Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Wimachtendienk

I searched further and thought I had found some Lenape language dictionaries that do have this word. I was about to modify the text but then I saw that the only dictionaries where I found it all sourced back to Gilwell.com • a website for things Scouting. So far, the sites I can find run by Lenape people don't have the word. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's not just limit ourselves to current websites run by the Lenape people, shall we? Languages change some over time. It would be more appropriate to look at texts/resources that were present at the time and not on incomplete web listings. For example, perhaps a published English-Lenape dictionary? Historical context and reliability mean everything. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there ya go... Buffs (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, let me check this one out. If this is legit I will remove that bit. I didn't see that you'd responded here before I reverted. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's compiled by Moravian missionaries. I thought that suffix looked Germanic. I'm not sure. We need someone Lenape to look at this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lenape dictionary does not strike me as "incomplete". But pending more info, I've turned it into a footnote. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"“Wimachtendienk” is a word used by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren). It is grammatically correct Lënape and translates as “we who are brothers to one another” and thus, by extension, was used to convey the meaning of the European concept of a “brother-hood”. This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one. But at least it’s gram-matically correct." The word is not Lenape. It's a Moravian invention. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So, ignoring WP:OR, it is "grammatically correct" and a word used by the Moravians, German, and Dutch missionaries in conversation with the Lenape People to illustrate a concept in their culture not present in theirs? That's going to be the logic we're standing on? Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Your source is an OA newsletter. I'm not saying they are right/wrong, but you cannot complain about a group's reliability in one breath and then use the same group's newsletter as an ironclad fact. You're WP:CHERRYPICKING. Pick one and stick with it. Which is it going to be? Buffs (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't in the same breath claim that it verifies one claim but the same sentence/source can't be used to verify another. The missionaries used that word. There is no evidence they created it. That's not what any source claims. You're just making assumptions. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: this belongs on article talk, not user talk. There are tons of sources that show the group misrepresents Native cultures. Show me any sources that say it reliably represents Native cultures. It's a pretendian group. Natives protest it. IG just posted a source on talk that sources that the missionaries made up the fake Lenape words. It's a BSA source. Gilwell is also a Scouting source, who I've already discussed above. Keep this on article talk, where it belongs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And there is a whole section where you've taken over to air your grievances. That you personally oppose this group is irrelevant. We've covered this in excruciating depth. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments on YOUR behavior are on YOUR talk page, as they should be. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I will incorporate this source now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought we were using the talk page. Hmmm...guess not. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lenape speak two related languages, Munsee and Unami. Within Unami there are three dialects (I am pretty sure one is extinct, I don't have time to look for sources, I'm in the middle of something). The Moravian dictionary has created words that did not exist previously in any dialect, the created words were used to push concepts used for conversion. I think the Moravian dictionary written in one of the Unami dialects however it is written from a German lens and there is a difference in how say an English lens (ear?) would transcribe it. As we have seen with other early diactionarys a lot is actually lost in translation and pronunciation. And then there's the made up words which are made up regardless of how real somebody wants them to be.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's EXCEPTIONALLY standard for ANY language where there are differences. For example. In English, Qatar is properly pronounced kuh-TAR or GUTT-er. Both are analogous to local dialects though not 100% accurate. That doesn't mean that the spelling or pronunciation is "wrong". Beijing spelled Peking is another such example. Written translations into other languages almost ALWAYS lose some accuracy, but it doesn't mean "it doesn't exist" or it's "wrong" or "there's no such word". It's a best-effort approximation. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're looking at the language conventions - spelling, construction, all the things linguists take into consideration when evaluating these claims. I understand this is hard for you. You've believed this for a long time, I gather. But the sources you trusted are wrong. I think your fundamental block here is that you don't seem to believe that the Lenape have preserved their own language, and that they noted in that dictionary from the beginning that that wasn't one of their words. Look at the notations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me. I've never even BEEN in Boy Scouts (or Scouts BSA as they are now called). I've never been even a Scout or Tenderfoot. What you think about me is irrelevant and is clouding YOUR judgement. You treating me in a condescending manner as if I'm some poor wayward scout who grew up just learning things that you know to be true and it's up to you to correct the poor, ignorant fool. The sources, I'm using are WP:RS which I'll stand up to your WP:OR any day of the week. You think "they noted in that dictionary from the beginning that that wasn't one of their words". You have nothing that says that anywhere in a reliable source. It's all WP:SYN and WP:OR.

However, even if what you're claiming is 100% accurate, it would still be accurate to say that "Brotherhood" translated into the Lenape (Unami) language WOULD effectively (and perhaps somewhat loosely) translate to Wimachtendienk when looking at it from a Dutch-English/Pennsylvania-Dutch perspective. In English, the word "prequel" didn't exist prior to the early 1990s, but we came up with a word that meant what we were intending. EVERY word is made up. When translating between languages, there isn't usually a 1-for-1 correlation and words/pronounciations are often approximations in foreign tongues. Buffs (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The word was made up for a specific purpose by and for a specific group. It is not longer used because the Moravians are no longer involved in Lenapehoking. It was a missionary word used within the dealings of converstion. It's use was historical and minimal. It is a made up word, created by Zeisberger. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary is not 'Unami' for what it's worth. Unami has three dialects, only two of which are living. If it was an Unami dictionary it would have inculded all three dialects. Albert Seqaqkind Anthony, one of the contributors, is recorded as solely a Minsee(Munsee) speaker. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Prequel was first used in the 1950s and entered into popular language in the 1970s for what it's worth. It's a new English word created by and for English speakers. That is not the same as a foreign person creating a word, utilized by foreigners for a specific purpose which is not used by speakers of that language. Not sure if what I just said is clear, I am multitasking. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Re:Zeisberger's creationBuffs (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that prequel became a word, but the point is that just like every other word, it was invented. The Unami language is not controlled by the Lenape any more than English is controlled by America. Other cultures will influence each other, period. Buffs (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't take the scouting newsletter's word for it that the invented Moravian words, with their added Germanic phonemes, are "grammatically correct". That's clearly the writer's opinion. But it's a source where they admit that they know, and admit, the non-Native origins of what they do. It backs up what we've found here. Also, it's noted in the Moravian dictionary that this word, and the others in that song, were invented (the initialing where it didn't pass review). And I don't believe for a minute that the Lenape "had no concept of brotherhood". That is one of many (possibly not intentially insulting, but insulting nonetheless) statements in these materials that show that these guys were making stuff up without full consultation or adequate cultural or linguistic knowledge. This is something that has also been clear throughout the entire process of working on this article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're taking that they "had no concept of brotherhood" intentionally literally, not the manner in which it was clearly intended: they didn't have a specific word that meant the same with the same connotation. English doesn't have an exact single word that means "“softly falling snow", but the Inuit word "“aqilokoq” works just fine. If they wanted to translate from their language to ours like "softfall" snow, it would be completely appropriate to get the point across. Everything in the article you have show the approximation is grammatically correct, the pronunciation is simply slightly muddied when translating from Pennsylvania Dutch to English and the approximations made between languages. Buffs (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

However, if we're going to use YOUR standards below, the statement is 100% factual.

Your "note" is incorrect: Wimachtendienk only appears in the Moravian dictionary from 1888, and in Order of the Arrow, Eagle Scout, and other BSA materials.

• Gilwell.com is not a BSA site. It is independent of BSA and is a BRITISH site, not American. As I showed (and you deleted), multiple third party publications use this term when describing scouting activities. There were other books I also included, but you deleted in preference for a self-published article that purportedly supports your contention.

Neither Wimachtendienk, nor the other words in this song in appear in the dictionaries written and currently maintained by the Lenape language dictionary maintained by Lenape people themselves...

• You checked ONE site with that supported your assertion, not "dictionaries" (plural), but they only address ONE of 3 major dialects. As IG stated above, there is at least one extinct dialect and another dialect you haven't accounted for. On top of that, every language has slang terms that aren't officially part of the language, but are still used. Additionally, and most importantly, that site itself admits that it is an incomplete dictionary: "This is a work-in-progress so come back often as more words and sound files are being added." With the given evidence, you simply cannot claim that the word is never used. Get a reliable, third party source that claims it. Until then it's WP:SYN/WP:OR and you know full well it isn't allowed. Buffs (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added a total of 7 sources from a wide variety of places. Some are published by BSA. Some are published by other sources. I rephrased your note in a better format that, hopefully, addresses your points in an appropriate manner. Buffs (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. That scouting newsletter is not an RS for the grammar being correct. This is a total whitewashing. You are insisting on cutting valid criticism or relegating it to the Native section. You just turned that material on the made-up name into a joke, and misrepresented/cherry-picked the source to boot. I don't for a minute believe that you think this is appropriate. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken out the insulting commentary from the Scout newsletter, claiming Germanic phonemes are "grammatically correct", along with the personal interpretations of the material, and fixed the misuse of the quote function. The quote parameter in the citation template is for exact quotes of the source, not personal commentary. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the very first post in this discussion, only the Lenape online dictionary is a Lenape source. All the others, including gilwells, and the Moravians, are not Lenape. I checked them all, then I posted on here to see if anyone was able to find anything that contradicted these findings. What happened is that Indigenous girl confirmed my findings and found more to back them up, and Buffs wanted to argue that German phonemes are "grammatically correct" Lenape, and that non-Lenape know the Lenape language better than the Lenape people. So, no change from when this first started, except to reinforce the original finding. No consensus to whitewash this into "German missionaries know the Lenape culture better than the Lenape do themselves." or, "The Order of the Arrow is the true maintainer of Native American cultures" which, as I gather, is the entire aim of the group and certain editors' goal with their editing on this article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

[ec] Ok, I guess I botched a formatting issue with the "quote" portion of the citation template? If so, that's a simple mistake we've ALL made. Conflating an honest mistake or minor disagreement over how much to quote with an "abuse of format" or "misuse" or "total whitewashing" or "cutting valid criticism" is very uncivil and not helpful. I did shorten it because we don't need every little bit of it, just the part to support the assertion. You want to add more to it? I don't particularly care, but that's not a major problem unless you're changing the meaning of the citation.

All that said YOU were the one who added the quoted material not once, but twice, not me. To blame me for something YOU added...I mean...what the hell? Is gaslighting people now also considered acceptable, civil behavior?

What you've put into the article and described here is still incomplete/misleading (as evidenced above). I'll repeat:

1. There is only one online dictionary that you linked and only one online that I can find. I'm not aware of another. Therefore the word "dictionaries" needs to be changed in your note to "dictionary".
2. You removed a phrase that said "" and your justification was "No link for statement of incompleteness." As stated above, I provided such a link. This is exceptionally tendentious editing to claim that there's no source when you know full well one exists. Accordingly, I've re-added & rephrased it this time with a link.
3. I am not "cutting valid criticism". You're conducting WP:OR and synthesizing your conclusions. You're choosing misleading phrases and adding your own personal commentary that are not backed by reliable sources. Either find a reliable resource or quit adding it.
4. I've also removed the spurious reference to "Translations of words and phrases related to "brother" That isn't the word/phrase/idea in question. Just because it has a similar word usage in English doesn't mean its absence in a list of related phrases to a portion of the word in another language proves anything.
5. "The quote parameter in the citation template is for exact quotes of the source, not personal commentary." What? First of all, what was put there WAS a verbatim quote. You changed it to an almost-exact quote and changed a word that wasn't in the original and isn't backed by a reliable source: "constructed". No source backs the claim that they constructed or created the word. I can think of 100 innocuous reasons for any variation between now and 300+ years ago that are not nefarious, but you've chosen to assume the one reason that backs your assumptions/agenda. Therefore, you've changed the phrasing and added your own personal phrase in an effort to advance an anti-cultural appropriation political agenda and in violation of WP:NPOV. Claiming the "Quote function is not for an editor's personal commentary. Abuse of format." is outrageous! especially when you added your own commentary and removed the actual quote YOU added! Accordingly, I've changed it back to what YOU originally put in there and what the actual quote was:

Verbatim as you originally added it and as was in the article YOU cited/quoted: "“Wimachtendienk” is a word used by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren). It is grammatically correct Lënape and translates as “we who are brothers to one another”"

vs

Your latest phrasing: "“Wimachtendienk” is a word contructed [sic] by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren) to translate “we who are brothers to one another”"

Buffs (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

At this point, you've stopped addressing issues and are focusing exclusively on the motivations of me/others. You continue to view any change to anything you wrote as "disruption" and assume the worst of those who disagree with you without regard for whether their concerns have merit. If they oppose you, they must be wrong and the civility rules of Wikipedia do not apply to you, only others. I've NEVER said or claimed

• "German phonemes are 'grammatically correct' Lenape" (YOU added that source AND quote, not me)
• "non-Lenape know the Lenape language better than the Lenape people"
• "German missionaries know the Lenape culture better than the Lenape do themselves."
• "The Order of the Arrow is the true maintainer of Native American cultures"

You assume that because you are attempting to promote a political agenda of anti-cultural appropriation. You "gather [that] the entire aim of the group and certain editors' goal with their editing on this article." and, as such, you've stopped assuming good faith, you will not remain civil, and I'm done with it. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The online talking dictionary from the Lenape Nation is incomplete, yes, however authentic words from Moravian sources have been added. The majority of the dictionary has been a work in progress created by speakers, who knew or know their language. They are the experts.

There are Lenape language sources available online - https://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/Linguistics/LenapeLanguageResources/pdf/ConversationLenape.pdf is an example as well as Michael Pitzer's Handbook of Eastern Woodland Indian Languages (you can get it for free with a kindle). The words/phrases/terms, what ever one wishes to call them, are not found in them. They just aren't. I don't understand why there is a big to-do about the fact that wimachtendienk and other words were made up by non-Lenape in order to more easily proselytize. The Lenape choose not to claim those words that the Moravians, and more specifically Zeisberger, created - because they are not Lenape words - and that's perfectly acceptable to most people I think. I mean, really, they have the final say, not OA or BSA or people posting on Wikipedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason it's a big to-do is that

1. by your own admission, the source is indeed incomplete. Ergo, it may be reliable by what IS there, but, as it is incomplete, it is not reliable for what ISN'T there. Likewise, the sources you're citing are not dictionaries. They are VERY basic intros to the language. They don't include the translation for many basic words (like "airplane", "street", or "pregnant") much less more complex words/concepts like "brotherhood". While helpful, they are very incomplete, much less exhaustive. They cannot be used to say that "that word doesn't exist".
2. no source backs your claim that the missionaries "constructed" such a word (much less a specific person, Zeisberger, or for a specific intent, "in order to more easily proselytize"); it very well could be a word they construed with the Indigenous People's help to have better communication. Likewise, the original use in the Order of the Arrow was likely and simply a good faith effort to use the proper words in that language with no malfeasance. But that's just speculation...just like your assertions. According to the sources, they "used" it. If I'm missing the source, please let me know where I'm missing it. I'm willing to change my mind on the subject. To date, I haven't seen anything to back these claims, just speculation of malfeasance without evidence.
3. I truly understand your point of view that the Lenape should exclusively be able to control what is in their language, but that is a political position. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS and what others say in those published works. As such, these aims are at odds. If there is disagreement between reliable sources and what, for example, the Lenape people want, the default on Wikipedia is "what do the reliable sources say", not "defer to what this People over here want". I fully recognize that you don't share that viewpoint, but Wikipedia (and virtually all legal systems, if not all, for that matter) does not recognize that the Lenape People have exclusive control on their language any more than the Queen of England has control of English. Words are NOT static. They are fluid. They change over time. They are not as rigid as you're claiming (and certainly not over 300 years) nor do these People have the right to dictate how others use their language, approximate ideas, etc. Buffs (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation issue

Prefacing to state I am well aware that this is original research and that as it stands right now I have no intention of adding any of this to the article because it is OR and peripheral. There are critiques of David Zeisberger's works, contemporary to him as well as current, that his works are inaccurate and as I have stated before, creations on his part. I am simply putting this here for the record. I am not looking for an argument and will not participate in one. I will add contant as I find it in the future. At some point, if anyone is interested, it would be beneficial to this knowledge to his page.

• Proper Readings for the Two Forms of Zeisberger's Maqua-Delaware-Mahican Vocabulary by Carl Masthay. International Journal of American Linguistics Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 172-181 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1265376
• A Harmony of the Spirits: Translation and the Language of Community in Early Pennsylvania by Patrick M. Erben. Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, page 1 so far, I have not gotten further into the book because I have other things to do. https://books.google.com/books?id=qTDqCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1&dq=inaccuracies%2C%20zeisberger&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigenous girl (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No discussion warranted. This is WP:OR as both admitted and described ad nauseum previously. Might I suggest moving this to Zeisberger's article? Buffs (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

"Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." At this point Corbie has not faithfully reproduced the source. He has instead changed a quote to paraphrasing and introduced words not in the source to bolster his political position that were not in the original (changing "used" to "constructed") and has not provided documentation to back up that claim, just speculation. As such, it should be removed and properly quoted, not erroneously summarized. Buffs (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Constructed" vs "Used": There is no reliable source that states "constructed", only "used". That's an assumption. If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, add it. Otherwise stop.

Likewise, per the WP:MOS, there is no reason to add emphasis in a citation/note and certainly not html code. Buffs (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Permission to make edits

Some of my revisions have been summarily reversed with no explanation. What is the rationale for scrambling up the order of the reference numbers (instead of ^{[21][16][9][13]} we reorder the refs so they are in order ^{[9]13][16][21]})? I don't think this should be a contentious issue to fix, but for some reason that I'm unable to comprehend, it's been undone with no rationale.

Does anyone object to fixing that? Buffs (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indicate here on talk exactly where in the article these edits would take place. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Um...everywhere with consecutive/redundant references. I have no idea why this would this even be contentious or why you undid them, but here we are. I would appreciate agreement or at least a reason why we shouldn't. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That diff doesn't really tell us anything. It's your edit, and doesn't really explain what you want to change. The priority in sourcing a statement is accuracy, not whether the numbers are in ascending order. When sourcing a statement, I put the most relevant source(s) first. When you have tried to tack on extra, unneeded or irrelevant cites, then defended them via edit-warring, we have at times kept them at the end of the list as a compromise. They should actually be cut. Re-arranging them is not the answer. Let's just leave the sources where they are for now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. really? It explains EXACTLY what I want to change. Let me summarize your remarks as I’m seeing them: <flippant remark><Condescending remark>WP:ILIKEITWP:ILIKEIT<Unnecessary condescending remark about the past...again x2> WP:ILIKEIT WP:ILIKEIT

You asked exactly what I wanted to take place, I showed you, and you say it doesn’t tell us anything. Why are you asking me to repeatedly jump through hoops? Are you just trying to waste my time? El_C, why no enforcement for WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and others? I thought we were focusing on the edits, not the editors...

If the priority in sourcing is accurately paraphrasing or quoting what people say, why are you still insisting on adding "constructed" above? No source says that. As for the order of the references, every technical writing course I’ve had insisted on footnotes appearing in order. If it's unimportant, why did you change them? Examples from around the world: [1] [2] [3]. My reasons are based on citation guides, not just WP:ILIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No response? Buffs (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What?

AP2 has been rescinded on this article via WP:AE: [4]. Hatted by involved editor for the sake of clarity and so no one else gets the idea that AP2 applies. If you disagree with collapsing, please undo my action Buffs (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
El_C, how on earth does this fall under "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"? Buffs (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC) On the earth side of the United States and around that aforementioned timeline. Feel free to appeal at ARCA. El_C 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC) AP2 DS applied and moving forward — key word: substance Please note that I have applied AP2 discretionary sanctions to this article, as it very clearly could use further push toward substance and away from innuendo. I will not, however, allow the consensus required provision to be used as an instrument of attrition. Once reverted, edits as well as reverts of edits will need to be accompanied by substantive discussion, with the aim of trying to reach consensus. That said, please try to condense, so as to make the discussion accessible to outside input. Thanks and good luck. El_C 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC) AP2 has been rescinded on this article via WP:AE [5] Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ritual" vs "Ceremony"

It appears we've reached agreement that "ceremony" is a neutral term and should be the one used in this article. Closed by involved editor Buffs (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are we really at a point where "It was changed on purpose" is a rationale for reverting someone's edits? ANYONE'S "purposeful" changes don't override someone else's changes. No one owns this article. Furthermore, no where in official terminology is the term "ritual", but "Ceremony" is exclusively used throughout BSA and OA programming. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC) We should follow the terminology used by reliable sources, not necessarily that of BSA/OA. However, it does appear that "ceremonies" is the commonly-used term and there is no indication that anyone uses "rituals" to describe the practices. CorbieVreccan could you elaborate on your reasoning for the change? –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC) It's based on the fact that this article over-relies on primary sources - self-descriptions from the group itself - along with the ongoing issue that they have historically imitated what they believe are Native American spiritual ceremonies. They've been asked to stop doing this. More recently they have issued statements saying they have stopped or changed these activities. What do the third-party sources call their activities? I know some of the sources we've cited call them "imitation ceremonies" and "mockeries." I figured "rituals" was kinder. Note: in the Indigenous cultures they are, erm, claiming inspiration from, "ceremony" means "sacred spiritual ceremony". That's the reason. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC) "Ceremony" is a neutral/accurate term. The article here is stating what the OA procedures are. Calling it something that isn't accurate makes no sense... You are implying such usage of the word "ceremony" is cultural appropriation and shortening of "sacred spiritual ceremony" is unsupported by references, WP:OR, and POV pushing. If you have a third-party sources to back it up, please do so. Even from your own unsourced claims above, they use the word "ceremony". Reverting someone's changes based on "It was changed on purpose" and "I figured 'rituals' was kinder." in order to push an agenda is inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Concerns of cultural appropriation and stereotypes section

I have several new sources noting that protests were occurring in the 1970s including the filing of an injunction in 1972 that was not successful. There is also a source that identifies harmful behavior and explains why it is harmful. The section is already heavily sourced. I would welcome conversation as to how to incorporate the new sources without substantially increasing the section. Proposed sources -

• https://www.newspapers.com/image/338926408
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/222357170
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/185133484
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/338798040/
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/71920660
• https://www.newspapers.com/image/293772112
• https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/19/archives/indian-dances-by-whites-halted-after-iowa-protest.html

This source https://sfaajournals.net/doi/abs/10.17730/praa.37.2.9x51g19018v8r461 identifies harmful behavior and explains why it is harmful. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Also 'Time It Was: American Stories from the Sixties' by Karen Manners Smith and Tim Koster (Rutledge Press, ISBN 9781315509273). Note - pages are not numbered. Applicable content found in Chapter 2 - Struggles for Social Justice, "Something in the Wind" Spiritual Renewal in the American Indian Movement Indigenous girl (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that I've seen this, but haven't had a chance to go over them yet. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

So, does this pertain to the actions of the Order of the Arrow? Or is it in response to other groups. TBH, I can't see it and don't know what it says. Buffs (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Continuing on with the quotes stuff

I think having one quote in the section is not undue, and would have no problem leaving the Prochaska quote as-is, unless there's a brilliant way to compress it a bit. But as he actually is quoting Deloria when he says, "playing Indian", it would be nice to hotlink that. Technically it's not WP:MOS to hotlink within direct quotes; but the reason for this is to not misrepresent the speaker. I think this could be an exception, as the reason the phrase is in quotes is he actually is referring to Deloria's book. Thoughts? - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think if Prochaska's quote is referring to Deloria's book that it's appropriate to hotlink for context. I also think that this is a good reason to leave the quote as it is for sake of clarity. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:MOS is there for a reason and it should not be circumvented, so, no, it shouldn't be linked in that manner. That particular reference is already in the footnotes and doesn't need to be mentioned/linked ad nauseum; the point's been made. Likewise, the quote should be included in its entirety (mostly just punctuation errors and reference omissions) or at least accurately paraphrased, as well as being more consistent in the balance that the author strikes in his remarks on other pages (specifically p179). There is a danger of pulling multiple paragraphs together where you associate one point that the author was trying to make in one paragraph with the point he was trying to make in another. I think that's right on "the line" (if not over the line) here.

I think the quote can/should be better paraphrased into prose, but an inline quote wouldn't be out of the norm/out of line either. In an effort of detante, I ask that IG and Corbie put it together. If it's inline/in prose and incorporates an accurate quote/paraphrasing, I have no objection. 20:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's an idea per WP:BOLD. If you like it, please let us know. If not, please, please, please rephrase or undo it and replace it with a different flavor of inline quotation at your discretion. Please note that I've INCREASED the length of the quote as it now better fits with the prose of the article. Buffs (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Deloria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we include references to the book excerpt authored by Deloria for the following passage (reference #3)? I'm not seeing anything on page 126 that supports this assertion in this passage. Note, this book excerpt DOES apply elsewhere in the article and should not be removed in those places; this RfC is solely about this usage. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). Buffs (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.

References

Survey/Discussion

• No As proposed. I've repeatedly asked above for how that excerpt applies to this passage/for the section to be quoted, but to no avail, being accused of "POV-pushing", and others. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this RfC if someone can explain what I'm apparently missing. Otherwise, it should be removed from the passage listed above ONLY. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment [Clar: Yes, but the text needs adjusting, and the source should be integrated into the rest of the article, not segregated into the appropriation section. Don't refactor others' comments, Buffs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC) ] Philip J. Deloria's background on this group, its founding, and the larger issue of Playing Indian certainly belong in this article, to source all of the above. The problem started, Buffs, when your arguments about precisely where to put the reference became a slow edit war to remove it entirely. This is the same thing you have done with Keene - tendentious editing with what appears to be the goal of eventually removing Indigenous objections entirely. (And leaving a lot of primary sourcing to the OA itself.) Your pattern has been to try to change the wording of a passage, then to later claim the source no longer fits the precise wording, eventually trying to remove the sources entirely. I've held off on editing while you stir up all this drama at multiple locations, but all it requires is slight changes in wording, not removing good sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Moved to a discussion section for clarification. So your response to "it should be removed from the passage listed above ONLY" and "Note, this book excerpt DOES apply elsewhere in the article and should not be removed in those places; this RfC is solely about this usage" is "you're just trying to remove it from the article"? Unbelievable. You're saying my alleged goal is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the point brought up here isn't addressed for THIS sentence. I've repeatedly asked what phrase/sentence on page 126 supports this sentence and your response has been (effectively) "you're just POV-pushing". You've completely disregarded WP:AGF and instead anyone who you view as opposition is a boogeyman hell bent on destroying information because they express the objections of indigenous people.

  I'll make this clear: I'm not.

  We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you insist on assuming I'm out to eliminate all objections. I'm not. I'm here to make sure that Wikipedia's editorial standards are upheld with reliable sources to back up claims.

  So, let's just assume we're going to keep it and we really want to rephrase it because it's just that great of a reference and deserves to be emphasized. WHAT PHRASE/SENTENCE ON PAGE 126 SUPPORTS THIS PORTION OF THE ARTICLE?! Buffs (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  As for Don't refactor others' comments, Buffs. I'll be blunt: shut up. I did it EXACTLY as described in our how-to guide. I didn't include a discussion section and was trying to make it clearer for future discussions.

  But hell, I mean, you did decide to change your comments/categorization. Why didn't you move my comments up with yours? You decided arbitrarily to split my comments from yours Seems to violate the aforementioned how-to guide. Talk about tendentious editing... Buffs (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why don't you answer the question? Buffs (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the page is pertinent. The entire book, inclusive of the second paragraph and beyond in onto the next page is a criticism of the exact behavior that occurs in the OA.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, IG. Maybe you're new to citing things. If it's on the next page. The reference should be "pp 126-127", not just "pp 126". You have to cite the pages of what you're referencing when it comes to a book.

Here is the second paragraph

"While some Indian people used antimodern primitivism to assert the crucial Americanizing role of real Indians in a melting pot society, Ernest Thompson Seton's departure from Scouting in 1915 signaled an opposite tendency—a new era in boy scouting in which leaders attempted to redefine Indianness as some-thing less than 100 percent Americanness. Ironically, at the very moment of Seton's ouster, Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence. E. Urner Goodman and Car-roll A. Edson, the directors of the Philadelphia council's summer camp, created an honor society for exemplary scouts based on a loose interpretation of Hia-watha and Last of the Mohicans. Called Wimachtendiench Wingolauchsik Wita-hemui, or the Order of the Arrow, the organization gathered around summer camp bonfires in ritual Indian costume to tap out and induct new members.62 By the late 1920s and early 1930s, Order of the Arrow chapters had spread across the country and turned many scouting groups back toward the Indian-ness that West and Beard had strived to eliminate."

Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to another non-Boy Scout group. Here is the remaining paragraph on p 127:

"Even as Indianness was being contested in the early twentieth century, then, it continued to reemerge—often keeping odd company in unlikely quarters. If it seems strange to find Indians haunting the buckskin territory of Dan Beard and the honor society of the Indian-free Boy Scouts, it is also completely consistent with a long thread of American practices. Amidst the steel skyscrapers of the alienating modern city, the Indian continued to lie in wait, always materializing when citizens gathered to proclaim American—and now modern—identities."

None of them address any component of protests, criticism, cultural appropriation, or spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans. Please tell me what in these sentences specifically pertains to any portion of these components of the given sentence because clearly you're seeing something I'm not. Buffs (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all I didn't add the Deloria reference and when reverting I did not have time to even look at the following page because of time constraints. If you can't see the fact of Deloria specifically addressing when, where and how a bunch of non-Native boys started playing Indian and their appropriative behavior, in a book that critiques playing Indian and appropriative behavior I really don't know what to say.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said you added the Deloria reference. The reference itself SHOULD be up top referring to the history (and it is). I'm not going to read an entire book to attempt to decipher the author's intent. The passages from a book need to be clear as to what supports the claim. For example, this passage seems to indicate a level of support "Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence." If it encompasses more pages, we need to edit the reference to include what makes the point. Again, if I'm missing something, let me know. I'll personally add it! As it stands right now, it's vague at best. Buffs (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you said,"Maybe you're new to citing things. If it's on the next page. The reference should be "pp 126-127", not just "pp 126". You have to cite the pages of what you're referencing when it comes to a book." I did not cite this source. I didn't look at the following page until yesterday. a new era in boy scouting in which leaders attempted to redefine Indianness as some-thing less than 100 percent Americanness. This is a criticism. Scouting was redefining Indianness as less than Americanness. E. Urner Goodman and Car-roll A. Edson, the directors of the Philadelphia council's summer camp, created an honor society for exemplary scouts based on a loose interpretation of Hia-watha and Last of the Mohicans. This shows that they were not basing their interpretation on anything legitimate but on two pieces, written by white men, that stereotype the romantic savage trope. If you are removed enough from the subject matter as to not have read the book or Deloria's slightly shorter dissertation at least read the book's description. The description sums the basis of the book up very well. Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As for not addressing you, fine, I'll respect that, but I also haven't tagged you for anything that I'm aware of. But I'm not going to leave this assessment unaddressed as it is flawed. I'm sorry, but that's also not how a discussion works. You don't get to make a statement contradicting someone and then demand no one reply to it.

That sentence addresses Boy Scouts as a whole, not OA. The next sentence addresses OA as something in contrast to the previous with the word "Ironically": "Ironically, at the very moment of Seton's ouster, Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence." How is setting "Indian characteristics" (his words, not mine) as a noble ideal/something people SHOULD aspire to understand/emulate a racist or stereotypical problem? Why are these books (ok, one FICTIONAL book and one poem) a problem? Are they inaccurate? What's "stereotypically" wrong? This isn't clear what's being said here. Or is it just that you/Deloria views that they were "written by white men" (your words, not mine) and therefore are offensive? If there is something else that should be added to the reference, then add it. Add a page, the cover, the forward, etc. Until then, I do not think that this reference supports the claim...we'll see if others agree/disagree.

As for you being "uncomfortable", why? Disagreement is part of the editorial process. If you can't handle disagreement...I mean...I don't know what you tell you on a talk page. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF is especially important when interacting with a user who compares Cultural Preservation Officers to White Supremacists, Tribal Judges who publish books on Genocide to Flat Earthers, and tells an experienced editor to "shut up" when we ask to not have our RfC opinions demoted a discussion section of the page. AGF does not mean, "be naive and ignore the evidence." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That is slanderous. I never compared Cultural Preservation Officers to White Supremacists or Tribal Judges to Flat Earthers AND I clearly explained that. You've decided to just ignore it (as you do with any question or concern I bring up). I CLEARLY told YOU to shut up as in to stop whining about every single little thing I do if it doesn't meet your personal, ambiguous, nebulous standards and instead pay attention to the things you DON'T know...like policy. You've clearly demonstrated yourself to be incapable of a discussion that doesn't devolve into abhorrently terrible logical fallacies like ad hominems, straw men, and reductio ad absurdum, incapable of upholding editorial standards for inclusion, and a incapable of actually contributing to a discussion without insulting, demeaning, slandering, and otherwise being a general nuisance toward all those with whom you disagree. At no point are you actually addressing the questions asked; you just ignore them. At this point. I'm completely done discussing anything with you. You aren't interested in building a consensus; you are interested in dictating to others how things MUST be done and anyone who disagrees with you is just inferior unworthy of the attention of someone so arrogant. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus. Everyone calm down, stop using pointed formatting IN YOUR comments, and stop accusing each other of being various sorts of devils. What part of the book is being cited for this statement? In all this bickering I struggle to find anything of substance to that effect. Where does it address the subject of the article specifically and make the stated claim? Can we not just find that and add it using the quote= parameter in the cite template? GMG^talk 22:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've been asking that for weeks. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  How about refactoring all your comments to meet the standards you're asking of others? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Is this somehow relevant to the topic of discussion? GMG^talk 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  I believe your comments were relevant, and I suggested a policy-based solution. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (added diff --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

  To what? GMG^talk 18:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: RfC relisted to allow editors to answer GreenMeansGo's questions: What part of the book is being cited for this statement? ... Where does it address the subject of the article specifically and make the stated claim?

  Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Appreciated. To this point, I STILL don't know what's referenced with this source. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• No – the burden should be on those placing it to demonstrate its relevance. Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is already in the article, as one of the only third-party citations that sources the founding of the group. This article needs to be cleaned up a lot as it is full of citations to the group itself. You want to remove one of the few third-party cites? Indigenous girl (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The other citations aren't the issue we're discussing here nor is the cleanup of the article. As multiple people have stated, the applicable text from this source isn't clear. You cannot both demand its inclusion and refuse to specify how it applies. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I specified how it applies in March Mathglot. If there is consensus that it it is not relevant in this particular instance then that is fine, I still feel it should be utilized in the article. It does go into the history of OA. The majority of current sources are from the OA or the scouts. That does not make for a balance. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Point of clarification I support this reference's general inclusion in the article (especially covering the history portion...which I've just added). However, I do NOT feel the passage in question supports the claim that is the point of this RfC. Likewise, let's please keep the discussion narrowed to the subject at hand (Deloria's use as a source for this specific passage) rather than the whole article or other concerns. To address IG's concerns, I've added several additional sources + added some previously used sources of information that were not added to relevant sections. Hopefully that alleviates those issues. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.