion considered over. I think at that time we can consider discussing the info.. might as well see if any comments pop out of the woodwork. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 14:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is Ivins mention relevant or notable to KKG article

Include I cannot see any compelling reason not to include information about Ivins and it might be of use to someone who, for example, vaguely remembers some odd going on related to KKG but cannot remember what it was. This sort of inquiry can be where WP really comes into its own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the RFC, this was meant to be input to a discussion. Is there anybody here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Martin, see above section titled "anthrax". 207.237.232.82 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not notable at all. Suppose someone writes a history book about it, would they include this in there 10 years later. I don't think that they would. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think in 10 years time, when somebody writes a book about Bruce Ivins, information about his involvement with KKG will certainly be included. Besides, it's not 10 years later, it's now. Now, it's notable enough to still be discussed prominently in NY Times articles; it's notable enought for here. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Ivins

I have added the information from above. The determination was based not only with the consideration of people's opinions listed here, but also keeping in mind the discussion from involved user's talk pages.

I want to preemptively remind everyone that the goal is to create a better and more comprehensive article, and that inclusion of information or not is not a vote: the edits should be made in a way to come to consensus about how it is to be included. Let's all be civil, remember that this was a high-profile case with information that created high-profile publicity, and remember to be bold with our edits..bold, but not aggressive. 207.237.232.82 (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)