Talk:Washington College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Washington College is part of WikiProject Maryland, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Maryland.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
Dec 2006 - Mar 2007


[edit] Fraternity Issue

With the addition of some more references, now totalling (4), the fraternity issue can now be placed to rest. The proper, and final, revision has been made. D-Hell-pers 06:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole hazing issue isn't really an issue any longer. No one cares. I would like to see it removed from this page. And KS wasn't formed as a result of the hazing incidents, it was simply the wish of a sector of the student body to form another fraternity.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.43.185 (talk • contribs) 22:45, May 7, 2007

What's amusing about this IP address bringing this "thought" up is the only edits it has made before this talkpage addition/article material deletion, were vandalistic attempts to delete the addition of a 4th fraternity, failure to acknowledge that the fraternity hazed by deleting the material, etc ... and now this. How shocking this is to me, and probably all who look at this, that you would again attempt to delete the material. Ironically, someone else at the school re-added the information, so I guess the WaC community does consider it to be an issue still. I believe 24.whatever was correct in wanting to remove your non-sense again, but because s/he is not allowed to delete material I'll go ahead and put it into words that your opinion is what people don't care about, but this issue still stands. D-Hell-pers 04:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it still holds some relevance, as hazing incidents continue to occur. However, who ever is in the new chapter of KS needs to watch out that they dont use the page as a repository for chapter history, as the national organization is notable, not the individual chapters. If one does say that KS was formed in response to the hazing incidents, you have to qualify how it was formed in response to the incident, not just state it and leave it.Samwisep86 07:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try, as it was attempted in the past and turned down for being "bloggish." Admins have asked for what is currently written on the article, not more or less (as long as the four citations were present). But again, anyone can try again. D-Hell-pers 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the situation to do so (i.e. I don't go to WC), but anyone who attends WC should try to do so. Samwisep86 18:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraternal Edit Wars, Again

For those "editors" who wish to delete selected sections of this entry, please note in archives the 3/4-month long debate over this topic as well as the fact that the current entry is supported by Wikipedia, overseeing admin and other users. Instead of just removing this section, use the discussion page to bring forth your ideas of why you wish to edit it instead of just deleting randomly when you please. D-Hell-pers 03:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not really any such thing as an 'overseeing admin'; I'm simply trying to help y'all resolve a dispute as any editor can. I have not paid attention to this in several months, I think I last left off when you were trying to find sources for your hazing claim. You seem to have found them in the missing issues of a newspaper and cited them properly. The image of the letter is not really appropriate as it is not covered by a secondary source, but I fail to see how it is needed in this case. Can I please ask that we stop using the blind revert scripts and use edit summaries on reversions? I'm not sure what the actual dispute is from reading through the history, other than a few polar reverts. Kuru talk 04:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, some admins do not want the image of the letter being used in the article. IMHO, I tried to find other sources about the hazing from newspaper articles, but I have not found anything at all (except for us). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is actually necessary, as it is the only piece of information actually mentioning the words "Kappa Alpha" and "hazing" in the same sentence. Referring to the other sources:
  • one of the college articles states Phi Delt & Kappa Alphas returned to housing after being kicked out as a punishment, but lacked specifically stating they hazed
  • two of the articles actually mention Phi Delts hazing and what they "said" they would be doing to correct it (no mention of Kappa Alpha)
  • the "image" mentions Kappa Alphas hazing
Without this as a reference, there is no other published article that actually mentions KA & hazing together (there is an article, it is just not uploaded to an online database, yet). I tried referring to the letter from WaC Student Affairs as a reference months ago by just citing it, and it was actually questioned whether or not it existed. The image was uploaded to put that argument to rest, and I insist that it remain up to solve any type of dispute of its existence in the future.
Plus, there has yet to be an admin actually state that s/he would like to remove the image as a reference, contrary to Zscout's comment. There was some clown that mentioned images are not reliable sources, however, this is not just an image ... it is documentation of the existance of the letter (used for a reference). I would easily just cite the letter as a reference, however down the line I can already see another user questioning if it really exists, creating a snowball effect. D-Hell-pers 05:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the great outline. I'm afraid that the image of a letter falls into a "primary source" category in my opinion. If there's nothing else in those articles mentioning KA, you'll need to find another secondary source; I incorrectly assumed the newspaper articles covered both. You can read about the distinctions at WP:OR. Again, my opinion based on experience, but I'll do some searching and see what I can find in other cases. Kuru talk 05:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So are you stating that letters (whatever the source be, ie: branch of government, government official, college official, etc) are not verifiable primary sources? What defines a primary source? According to UCLA:
  • "actual records that have survived from the past, such as letters, photographs, (etc)." The page contains a list of types of primary sources, including "... letters ... in which individuals describe events in which they were participants or observers."
In this case, WaC Office of Student Affairs would constitute an observor to the fraternal crimes. The letter actually is the primary primary source, as articles in the collegian newspaper makes references to the article (making it a secondary primary source).
So back to my original thought, the letter is considered to be a verifiable source to be included in the references. D-Hell-pers 05:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the objection to using the letter as a source. Nothing in that policy prohibits the use of primary sources. The rub is in exactly how the source is used. --ElKevbo 05:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
My objection for the inclusion of primary sources is from the way most people use them to support their own commentary, as opposed to letting a secondary source do so. I concede that this particular letter was pretty specific to the point of the text and probably appropriate. Kuru talk 06:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
To continue with El Kevbo's thought, I also read the WP:OR page; at the bottom, under verifiability section: "insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia." Since when does a liberal arts college not count as a reputable publisher? D-Hell-pers 05:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So in your opinion, should the image stay, or be deleted? D-Hell-pers 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What you have here is one letter about one incident. It is not independent, so does not qualify as a source. It is also not provably significant without third-party sources to show that it is widely considered significant. So what we're left with is a strong suggestion of involved parties on a mission. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying that it "does not qualify as a source" is ridiculous. The point about notability/significance, however, is legitimate. --ElKevbo 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)