Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Philbreak

Why is Philbreak included in this article? It is an activity open to all Scouts, not just OA members. --Eustress (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I moved the info to Philmont. --Eustress (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. I was looking at the archives: a bunch of stuff was merged back in 2006 and it looks like this got caught up by mistake. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceremonies

Here are some online references (cut & paste ready):

• Farley, Michelle (December 2007). "Wimachtendienk, Wingolauchsikm, Witanmeui: Use of Native Culture in the Order of the Arrow". Retrieved 2008-03-18.

• Sloan, Bill. "Rites of Passage". Scouting (September 2000). Retrieved 2008-03-18.

• Adkins, S.M. "Freemasonry, Scouting and the Order of the Arrow". Retrieved 2008-03-19.

• Goodwin, John R. (1997-01-25). "The Order Of The Arrow, Another Masonic Ritual?". Grand Chapter Royal Arch Masons of Virginia. Retrieved 2008-03-19.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I incorporated them into the section, but feel free to elaborate more if you feel it necessary. --Eustress (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Honorary members

This might be a bit on the trivia side...

Both FDR and Eisenhower were honorary members of the OA. Eisenhower made it just before National banned honorary membership in 1953. See Talk:List of Scouts/List of Presidents of the United States involved in Scouting for the refs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I incorporated it into the Membership section just fine. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Parents Attending Ceremonies

Recently someone added that concerned parents, religious leaders, etc. may watch a video of the ceremony if there is concern. That is correct if you are referring to concern over the content of the ceremony. If you are talking about concern based on youth protection policies which the section is talking about, then a parent is allowed to attend. Within scouting there are no events where parents aren't allowed to attend (except for Board of Reviews). There are procedures in place such that concerns can be addressed (i.e. if the concern is about the content of the ceremony the parent can view a video before, if they are just trying to see their son receive an award they are suggested that it isn't really appropriate, etc.) If you want to rewrite the entire section to mention this you can, but a far as youth protection goes a parent does have the right to attend. Marauder40 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided a reliable source for your claim, "should not" does not equal can not. All training materials for Youth Protection have the specific case, where a Chapter Adviser is deniying a parent can attend a ceremony and it says that a parent is allowed to attend. The specific case you stated on my talk page about a scout Executive talking to a youth is wrong. A parent has the right to be at any meetings where the scout is present, whether the exercise that right or not is their choice. The only thing a parent cannot be present is the Board of Review. Youth protection polices are not trumped by OA polices, youth protection takes precidence. That being said, youth protection is the only reason, like I said, parent just wanting to see little Johnny receive his reward is something different. Marauder40 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The OA explicitly removed a line from the book that previously granted parents permission to attend ceremonies and replaced it with two statements that they should not attend, along with an exact process for addressing the concerns of parents. It's not like we're talking about one council's policies here - the Boy Scouts of America that created the youth protection policy is the same Boy Scouts of America that says parents cannot attend ceremonies. If you do not have a copy of the 2007 handbook, you are operating with old information. The parent's opportunity to "observe" this aspect of the program is that they can talk with the adviser, read the script, and watch the video. --B (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided proof of what you are saying, "should not" does not equal "can not". The Youth Protection training specifically gives this case and says that a parent CAN attend. Even the thing you provide says that Lodge Advisers have been provided with the proper procedures to address this. Do you have those policies? I saw preliminary versions of the policies and they include figuring out why the person wants to see (i.e. religious reasons vs. other reasons) and addresses how to handle each. Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the date on this youth protection training? Is it pre-2007? Is it online somewhere? The procedure is given in the OA handbook, just as the update says. I summarized it for you and can email you a scan of the page from the book if you want. The fact that they explicitly removed the statement saying that concerned parents could attend the ceremony, replaced it with a statement saying they should not, and released a policy update to say they should not ought to mean something. Can I prove "can not" means "should not"? That's picking apart semantics - the plain language makes it obvious that parents attending is no longer an option. They have three remedies spelled out in the book if they are concerned - (1) read the script, (2) watch the video, (3) don't allow little Johnny to attend. Period. If they don't want little Johnny to attend without them being there, then little Johnny isn't going to attend. --B (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have to take the youth protection training course to see the message. It is current and the latest policies available. Feel free to register and take the course it is available at http://olc.scouting.org/ A case of "should not" and "can not" is important. If you have looked at the Guide for Safe Scouting they have two types of policies. Those in bold and those not in bold, anything not in bold is a guideline. You are required to follow the things in bold, those things not in bold are guidelines. "Should not" equals a guideline "can not" equals a requirement. I have dealt with stuff like this in the past where we needed to have a parent at a VIGIL ceremony because the child was handicapped. If you want to re-write the paragraph to reflect what the actual policy says you can, but just changing it the way you want IMHO doesn't reflect reality. Of course what happens in the end depends on concensus. Marauder40 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having a parent attend for a handicapped child or having a non-OA interpreter attend if someone needs sign language are different situations. I have encountered both situations before (albeit never with a vigil ceremony) and have no problem with it, nor do I think that it is out of line with the new policy. This policy is specifically addressing remedies for parents who are concerned with content of the ceremonies and the like, not with all conceivable situations involving a non-member possibly being at the ceremonial grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with assuaging parents' concerns. A handicapped child has nothing to do with this situation. I will go online tonight and review the training video, but if it is the same one I saw several years back, it probably predates the policy change. --B (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)See that is what I am getting at. There is a difference between it being an absolute versus a guideline. I have been saying all along that the important thing is why is the parent wanting to come. If the reason is to see little Johnny receive an award they need to be discouraged and even told no. If the reason is they are concerned for religious reasons then they can see a video or get a copy of the actual script. If the reason is they are truely concerned for youth protection reasons an adviser can suggest things like having another adult that is in the OA that the parent trusts attend in their place and things like that, but youth protection policy would require the parent to be allowed if they are truely concerned. This all assumes that the parent brought this up before, if they waited till last minute, then it is another ballgame. As for the training it isn't a video it is flash based, it is totally new, I hadn't seen it before and I took the online version a couple years ago. Marauder40 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest OA policy is that parents who are concerned are to discuss it with the lodge leadership. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To say "Youth protection polices are not trumped by OA polices, youth protection takes precedence" creates an artificial dichotomy – there is only one BSA which sets national policy, after all, and policies do change. The most recent BSA guidance is the 2008 OA Handbook, which can be cited in this article as a reliable source. It was published two years later than current reference [#34} and states:

"If after discussing the ceremony with the lodge advisor, the parent, Scout leader or religious leader continues to have questions about the content of the ceremony, that person will be permitted to read the ceremony text and view the Ordeal's ceremony training DVD. Following this, parents will be in a position to decide whether to allow their son to participate in the ceremony. Nonmembers should not attend the ceremonies."  JGHowes  ^talk 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of what I was trying to get at. If the editor wanted to put up the actual quote and modify the article to reflect the changes that was fine. To just add that the adult may watch a video if there is a concern to the youth protection part of the article didn't reflect the actual policy. The modification made it sound like if a person was concerned about youth protection they could just watch a video. Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to reflect the OA guidelines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I have no problem with criticism of ceremonies and the like. The issue here is of reliable sources.

The last addition was from a web site that appears to have the name of RACISM, STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION, OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR. There is absolutely no indication of who operates the site; the page for Who wrote this site? is useless. The discussion link does not work.

There is a link to a "success story" about the Indian Guides dropping the Indian theme and becoming Adventure Guides— this rather implies that the site operators were significant in this, but the linked news article has no related information. Nor does it mention the formation of the Native Sons and Daughters as a continuation.

Bottom line: if it cannot be attributed to a specific person or organization that can be evaluated, then it cannot be considered reliable. If the editor who added the content disagrees with my assessment, they can discuss it on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's established as a primary source, the critical opinion is still problematic for inclusion if it hasn't been discussed in independent, secondary sources (per WP:FRINGE). The first time this was added, I reverted it because it had only unsourced WP:WEASEL attribution, therefore not meeting our core policy of verifiability. I've also looked at the source subsequently cited in the second attempt, but it appears to be merely an unpublished letter to the organization. Unless there are reliable independent sources discussing the criticism, it's not appropriate for inclusion, per WP:SOAP.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct— the linked site will never pass the tests for verifiability. Its anonymity is just one issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those interested, please review this article, reprinted for free on the site linked above, for reliability and other concerns.

Brantmeier, Edward J. (1 August 2002), "Scout gathering allows stereotypes of American Indians to be repeated." The Herald-Times.

Also, for those interested in researching OA critiques, please see the 2007 discussion in the archives.

Dkreisst (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural Appropriation and the Crafting of Racialized Selves in American Youth Organizations," by Pauline Turner Strong, published recently (April 2009) in the journal Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies may have some use, though I don't have access to it. Similarly inaccessible is "Teaching American Indian Studies to Reflect American Indian Ways of Knowing and to Interrupt Cycles of Genocide," by Laurence William Gross, in the Wíčazo Ša Review, Fall 2005. Dkreisst (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)OK, I do not have the financial resources to access any of your sources, can you provide the information so that I can review them for my understanding of what you are trying to say? The web site as noted above is dead, no new content in over 2 years and authors are anonymous. The Herald Times is behind a firewall and asks for a subscription. Can you provide the column, otherwise it is just noise to me. The Order of the Arrow is not about Indian singing and dancing, It is about what is stated in the 4-fold purpose of the OA. I would gladly get rid of all the Indian dancing and singing if I were in charge, however it will take years of effort in teaching at NOAC's and section conclaves. Not editing of this page to push a personal agenda which has not been clearly explained.

Tkopechief (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Please note that KeenWh is also Tkopechief. I regret any confusion.

Working with this user on his user name problem. See Tkopechief talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the link to the site that has reprinted the Herald-Times article. Dkreisst (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think that wikipedia's citation requirements include the provision that the source must be free. If that were true, all books would not be allowed, right? Dkreisst (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement sources have to be free, nor even in English. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will reinstate the criticism section then. Unless there are other concerns? Dkreisst (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk)Who cares? The website is dead. No update since 2007 and the authors refuse to identify themselves. The only part I may be interested in is if Edward J. Brantmeier, an associate instructor of Cultural Immersion Projects, School of Education at Indiana University has anything new to add as there is another NOAC at IU this year. Frankly, the only honest criticism would be around the Indian Dancing performed in some Order of the Arrow Lodge's. Indian Lore is not a purpose of the OA. Can the criticism make this point?

Brantmeier is now an assistant professor at Colorado State University.[1] He seems to specialize in peace education (crisis management, conflict resolution, peer mediation) and has written a book on it. He has done some work with American Indians, specifically Navajos. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh, I'm not sure what you are asking folks to care or not to care about, but if you are interested in Brantmeier's article, you will find that it does mention Order of the Arrow's Native American-style dancing as part of his critique regarding the cultural appropriation of Native American culture. Whether teaching "Indian Lore" is a purpose of Order of the Arrow or not has less to do with the article than the fact that Order of the Arrow uses tropes of American Indian stereotypes to construct its own identity. Dkreisst (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes the opinion of one assistant professor notable enough to justify the recently added Criticism section? This does not adhere sufficiently to Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE:

•Is the section's sole cite a reliable source and, secondly, is the ref correctly used here?

Brantmeier wrote "Scout gathering allows stereotypes of American Indians to be repeated", as a Guest Column in the August 1, 2002, Bloomington (IN) Herald-Times. It is an opinion piece, not a newspaper article by a staff reporter. At the time, he was an associate instructor of Cultural Immersion at Indiana University and was responding to the Herald-Times ' favorable coverage of a national Order of the Arrow conference held at IU in 2002. WP:RS states that opinion columns should not be cited as news reports, but only as a reliable source about the opinion of a notable author. To be cited here, we must ask, is Brantmeier notable? With all due respect to Brantmeier, he is no more notable than the average assistant college professor, based on the notability guidelines of WP:PROFESSOR.

•Is this criticism given undue weight?

The opinion of one college academic does not adequately support the section's opening sentence, "American Indian advocates have criticized the Order of the Arrow... ". He represents no group and is speaking only for himself. To refer to plural "advocates" conveys to the reader that this is a widespread or commonly held view, which is misleading and inaccurate, nor does the cited source say that.

Now, let's be clear: if a duly constituted tribal council or a notable Native American rights organization or spokesman (such as AIM or Russell Means), criticized the BSA for its OA program and it was reported by reliable secondary sources, e.g., news media, then that would certainly be significant and justify full coverage in a Criticism or Controversy section of the Wikipedia article about this organization. But, as it is, all we have is one educator's personal opinion, which arguably is no more than WP:FRINGE.

To quote Jimmy Wales:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

In the absence of any reliable sources verifying that this viewpoint is held by more than a tiny minority, the Criticism section should be removed.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Brantmeier's article is an opinion piece. In the opinion piece, he brings up actions taken by the Order of the Arrow and comments on them, which falls in line with the criticism written in the wikipedia article. However, if wikipedia does not consider opinion pieces reliable (rightly, I think), we should find other references.

As for undue weight, I disagree. Order of the Arrow itself is not widely known, even, at times, in boys scouts itself. It would make sense that any criticism of it would happen infrequently and in formats not regularly checked by non-scholars. I think that a criticism section in the of Order of the Arrow article would strengthen its notability and certainly it would make the article more complete. Dkreisst (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk) Firstly, Order of the Arrow is widely known in Boy Scouts itself. Unless you live in some insular location like St. Joseph MO or Long Beach CA. Only 2 local BSA councils do not have chartered OA lodges. My point is that all Indian dancing and associated activities have no place in fulfilling the purpose of the OA. Whether the 4 principles in the OA ceremonies should wear any kind of Indian vestments may be debatable. I have trained OA ceremonies teams and I have always trained from the acting craft, in other words, no "wooden indians", all natural and relaxed posture, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of the Order of the Arrow could be completely (and probably better) fulfilled without reference to Native American people. However, what the critism section points out is that Order of the Arrow does use Native American culture, currently and historically, and that the fact that it does is inappropriate. As noted (far) above by KeenWh, removing all references to Native American culture, including a name change, would take a lot of work. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a forum for how Order of the Arrow should be run, but an article about what Order of the Arrow is.

I support removing the criticism section unless an editor finds a different reference to support the statements in the section. Dkreisst (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A note to fellow editors, I'll be taking a break for two weeks. Thanks for you reviews and feedback. Dkreisst (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tkopechief (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)I should refer back to the original concern, the Order of the Arrow (OA) uses the trope of the archetype as providing a form of growth and change for boys who have been chosen as their representative of boys in their Scout Troop who exemplify the Scout Oath and Law. As an example I would reference Joseph Campbell The man with a Thousand Faces, also the Song of Hiawatha, by Longfellow. At this point, the only reference to Indian Lore is the point that this is a sidelight, not important. The only authority that any OA Lodge should refer to is what is produced from the National Office in reference to the OA. I accept with over 300 BSA Councils, getting them all to accept this is a challenge. I do not understand what native american culture means. If a large group of "native americans" can explain this I could understand. I should make clear it comes down to whether my family arrived 500 or 10,000 years, I need a better argument.

Let us get back in focus here— this is not a forum. We need to discuss the article based on reliable sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

History

"At one time, many Lodges included an actual "blood brother" ceremony as part of the Brotherhood initiation ritual; usually involving pricking the middle finger of the right hand (unlike other uniformed Scouts and Scouters, OA members exchange handshakes with their right hands), moving from the ceremonial chief to the first inductee in line, he, in turn passing it to the second, and so on, until the last inductee, who would become blood brothers with the ceremonial medicine man. These "blood brother" ceremonies were banned in the 1960s and '70s, as the public awareness of danger of blood-bourne pathogens increased."

Sounds like this is before my time, but is certainly needs a source. The left handshake became standard in 1972 for all, including the Order of the Arrow. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs a source, I have seen copies of the reproduction of the original ceremony (which was very different from the current ceremonies) and many old copies of the ceremony books and none of them mention blood brothers or blood transfer. Unless it is verifiable it should be deleted.Marauder40 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While it does need sourcing, I took an OA history class at NOAC last week which did cover how the OA integrated itself before most of the BSA, and that this was so controversial because in the brotherhood ceremony actual blood was drawn and transferred. According to the teacher, this was stopped after one brother told his parents, who were doctors, about it, and they made a fuss about how dangerous it was. It was officially stopped by National in the 1950s, but some lodges continued to do it into the 1960s. Again, I sadly don't have a published source, just what I heard from this guy who's been in the OA for like 50 years. – Joe N 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, I heard it at NOAC doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You don't even know if the teacher had all the correct facts unless the teacher was someone like Ken Davis (author of several books on the history of the OA.) If I was still active in my lodge I could ask Ken himself, but sadly I can't. This needs sourcing because there could be questions about whether it was part of the official ceremony or just a local variant. It may have happened, just like others on here, this was before my time of entering the OA in the mid 80s. Marauder40 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course that doesn't qualify as a reliable source and I didn't mean to claim that it did, I was just putting forward what I had heard to the best of my knowledge. – Joe N 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I maybe able to find a source. It would be a policy statement from the National Order of the Arrow Committee. Would this be acceptable? Also, another source would be when the brotherhood ceremony was republished to exclude this practice. Would date of publication be sufficient? On a side note, I have never found any official OA publication to refer to "tapout", only "callout". How can this be addressed so that, yes some lodges have used the term "tapout" but official publications seem only to refer to "callout".```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You will have to go back to the 70s to find references to tapout. They used to literally drag candidates out of the audience, run them through a short ceremony and tap them on the shoulder, sometimes as hard as they could. With the Youth Protection programs in the 80s, anything that could be perceived as hazing has been removed and any additions are expressly forbidden. The name was changed to callout, the candidate is simply escorted from the audience and there is a gentle shoulder tap. This is really more in depth than needed in the article; and we do note Youth Protection and the prohibition against hazing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you missed what I said, nowhere in the literature was "Tapout" mentioned, only "Callout". By the way I was around it the 60's and 70's. I realize that it took "Youth Protection" to force the issue. I would state that term was always "Callout" but until "Youth Protection" a number of lodges would say "Tapout", the name change forced these lodge's in compliance with correct terminology. This is a semantics issue which many readers may not understand. If that is the case I'll leave it there.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)I actually just recently completed my Brotherhood ceremony, and I can see where an actual blood brother ceremony could have been assumed to have happened.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(looking at the FAQ, I will proceed) Basically, take a blood brother ceremony, replace the blood with paint, and you have pretty much what we did.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulled my 1975 Order of the Arrow Handbook where it is referred to as the "calling out ceremony"; seems like tapout and callout are informal names. The same chapter also states a no hazing policy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, this could be useful for the blood-rite question. It includes several links to online sources that discuss its history. http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/yes_virginia_it_was_called_the_blood_rite.htm. Full disclosure, I wrote it.

Anti-criticism statements

I re-added the following statement after it was removed by an anonymous editor:

This attitude is not universal however, and many American Indian tribes actively participate and advise the OA Lodges and Chapters in their area, to make their regalia, make-up and ceremonies more authentic; the Seminoles of Florida and the Oglala and Yankton Sioux of the Dakotas are among tribal groups who see the Arrowmen as a force for helping to preserve and promote tribal culture.

I remember myself as a youth a large controversy over the use of face paint erupted across the organization, with a statement from national saying not to do it unless you have specific permission to use specific patterns and colors from a local tribe. My lodge was one of those who did receive permission (even though we had rarely used face paint in ceremonies before, and rarely did afterwords). There is obviously documentation of this kind of working relationships between lodges and tribes, so hopefully someone with more time on their hands can help find some? - IanCheesman (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Team Leader

Looking at the National Bulletins, Mayer was listed as the national director as of May 2009, but in August he is listed as the OA team leader; Carey Miller was the associate national director but is now the OA specialist. Anyone know what this is about? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The OA changed the titles for some of the positions. Clyde and Carey are still essentially in the same position, just with different titles. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Brantmeier

However, such criticisms as Brantmeier's show insufficient knowledge of the organization and are not credible. More relevant are instances showing close efforts at following native models.

References

The reference requires a subscription, but a copy is readily available by web search. There is nothing in the linked news article to support these two statements. Any content refuting the criticism must be reliably sourced. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliably sourced how? I give an opinion on a website is less credible than if I made a podcast or did an op-ed in a newspaper? What is the standard then? Anyone can write an opinion in a newspaper or make a speech and this is a credible source but any questioning is not. This whole discussion would only matter if someone from any "official OA/BSA" became involved in this topic. Until then, this topic is meaningless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.43.233 (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1908 handbook "The order of the circle",

My husband recently found a handbook of the women's view on the Free Mason's in an attic of a home he is demolishing for the government. This is in New Orleans. Does the book (if any) value to it?

Thank you

Jennie

onelast4me@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.4.197 (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to the BSA articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Rank requirement for adults?

The OA Handbook (my edition, anyway) says that assistant unit leaders or committee members over age 18 are nominated as adults, provided they meet the camping requirement. There is no rank requirement for adults over age 18. After induction into OA membership, anyone over age 18 is considered an adult insofar as Youth Protection is concerned, but is eligible to hold a "youth" office in the OA if under age 21. Admittedly confusing, but the OA Handbook is a reliable source, whereas a local lodge self-published website is not, so I've revised the Membership section back to the OA Handbook reference.  JGHowes  ^talk 00:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the 2008 revision of the GOA (Guide for Officers and Advisers) the following rule applies:

THIS IS NATIONAL POLICY therefore than can be no argument.

Youth Under 21

All members of, or candidates for membership in, the Order of the Arrow who are under 21 years of age shall be considered youth members or candidates for youth membership, subject to meeting the following requirements:

• Be a registered member of the Boy Scouts of America.

• Hold the First Class rank of the Boy Scouts of America, as a minimum.

• After registration with a troop or team, have experienced 15 days and nights of Boy Scout camping during the two-year period prior to the election. The 15 days and nights must include one, but no more than one, long-term camp consisting of six consecutive days and five nights of resident camping, approved and under the auspices and standards of the Boy Scouts of America. The balance of the camping must be overnight, weekend, or other short term camps.

Candidates for youth membership shall be elected by other youth members in accordance with policies set forth by the national Order of the Arrow committee.

Adult membership qualifications

All members of, or candidates for membership in, the Order of the Arrow who are 21 years of age or older and who are registered members of the Boy Scouts of America shall be considered adult members or candidates for adult membership. Individuals shall be selected as candidates based on the following:

1. Adult leaders in units: Each year, upon holding a troop or team election for youth candidates that results in at least one youth candidate being elected, the unit committee may nominate one adult to the lodge adult selection committee, composed of the lodge adviser, the chairman of the council committee on which the lodge adviser serves, and the lodge staff adviser. Troops or teams having more than 50 registered active youth members may nominate an additional adult for every 50 registered, active youth, or fraction thereof. For example, a troop having 51 to 100 registered, active youths may nominate two adults each year if at least one youth has been elected. Recommendations of the adult selection committee, with the approval of the Scout executive, serving as Supreme Chief of the Fire, will be candidates for induction, provided the follow- ing conditions are fulfilled:

• Selection of the adult is based on the ability to perform the necessary functions to help the Order fulfill its purpose, and not for recognition of service, including current or prior achievement and positions.

• The individual will be an asset to the Order because of demonstrated abilities that fulfill the purpose of the Order.

• The camping requirements set forth for youth members are fulfilled.

• The adult leader’s membership will provide a positive example for the growth and development of the youth members of the lodge.

2. Adult leaders in council and district positions: The lodge adviser, district chairmen, council president, or members of the professional staff may nominate adults to the lodge adult selection committee. All requirements set forth for adult leaders in units must be fulfilled, with the exception of the camping requirements, which may be waived at the discretion of the lodge adviser and Scout executive. Recommendations of the adult selection committee, with the approval of the Scout executive, serving as Supreme Chief of the Fire, will become candidates for induction.

Adults may be nominated for membership only one time per year as either unit Scouters or district/council Scouters, but not both. How they are nominated depends on where they maintain their primary registration.

Because the Order of the Arrow is principally a youth organization, unit, district, and council Scouters are not selected for membership as a recognition. Selection should take place only when the adult’s position in Boy Scouting or Varsity Scouting will make Order of the Arrow membership more meaningful in the lives of the youth membership.

Professional membership

Members of the professional service of the Boy Scouts of America shall be considered ex officio members of the lodge of the council in which they are employed. Members of the professional service designated by the Scout executive to serve in camp positions should be given an opportunity to complete the Ordeal and the Ordeal ceremony if they have not previously been inducted into a lodge of the Order. Members of the professional service whose responsibility in the council would be enhanced may be inducted into the lodge based on the recommendation of the Scout executive and upon completion of the Ordeal experience and ceremony. Camp staff members (paid but not considered members of the professional service) shall be elected only by members of their own unit if they are under age 21 and meet the youth membership requirements. Staff members over age 21 must meet the adult membership requirements and be selected as either unit Scouters or district/ council Scouters. Cthegoat (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Many OA publications are on the national site, including:

Order of the Arrow Guide for Officers and Advisers (PDF). Boy Scouts of America. 2008. {{cite book}}: Text "id-24-413" ignored (help)

See pages 20–21. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated info. and online link to the publication. I've formatted it as a multi-cite accordingly with the 2008 revised information. My edition of the Handbook is outdated.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

JGHowes could you please tell me the name of the National Chief that has signed your handbook usually one of the first couple pages, and the page number of the information in question. Thanks. Cthegoat (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Now this is making more sense to me. I was running elections in January/April 2008, and we would have used the older version, so I was working off dated information. I know our council (CT Yankee) had that requirement then, and I think they still do, but I guess National decided to get rid of it. As for changing the source, I saw something next to it that said "wildly inaccurate", so I kind of shot from the hip. My bad. Thanks!! The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

My OA Handbook is personally signed by E. Urner Goodman (1975 edition). The old procedure for "Unit Scouters over age 18" is stated on p. 50. Indeed, at the time the Handbook also stipulated that, "There is no rank requirement for Explorers, as long as they are male members of an Explorer post or ship for at least 6 months prior to the election". So back then, a 15-year old Explorer with no previous Boy Scout registration or rank, was eligible for election by his post.  JGHowes  ^talk 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to make sure there was not a current discrepancy between the two publications. I would be able to rectify that problem, however since it really was a dated edition, I will not worry about it! Cthegoat (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Inductions are, in fact, still secret...

The Induction and Conversion ceremonies are secret, and this has not actually changed with Youth Protection regulations. A parent of an underage inductee or other concerned adult can indeed attend a ceremony or what have you upon request, but this permission is granted with the understanding that the person will not further spread any finer details of the ceremony to the general public. Anything the general public knows, uninducted youth may know, and the secret knowledge is meant motivate elected Scouts to accept their elections. As an Arrowman myself (and in fact I can't talk about the finer details of the Induction and Conversion rituals), I would know this. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I kept the vigil in August and I can not remember any Conversion ritual. The ordeal, brotherhood and vigil ceremonies are 'guarded not secret information. It is a small difference but it means a ton to the lawyers. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The only things lawyers would consider "secret" to the best of my knowledge are state secrets and trade secrets, things that the government and private corporations, respectively, keep undisclosed to protect the national or business interest. Even things undisclosed to protect an individual rather than a company or the government are called confidential rather than secret, which is also a legal "small difference." Regardless, if just anyone out of the general public were to ask me for a finer detail of a ceremony or the like, I would apologize and call it a "secret" in that context. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so I would suggest reading the FAQ immediately above this on the talk page. It specifically addresses these issues.Marauder40 (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have, and it mostly talks about Youth Protection, which I'm well aware of as a fully trained Assistant Scoutmaster. The Article itself (unlike the FAQ in the discussion) as it stands makes it sound like ceremonial details are to be divulged to the general public, which is not the case. The policy only applies to concerned parents or other concerned adults whose relationship with the youth inductee renders the disclosure appropriate, and even then that adult is asked not to divulge further to the public. This is what is meant by "safeguarded," and unlike the FAQ the Article does not clarify this point very well. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by the article making it sound like the details are to be divulged to the general public. The ceremonies section doesn't sound like that to me. Do you have any specific requests on what to change? Marauder40 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The line "were once considered secret" would work better as "were formerly secret even from concerned parents" or something like that. I'm operating on the assumption that most run-of-the-mill readers not interested in editing this Article are not going to read the entire Section, which is why the first paragraph should just be as unambiguous as at all possible. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

IMHO I don't see the problem you are having. The section seems pretty clear to me and your proposed changes make it sound worse. Maybe someone else will have a different opinion.Marauder40 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I'm having any problem, but that I see a potential issue with people not reading the entire Section. In fact, I assume they won't and that they'll misinterpret it (particularly non-Arrowmen who read it). Nevertheless, if you think this would make it less clear, you're entitled to think that. We'll see who else replies. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone found it strange that only Arrowmen seem to be involved in these discussions about OA "secrets" and that they always seem way more concerned about keeping information that Arrowmen would like to keep secret from appearing in articles? I was looking back in the archives and these issues come up time and again and are constantly quashed by editors whose allegiance is obviously to the OA rather than the standards of Wikipedia. I refer you to the debate sparked by the user "Ahoalton" back in 2008 that seems to have been swept under the table. In fact, biased editors even barred Ahoalton on the basis of his username because it is a "secret" word supposedly known only to Arrowmen. Clearly, this article is dominated by editors with a very specific agenda to make sure the OA is portrayed the way the OA would prefer rather than as it is: a secret society bent on staying secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.222.12 (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As an Arrowman and an editor, I dispute your statement— check my about page for disclosure. Ahoalton was determined to add links to sites that hosted BSA publications in violation of their copyrights (see FAQ) and to post the passwords to BSA secured sites in violation of the DMCA (see FAQ). He simply would not discuss the issues in any useful manner and created multiple sockpuppets. You should also notice that editors outside the Scouting project were involved. If you read the archives, you will see that after that bit of drama, I started a discussion to clarify these issues, which resulted in the FAQ. And yes, editors who are Arrowmen will have more interest in this article than other editors— COI issues are addressed in the FAQ. If you check the article history, you will find that the content on the Ordeal induction is deleted and reverted fairly often.

If the BSA states that ceremonies are secret, then please provide sources. I need a new handbook anyway. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone thinks that the sources are only opinions. What, that is the source whether it is the Guide to officers and Advisers, the Order of the Arrow handbook or the Field Operations Guide. Local procedure in Fargo North Dakato should not be a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to cite the handbook that- "although the content of the ceremonies is private... The Order of the Arrow recognizes and respect the right of any parent, Scout leader, or religious leader to be interested in the content of the ceremony"-Page Thirty (30). Note that the OA doesn't recognize and respect the right of the general public or internet community to be interested in the content of the ceremony."..may discuss...the ceremony...with the understanding that the adult will maintain the confidentiality of the ceremony."-also page 30.My book is copyright 2009, although I doubt that newer versions have any changes to that page. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So I hope this solves the issue, no content should be displayed to the general public regarding content of the ceremonies.Mike44456 (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC) There is nothing secret in the BSA. Ceremonies are to be kept safeguarded. My thoughts on that is so not to give the new member the prospect of already knowing the ceremony. I was several years as a lodge ceremony advisor. The only time a parent wanted to view the preordeal, she was certainly allowed. I asked that she not, but she did, and regreted it later. I don't know how her son felt with his mother being the only parent to witness the ceremony, she didn't come to the ordeal ceremony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinkpk (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of keeping the ceremonies secret or safegarded (they both mean basically the same thing) is to maintain the effect they have on the Candidates going throgh them. It makes more of an impression if they dont know what they are going to do before they go through Ordeal. its as simple as that. Ref: http://www.aacegwa.org/candidates.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternationalTango (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Arrow of Light Picture

I don't think the ceremony picture on the page is a good quality picture (File:OA Arrow of Light.jpg). The Scout in front was moving so he looks strange and one of the two main subjects in the picture is looking down. I have a friend with several pictures from Call Out and Arrow of Light ceremonies that might look better and he is willing to release the rights. Would anyone object to the image in the article being changed? The pictures could be uploaded to a Flickr album first and consensus could be reached on the image to use? Deflagro (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have a better an properly licensed photo, then please do so. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Section W-6E

There is insufficient material for a stand alone article Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• support I think we really have this covered here. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• oppose Prefer a delete to a merge. Question notability of having individual sections mentioned in this article. Do any other sections have their own articles? Added - just saw Section W-1N, it has the same problems as W-6E. Any sections should probably be deleted. Marauder40 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Feel at liberty to propose deletion. Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't like having multiple proposals competing against each other.Marauder40 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your idea is every bit as valid as a proposal. It is not a contest. Let the community decide. Fiddle Faddle 20:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually work in controversial areas of WP where you usually have to wait for one proposal to finish before you start another proposal (unless the originator withdraws the proposal) to keep from getting cross-proposals and hundreds of discussions. It may be different in areas less controversial but since Gadget is an admin I will let him decide what is best to do.Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I prod'ed both articles. I just don't see any need for these. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Won't find any argument from me. Fiddle Faddle 20:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

POV

The POV on this article appears to be that of the BSA, with a few sentences admitting that there is criticism for Native American cultural appropriation. The rebuttal, that Native Americans participate in the programs, is unsupported by citations. (I removed a ref that was tagged as failing verification in 2012.) Other citations were found to be broken, old, and/or inaccessible for verification.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet dead links supposedly providing such criticism stay. But any such criticism of Tribe of Mic-O-Say is deleted. There is a problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources, then do so. --  Gadget850 ^talk 09:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

{