Talk:Delta Zeta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Delta Zeta is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Motto 2 Notable Alumnae 3 Controversy section 4 Some facts are failing verification 5 Trivia Section & Infobox 6 Controversy mention in lede 7 Controversy July 07 8 Texas A&M 9 Fair use rationale for Image:Detla zeta badge.jpg 10 DZ colors

[edit] Motto

What exactly is the motto of Delta Zeta? Since someone keeps on deleting it without explanation. --Dysepsion 20:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delta Zeta's motto is something that the initiates try to keep private. If you want to know, pledge! ;) ---- CNovio
  • I was referring to the open motto (if it has one) not the secret one =) --† Ðy§ep§ion † 05:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Behold the turtle, she only makes progress by sticking her neck out.
• Delta Zeta does not have a uniform open motto. Many chapters use the one about the turtle listed above, but it is not a nationally recognized thing. The turtle was not Delta Zeta's officialy mascot until the 2006 convention in Arizona. There it was eventually voted on and passed. Before that it was an unofficial mascot-like Pi Beta Phi and Alpha Chi Omega using the angel. It is not in the ritual or anything like that. Delta Zeta does have a secret motto (if you want to call it that) that is delivered in their formal ritual however it is embedded so that even if someone saw it, they'd probably not know what it was. ~~eelmonkey
• Delta Zeta's motto is secret. There is no official public motto.- Michelle

[edit] Notable Alumnae

Please visit here before adding to the notable alumnae section. I have also deleted non wiki people, and removed non verifiable people as of so far. If I can verify them, I will add them back on the list. Also if you want to add people to the notable alumnae list please add their chapter affiliation, anybody can add 'courtney cox' but saying she's something like 'alpha rho' chapter makes it much easier to verify. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

source for adding Marti Dodson of Saving Jane as a notable - http://www.ohiounion.com/greek_life/Articles.asp?ID=283

[edit] Controversy section

The major issue in the DePauw case would seem to be if DZ revoked active status on the basis of appearance. I've added a little bit to the section on this, but it could use some serious improvement.--141.212.111.116 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Q: On forum removal. Where else would we hope to find a response from the Alumnae members? That one side in this discussion has a website and the other doesn't seems to made fair coverage difficult. --141.212.111.116 17:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's policy on bulletin boards and reliable sources. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 17:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Read it and understand it (before I posted comment in fact). But A) is a guideline and B) Doesn't address the question of NPOV when only one "side" in a contested situation has a website.--141.212.111.116 19:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note it's not a matter of NPOV when the controversy has been written in a formal tone representing views fairly with sources and citations that can pass WP:RS and WP:V. This section is well cited, and as it is a continuing matter I'm sure more will be written up that can be Verifiable and falls under the reliable source criteria. Unfortunately a bulletin board is not a reliable source because you can never be sure who wrote it (even if it does present another side to the story). Right now since this information has not been reported it is not verifiable. It doesn't matter that one has a webpage or another doesn't. Please note that what you're inserting into the article falls under the heading of Original Research which is against policy (and not just a guideline). Greek chat basically introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article eg. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. --ImmortalGoddezz 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Understood. My issue is that there seems to be very strong evidence (but not Verifiable) that one of the documents cited by the article provides false information. Seems like the article should address that. I do this this comes down to one "side" of the discussion has a website and the other doesn't. But I'll not push the point here. Thanks! --141.212.111.116 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What precisely is the false information that concerns you? --Therefore 21:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the additions from the school paper to that section have cleaned up my issues nicely. --141.212.111.116 22:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"3 girls were off-campus and 2 have not received membership reviews after asking for one. 4 left after September's meeting." I don't find these facts in any of the sources listed. Please add citation -- otherwise, I believe this should be excised. Exactly what is the point of the information? Therefore 23:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by 66.182.148.90 and I added the citation. Therefore 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To 66.182.148.90: Excellent job editing. One thing: "then reopen it after approximately a year and a half and recruit an entire new membership from scratch." This is not from the "The DePauw" source cited. From where did you glean this detail? Therefore 01:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

"and 3 were off-campus, never contacted for the membership reviews" is a violation of WP:NOR. Saying that "i personally know all 3" makes it OR. The information needs to come from a verified, published source. I don't believe it should be included. Therefore 06:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

These facts were never printed because the media did not do so even though they were told multiple times. the membership was really at 42. Nationals did NOT count the girls off campus. This furthers the controversy because it was said on CNN that she said that she had looked everyone in the eyes and said 'were you committed?' They were supposed to interview all the girls, and they didn't. Check the facebook group, 'sisters of substance,' that's where you will find most information because mpst of it is not information that will be told to the media. but here is a letter to the editor from a former DZ where she puts the number at 36 that did not or could not stay http://media.www.thedepauw.com/media/storage/paper912/news/2007/03/02/Opinion/Letter.To.The.Editor.Dont.Blame.Active.Dzs-2755519.shtml?reffeature=popuarstoriestab and to the comment above about reopening in a year and a half. Thats what the vote was based on at the beginning, either to go through with recruitment and fail or to close and recolonize by 2009, Delta's centennial. If you think im full of it, i am not. I was one of the '23' but these facts are important to the larger picture.

[edit] Some facts are failing verification

This section has evolved. There is a growing problem: Some citations that sourced one set of facts, now have other facts intermingled that are not in the original source. This is misleading. One instance: The 2nd paragraph of the section is sourced with

• "Morris, Mike (February 2, 2007). DΖ 'reorganizes,' loses 29 women. The DePauw. Retrieved on 2007-03-02."

and

• "Bruner, Andy (February 20, 2007). Bottoms releases letter to DΖ nationals; chapter reorganization moves forward. The DePauw. Retrieved on 2007-03-02."

These assertions are not in these articles (and have been added since the pargraph was written with these two sources:

• "There was a longstanding split within the sorority, the house split between girls who were perceived to be more attractive and girls who were not perceived to be as attractive. Morale suffered greatly within the house, and many current members felt that it might be in their best interests to allow the chapter to expire without recruiting new members"

• "... then reopen it after approximately a year and a half and recruit an entire new membership from scratch"

• "... out of fairness to three other NPC organizations whose chapters at DePauw had closed in previous years"

None of these facts or characterizations are in the cited sources.

There are other examples. I am not doubting the truth of these assertions. But they do pose two problems: The citations are misleading, as if they support the assertions. The additional assertions are not themselves properly sourced.

Either I can add a Section OR tag for unattributed claims or I can in-line, throughout, place failed-verification tags.

Because this section is evolving in an interesting manner, I would appreciate some feedback before this action is taken. Therefore 22:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just take out the misleading info? --ImmortalGoddezz 16:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Late tonight, when the editing is slow, I will go through and mark up uncited assertions. This is preferred to removal in the case of non-BLP entries that are not harmful assertions. Therefore 16:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia Section & Infobox

Does the Trivia Section and the Infobox REALLY need to have a lot of this same information? --Silverhand^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been on my to do list to cut down on the trivia and create a Philanthropy section. I'll get around to that later today. --ImmortalGoddezz 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okie dokie, was just curious.  :) --Silverhand^Talk 16:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy mention in lede

I reverted User:166.66.176.39 deletion of the mention of the controversy in the lede. To quote from WP:LS:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

Therefore 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy July 07

I deleted this section because it is not what the organization is. They are not defined by that one controversy. Unless you are going to have paragraphs on each sorority/fraternity page describing ALL of the controversies each has and they all have them), this is irrelevent.~~eelmonkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by eelmonkey (talk • contribs)

No it might not be what the organization is as a whole but this incident did happen and wikipedia is not censored. Plenty of other greek orgs on here have had controversies and those have not been censored out if they have been properly sourced so neither should this. If you read over the general inclusion guidelines for wikipedia the basis is 'if it can be sourced then it can be added' this has plenty of sources and should not be taken out. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am unclear what you mean the controversy isn't what the organization is. If you mean that this controversy doesn't define the organization in its entirety, then I would agree. But that isn't the section's objective. Instead, it is both an ongoing and historical element of the sorority -- notable and clearly verifiable as this paragraph is well sourced and through a long and careful process of consensus, written with a NPOV standpoint. If you have particular NPOV concerns, then please discuss them on this talk page (preferably start a new section at the bottom). I agree that "ALL" controversies would not be helpful, but clearly this one has risen to national notability. Inclusion of controversy is standard in Wikipedia. Your standard, "ALL or nothing" isn't Wikipedia's. Thanks!  ∴ Therefore  talk   17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas A&M

This incident is about an individual's drug possession who happens to reside at a local Delta Zeta chapter. This information has nothing to do with Delta Zeta itself and I have reverted accordingly. Thoughts?  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This incident took place in the sorority house, hence it does deal with the sorority simply the section does not promote or demote the sorority, it merely makes note of a newsworthy event.

To Boeye34 (please sign your posts with four tildes) -- Yes, it is true that the individual arrested was a resident of Delta Zeta. But it has nothing to do with Delta Zeta, per se. It is not an issue of promotion or demotion but of relevance. And this is irrelevant. Additionally, drug use on college campuses, fraternities or sororities isn't exactly newsworthy to start with. This is only of local interest and has no other notability except for the individual involved. If the individual involved had a Wikipage (doesn't), then you could add the info there.  ∴ Therefore  talk   04:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't think the incident should be included because it has nothing to do with DZ-- if it had happened in a particular college dorm that had a Wikipedia article, would it be listed there? We can't list every Delta Zeta that has ever committed a crime or been in possession of drugs for obvious reasons. As opposed to the DePauw incident, which directly relates to DZ, I don't see this as relevant to an encyclopedia article.--Gloriamarie 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just took out this section, what looks to be for the second time. It should not be included unless it's received coverage from a source that can without a doubt pass WP:V and WP:RS which I doubt a college newspaper can wholly do. In addition this has no connection to the sorority; wasn't in the house, the sorority wasn't fined or mentioned beyond the fact that 'they're sisters in so and so sorority.' Basically just repeating what you guys are saying. --ImmortalGoddezz 22:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Detla zeta badge.jpg

Image:Detla zeta badge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DZ colors

Although the national DZ's "About" page indicates that the DZ colors are "green" and "rose", apparently the chapters' websites indicate it is "nile green" and "pink rose".[1][2][3] Can't we use one or two of these sources as references and presume DZ's somewhat informal "about" page is deficient? I defer to ImmortalGoddezz‎ on this matter but possibly if we use these references, this recurrent edit can be resolved. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what chapter pages say but I refer to what nationals say on this matter. I continuously revert because chapter pages are inherently not reliable or verifiable as sources. I believe that unless there's some literature published (newspaper, book, etc) that has 'old rose and nile green' to back up these claims it should stay rose and green, what the national website says. Somebody linked to the visual standards packet at one point saying that's a source for the colors but that, and a search through the nationals website, gives no evidence to support the change. I suspect that either chapters like to beef things up and say 'old rose and nile green' to make it sound nicer or that it says something about the specific colors in some ceremony. Either of which can't be reliably sourced and shouldn't be added. Not that this makes a difference but the visual standards packet (PDF Link) says that the color that the sorority uses is Hex triplet #EF99A3 and the Hex triplet for Old Rose is #C08081. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Most recent Baird's Manual says "old rose and green" for what it's worth. DIDouglass (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I'd personally trust a book that was last printed in 1991 but it's better than a chapter website, so if you want to add that as a reference Therefore, go ahead. I'd probably at least make some sort of reference to the fact that the colors might have changed since the publishing eg. "in 91 Bairds manual said that Old Rose and green.. blah blah, but now the sorority website identifies itself as having Rose and Green as colors." --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 19:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your assessment. "Old Rose" and "Nile Green" were color names from an older nomenclature. Given the information in the standards packet, the Penatone number 363 for the green is given as "Shamrock green" in one reference. I'm sure national is going with the more generic terms to avoid any unnecessary connotations. I don't know whether the Baird's manual takes precedence. Again, I defer to your skill level. This was just my 2 cents since this comes up every month or so. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The 1905 Baird's Manual (available online at google books) does indeed list the colors as "old rose and nile green"--again, for what it's worth. It is, at least an early historical reference. DIDouglass (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the reference for the official colors to provide this background. Hopefully this will preclude future edits. Does it look OK? ∴ Therefore | talk 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)