Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 1

Honor Society
What is an honor society? This needs to be explained to all the people that are not in the BSA -- namely the vast majority of the planet


 * A separate internal organization for campers to which it is considered an honor to be invited to join, as indicated in the article. Was that so hard?  That old WWW (isn't that supposed to be secret? -Smack), Ortolan88


 * I don't think it needs explanation, but if someone thinks that it does, we should make sure that it's really as clear as we think it is. Unfortunately, I'm not in an appropriate mental state to do that right now.  -Smack

I'm not sure I like the tight-lipped aspect of the article. Wikipedia isn't obligated to respect secrecy of rituals of various organizations, whether they be the Order of the Arrow or Scientology. --Delirium 09:42, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Reworded a bit to take out the annoying "shall not be revealed here" parts; perhaps the omitted information is simply not interesting enough to include. The general principle still bothers me a bit though. --Delirium 09:54, Aug 25, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is plenty of interesting information that has purposely been omitted from this article. As regards your (perfectly valid) concern about the idea of omitting the information, I unfortunately have nothing to say.  If you're really interested in that issue, go to  and contact someone who can give you some guidance.  -Smack 03:35, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * ah, just put a standard spoiler warning up. It's not like we're protecting reactor plans. Gentgeen 17:04, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As a member - the only "secret" information is the details of the ceremonies - specifically the tasks involved in them - and some information which is used as passwords. Almost everything significant about the Order is public. Pakaran 23:19, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * yup, and if you've read any of the standard colonial literature of the Northeast, you know all of the secret information anyway. Gentgeen 23:33, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to defer to you guys. I'm also feeling rather apathetic about this issue right now. -Smack 02:04, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it's important not to put all the secrets on here out of the interest of maintaining the organization's allure and interest to the young Boy Scouts that are non-members. It's not a real exclusive organization, almost any Boy Scout that sticks with scouting for a few years will eventually be elected into it. Meanwhile, not knowing what the "WWW" on member's uniforms stands for, and not knowing what goes on at the ritual ceremonies, helps impart some magic into the organization and increases the "honor" when a nonmember is elected (by other nonmembers) into the organization. If the secrets are readily available on Wikipedia, every 11 year old will seek them out and know them -- much to the detriment of the non-members. I'd say the "in loco parentis" rule should apply here, "we" know what's best for these non-members, leave them in the dark a bit and they'll apreciate their future experience a little more. Meanwhile, parents of the boys can learn whatever they feel they need to simply by asking the troop's adult leaders about it. -- A nonapathetic Arrowman
 * As someone who thinks Wikipedia should contain the details of all secret ceremonies, I have to disagree. Now don't worry; I don't think community consensus is to post OA ceremony details here (yet), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't extend to withholding what WWW stands for.  Wikipedia contains spoilers.  Now, if someone wants to rearrange facts on this page so they appear beneath a spoiler warning, I would not be opposed to it. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 12:58, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * As an Arrowman and an Eagle Scout, I'm rather disturbed by talk of keeping anything strictly ecret. The Boy Scouts of America as an organization does not allow secret societies or secret knowledge in any form, and "protected" OA material plainly displays the disclaimer: "The Order of the Arrow, recognizing the attractiveness of the unknown, utilizes the form of mystery. This shall not be interpreted, however, as justifying the withholding of any information regarding the Order from any person legitimately interested in investigating its nature, purpose, or method." I'd say that curiousity counts as a "legitimate interest." The OA is not a Masonic lodge, andpretending to be a secret society is, IMHO, only harmful to the organization, and I'm happy to encourage whatever's necessary to prevent the impression that the OA is secret. -- Seth Ilys 21:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * the only thing secret i can think of now, is any passwords you are givin, for example in order to enter meetings. and WWW is said in full as part of the OA Oath, I dont recall it being secret.--AlexTheMartian 03:23, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * As to revealing ceremonial details on an open forum such as Wikipedia, for the main reason that anyone can update, edit, or move these pages, that's a bad call. For example, what if (and this isn't that far off) someone with the least of best intentions modified the text (originally, I said ceremonies) to include details that weren't true?  True, members of the organization could access the page and return the details to normal, but what would the damage be in the passing time?  I handled this issue on another page by stating that ceremonies are safeguarded similar to the Order's ceremonies.  I think I'll refine it a bit, but still.  Safeguarded material is safeguarded material.  Would you like to have gone through the Ordeal, Brotherhood, or Vigil ceremony as a candidate knowing full well what was going to occur? Ruins the effect a bit, doesn't it? - Jeremiah Cook 21:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jeremiah. Also, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of all knowledge.  Putting the transcripts up would be inappropriate in that respect.  A brief mention that the ceremonies exist, their purpose, and possibly the symbolism involved would be appropriate. Thesquire 21:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting putting up the ceremonial scripts into this article. They don't belong on Wikipedia (Wikisource is the location for source materials such as that). Gentgeen 22:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * actually i think wikibooks would prob be a better fit but it doesnt matter. the scripts are copywritten and do not belong anywhere on the internet (i assure you that you will NOT get the bsa permission to publish them to the world.)Cavebear42 17:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * When I said this article should contain the details of the ceremonies, I did not mean complete transcripts of the scripts. That would be a clear copyright violation, either here or on Wikisource. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 18:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * After doing a bit of research on the topic, and creating a summary of this discussion on my personal talk page, my feeling is this. National includes the four tests of the Ordeal on OA's National Fact Sheet, so why not just use National's description of the Ordeal that is freely available on the Internet already?  It answers the question, but really doesn't give anything away that would demystify the experience.  Also, if people have a "legitimate interest", and they can demonstrate that interest, I'm willing to bet that no Lodge Adviser or Staff Adviser in his/her right mind would turn down their request to review Order materials.  My biggest fear is that Ordeal Candidates would find out about the really good stuff and take the Ordeal less seriously, and that's the risk we run by putting details on Wikipedia. It would be like finding your Christmas presents in November - no fun to open them on Christmas Day if you know what's going to be there. -Jeremiah Cook 19:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can we get a clarification on the latest edit, modifying things from Ordeal Honor, Brotherhood Honor, Vigil Honor, to Ordeal membership, Brotherhood? I'm 24 and I've always used the Honor suffix when talking to non-members about the Order. In addition, if we add membership to Ordeal, wouldn't we have to do the same for Brotherhood? Someone have a handbook handy - the last one that I saw was the 1994 NOAC revision? - Jeremiah Cook 03:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the links appropriately where I saw fit. Seth and I spoke on IRC and I have also added the four Ordeal tests to the article.  Now, don't everyone shoot me, you can get the tests directly off of National's website and the OA Fact Sheet (I have a link somewhere on my user page. - Jeremiah Cook 23:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A note for all those OA brothers out there- As a Brotherhood member member of a ceremonies team of a Connecticut Lodge, I would like to ask that any Brother thinking about adding to this page more than should be there is only spoiling the true meaning of the Brotherhood for those who will one day be shown the deeper meaning. Only those who have been prepared for the honor of membership in our Order should have access to the customs and traditions of our Brotherhood. -concerned Brother in CT


 * My Brother in the Wimachtendienk, while I understand your feelings regarding secrecy, the ceremonial name of our order is not a secret. The order was refered to only by its full name from its inception in 1915 until well into the 1920s or 30s.  A simple search on the national website finds several pages that use the full name are posted there now, one published only last month (April 2005).  Additionally, many lodges post the three W's on their own pages.  As a Vigil Honor member, Founders' Award receipient, and lodge associate advisor (as well as a bunch of jobs I held back when I was young), I can assure you that there was nothing in this article before you edited it that shouldn't be here. Gentgeen 04:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As a Vigil Honor member, Associate Chapter adviser, former youth officer, Ordeal Master, and Ordeal Adviser, I respectfully disagree with our concerned brother's contention and removal of song lyrics from the Firm Bound in Brotherhood article, and the full WWW words from this article. The article in its entirety was researched to be within National Office guidelines for safeguard, and as Gentgeen stated above, the National Office itself publishes this material to be freely available to anyone who wishes it.  The element of "spoiling" is absent from any article discussing the Order, and I would encourage you in the future to discuss your feelings in the talk spaces for the articles prior to removing any content.  This content does not, nor has not violated the National Safeguard, nor would we as members of the Order intentionally publish any material that would do so.  A similar comment to this one appears at the Talk:Firm Bound in Brotherhood space. KC9CQJ 05:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It has been said earlier that we (as Wikipedians) do not have an obligation to keep any information secret, be it from the OA or from Scientology. I think that view misses the mark. We have an obligation to treat people fairly - both those who we write about and those who we right for. Both of those sets of people have a legitimate interest in this material being somewhat hard to get. Imagine how unfortunate it is to have the surprise ending of a movie spoiled for you? Sure, you can still go to the movie and enjoy the actors’ performances and the special effects, but something has been taken from you none-the-less. My opinion is that we should keep safeguarded information off this page. At the very least it should be hidden one click away on a separate page, or hidden below a "spoiler" warning. My preference, however, would be for it to be removed entirely. Wikipedia does not endeavor to be the source of all knowledge. We can write a very good article without divulding any of this information, thus fulfilling our mission while being sensitive to the nature of this information. Johntex 20:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As Arrowmen, it is requested of us at the conclusion of the Ordeal that we not disclose the details or procedures of the induction ceremonies except to those with a legitimate "need-to-know" (e.g. parents and spouses of prospective members). That is a request that I have honored and continue to honor, and I think all Arrowmen should do the same. However, we are under no OBLIGATION to refrain from disclosure--none of us signed a formal NDA or even made an oral contract with the BSA to that end. Thus, although no Arrowman SHOULD volunteer information regarding the ceremonies and procedures, he is nonetheless free to do so. Furthermore, non-Arrowmen not only have no obligation to refrain from disclosing any information they have learned, disclosure is not something they should NOT do either since the request made at Ordeal obviously does not apply to them.

So, I see no problem with details of the Ordeal or any other ceremony or procedure being present on Wikipedia. I would prefer that they be added by a non-Arrowman (since for an Arrowman to do it would be a violation of the request I mentioned earlier and that I think all Arrowmen should honor--I personally would not add them--but, since Arrowmen have no OBLIGATION to refraim from disclosure then an Arrowman would be free to do so), but the simple fact of their presence is not objectionable. Kurt Weber 17:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Possible compromise on Ordeal secrecy
Hello, fellow brothers and other concerned Wikipedians. I'll give you fair warning now that I am not a very active or dedicated member of the OA, though I regret this. I was intending to raise an objection about the Ordeal's contents being publicized here, but if that is already available on the Internet otherwise, I suppose there isn't much we can do.

My proposal, which I understand may sound a bit silly, is to include a disclaimer before the section that reveals the Ordeal tests, similar to the spoiler template used elsewhere. (It's hardly something to make a template about, but it's the same spirit.) Perhaps a brief notice such as, "Potential future Order members should be advised that what follows describes the processes of the Ordeal that have traditionally been kept secret, and should skip to the next section if they do not wish to have such information revealed to them." Any tampering we might want to do with that is fine, but I just want to maintain some secrecy. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned (probably not - I'd say I'm more liberal than John Kerry), but it just hurts my Scout heart to think that little Tenderfeet (is that the right plural form of Tenderfoot?) could just stumble upon this and have their experience lose that much meaning. I'm sure any of my brothers who, like me, faced our trials with vague or no knowledge of what they entailed will agree that something ought to be done. --BDD 02:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * First things first. There is no "secrecy" in the Boy Scouts of America.  We do not permit secret organizations to operate within our boundaries, however, we do permit organizations to operate with something similar, but not quite, called safeguarding.  Members of the Order are encouraged not to divulge the Ordeal tests or ceremonies, but generally, the Ordeal is not a secret thing. Any person generally can contact the Lodge Adviser or Staff Adviser and get any information that they want regarding our activities.  The Ordeal tests as worded and shown came directly from the National OA Fact Sheet, published openly on the National Office's website.  I understand your contention as to a spoiler warning, however, the real mystery of the Ordeal has nothing to do with taking little food, working for the benefit of the camp, sleeping without a tent, and not talking.  It is a thing of the spirit, which we will never be able to explain here on the Wikipedia. Why protect the tests like reactor plans, I think someone said above, when the real mystery is not knowing who you'll meet or in what order you complete the tests? KC9CQJ 18:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In favor of removing safeguarded information - As a long time scouter (Eagle Scout; God & Country Award Recipient; Young American Award recipient; Vigil Honor Member, former Lodge Chief and Section Secretary of the OA) I believe we should have less information revealed here. I have always interpreted "Safeguarding" to mean that: I strongly disagree with the concept that someone asking a question simply out of curiosity should be told safeguarded material. The BSA guidelines specify a "legitimate" need to know. That in itself implies not all queries represent a legitimate need-to-know. I am confident that at least 4 out of 5 OA members would be reticent to answer a question about safeguarded materials without at least trying to talk the questioner out of knowing first. Looking at an article on Wikipedia is akin to asking a casual question. The fact that this information is available to those who work at getting it is not a justification to put it out here to be read on a whim (and possibly regretted later) or, worse, to be read accidentally by someone who is looking for non-safeguarded information. Johntex 20:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) members should not proactively disseminate information that might take away some of the mystique of the order
 * 2) members should actually show some resistance to divulge these details even when asked about them
 * 3) when pressed and/or when confronted by a demonstrable "need to know" (such as a parent wanting to know if their son will be physically and emotionally safe during his ordeal) then information should be revealed to answer the questions.

While I am not opposed to a spoiler warning of some sort, information should not be hidden away. It is true that we were asked to let the silence bind us together as the bow string binds the bow back against itself but we in no way were told to keep secrets. i respect that all of us are working as hard as we can to observe and preserve the traditions of the order of the arrow but i dont think that we are failing in doing so by stating no more than is shown in the OA's web page. the details/scripts of the cerimonies, the adminition, the symbolism of the council fire traditions, these are all still tucked neatly away. there is a good reason that bsa banned secret societies, they lead to abuse. the ordeal could approch this if we, as brothers, are not careful. what is said here is fair warning to anyone and i have no problem sharing it with the curious. Cavebear42 01:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me reiterate. For the fifth or sixth time.  THERE IS NO INFORMATION HERE THAT BREAKS A NATIONAL SAFEGUARD. ALL OF THE INFORMATION HERE IS FREELY AVAILABLE ON THE NATIONAL WEBSITE WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF ADMONITIONS, WATCHWORDS, OR OTHER PASSWORDS. Hiding the direct translation of Brotherhood, Cheerfulness, and Service by using the three W wordmark instead of the Delaware translation is not violation of the safeguard.  Disclosing Ordeal tests is not violation of the safeguard. If these were, then there would be someone at the National Office who's broken it, because the information is there. I think we're all educated enough on the subject, and regardless of whether you were a chapter officer, lodge officer, national officer, or adviser to any of those youth thereof, whether you're a Vigil Honor member, Founder's Award recipient, I really could care less, honestly. The point is, if we throw a spoiler warning on this article, we're creating the illusion that the tests are important, not the lessons learned.  That is why I DO NOT AGREE with a spoiler warning anywhere within this article, because we have spoiled nothing in what is said here, and if anyone ever modified this article to contain material outside the National Safeguard, I would personally revert it and leave a note on that user's talk space. End of discussion. Why run around acting like the most insignificant part of the process is the most important? KC9CQJ 19:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern and respect your opinion about what should be included here, but I ask you to reconsider the tone of your message. Wikipedia articles do not belong to any one editor.  It seems a bit santimonious for you to cite your position and then say "End of discussion".  I hope we can have a more cooperative discussion than that.  Johntex 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
 * End of discussion referring to the following:"...and if anyone ever modified this article to contain material outside the National Safeguard, I would personally revert it and leave a note on that user's talk space...", nothing more, nothing less. I didn't mean to say that I'm not willing to compromise, I meant to say that my obligation to the Order to maintain the mystery (and yours too) is uncompromisable. I don't like the spoiler warning idea because I feel that if we make what is really secondary to the entire process seem like it's really important, then we're kidding ourselves. In my eyes, that would be just like me saying that I couldn't tell you my Vigil Honor name when you were a Brotherhood or Ordeal member, not telling you what the WWW on the flap represents when you were a non-member, or other such nonsense. My only point in every post that I've ever made on this topic, and there's been several, is that ceremony details shouldn't be here, specific characters and personalities encountered at the Ordeal, Brotherhood, and Vigil not be here, but anything else that National has released to the general public, outside of a watchworded area of a website is fair game to me. KC9CQJ 19:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It would appear that someone has placed a compromise in the article. As one of the "no secrets in Scouting" camp, I agree to the compromise and thank the editor who placed it for his work. I think the inline did it better justice than one of those spoiler boxes, really...KC9CQJ 9 July 2005 00:39 (UTC)
 * My reasoning for making that change is on your talk page, Kc9cqj. Others may want to see it there.  Pakaran 21:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If the comrpomise that we follow Wikipedia policy and only include information that can be cited, there is no risk that we will disclose information which is not already accessible. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman
I noticed that we did not have an article on E. Urner Goodman, so I created one. It is missing key facts such as the date of his birth, and the date/place of his doctorate. I didn't find these in a Google search. I may have to order that biography... I look forward to the improvements my Wikipedian brothers will make over time. Johntex 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Popularity Contest Controversy
I won't write this in the article yet until getting some opinions. I think a note should be placed about the habit in some OA elections, espeically when the young scouts themsevles are involoved, to have it turn into a popularity contest much like what occurs in Student Government Assocations within high schools. When I was a scout, this was a very big turn-off for me from the organization as a whole. We would have OA elections and the people who were the most popular with the scouts, expecially when they all went to the same school and were all friends, would get elected to the OA. I recall one time a guy made it that was nothing more than a loud mouth bully, always cuasing problems on campiang trips, but he had a large "circle" of friends within the troop and they elected him to the OA. I'm sure, of course, it has something to do with the troops themselves and Ive heard the adult elections are much more professional. Anyway, what do people think? -Husnock 22:55, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk page. In a nutshell: I agree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do think there is some of this, of course. But I also think it varies greatly from troop to troop. I am an Arrowman, and served on a bunch of election teams. Some troops, yes, elect almost all the scouts who are eligible, and may or may not be worthy. Others elect just one or two, presumably those who are "worthy." However, in my experience, it is those scouts who are admirable candidates that actually participate in the full work of the order; it is they who stay dedicated to scouting and the ideals of both the scouting organization and that of OA. Bratsche talk 5 pillars 03:18, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * In my experience, popular people tend to be admitted, but only assholes remain active. Not intending to slur anyone, just noting from my experience -- I've long been closely involved with BSA and the OA, and most OA leaders are simply assholes, or at best, ignorant and blind.  Some mention should also be made of the OA's bastardization of Native American religion to make it seem palatable to children and more like some silly game from the back of a comic book than any truly spiritual experience.
 * My experience with OA was quite the opposite. There were some assholes, true, but the majority of the active members of my lodge were good people.  In my troop, the assholes were rarely elected to OA, and when they were, they didn't take it very seriously and many never went through Ordeal.  It seems from your comment that you have some sort of personal grudge against the OA, which is unfortunate.  I realize that some of it might be controversial, and I'd like to see a discussion of the OA's symbolism vs. Native American religion.  I'd also like to see some Native American perspectives on the OA.  Also, please sign your comments.  --Myles Long 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * My experience with the OA echoes yours. Yes, sometimes the 'wrong' people get elected, but most never stay after the Ordeal.  The ones that say active that got it.  I also disagree with the anonymous person's statement about the OA "bastardization of Native American religion".  A GREAT deal of thought has been put into the ceremonies.  There are a lot of deep meanings in them, and great care has been put into not doing anything to offend any NA.  The OA National Committee actually gets input on their ceremonies from both NA and religious leaders so as not to offend anyone.  I can also tell you that there are many NA involved in the OA, and many 'Native American hobbyist' involved as well.  They would probably be the first to say something if there was a problem with the ceremonies.  Those that have a problem are your 'militant' types who probably haven't even looked at the ceremonies.  --Emb021


 * It's been pointed out that people get elected who shouldn't, and also pointed out that these people aren't going to care to stay. With the latter being completely true in my experience, what does this whole issue even matter?  ...As far as the elections themselves go, I would say that this process is exactly what makes it anything but a secret society, beyond the noteworthy fact that the OA doesn't actually have any secrets.  No secret society is elected by members and non-members alike; the OA is.  I have such a strong personal objection to secret societies and masonic orders that were I admitted to one, I would refuse membership.  Obviously, as I am a brotherhood member of the OA and once served on my Lodge's Executive Committee, I don't feel such an epithet is remotely appropriate.  Greyscale 20:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have heavily edited this section to remove some of the unsourced information, and to make the section more readable. Please check it out and see if it is good enough now to remove the Neutrality tag, and to see what further improvements can be made. Johntex\talk 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have since removed the Neutrality tag from this section as it is neutral now. Good work on fixing this issue. Thank you. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 19:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal as per Guide for Inductions
Can someone clarify where the Guide for Inductions overrules the National Fact Sheet on the Order? Please? And by the way, if we're going to strip out the Ordeal tests on the premise of "giving too much away", this entire article needs a rewrite... KC9CQJ 01:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure the point of this. Is there some areas they disagree? The GFI is considered the official word on inductions.  Be aware that afaik, the GFI was produced by the OA, who knows who creates the OA Fact Sheet.  --Emb021 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-inducted?
I have been under the impression that once a youth in OA hits 21, they need to be re-elected to the OA as an adult. Am I mistaken, or is this a tradition/rule that varies from chapter/lodge to chapter/lodge? --Kcbnac 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're mistaken. Once a person has been inducted into the Order, they can never be removed from it. There are many adults that were inducted as youth and none of them have ever needed to be reinducted. This has been national policy since the founding of the Order, to my knowledge. Any lodge or chapter requiring a member to go through the ordeal again is in serious breach of policy. However, members may at any time choose to go through the ordeal as a candidate again, as a personal reaffirmation to their committments, but they must do so with the approval of the lodge leadership and retain whichever honor (Ordeal, Brotherhood, Vigil) they had before retaking the ordeal. ArrowmanCoder 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Safeguarded or not safeguarded: WWW
Ever since I have been editing on this article, the following text has been dissappearing and reappearing from the article :

(OA), or Wimachtendienk, Wingolauchsik, Witahemui (WWW) (Lenape for Brotherhood of Cheerful Service.

Now, I know there are those Scouts and Scouters out there who don't like this text. I don't particularly like the fact that someone slapped a spoiler warning into this article and pulled out the straight text from National's own fact sheet in regards to the Order of the Arrow and the Ordeal, but I haven't edit warred on this issue. Been tempted to, but haven't.

The fact remains, if we're going to strip out the WWW straight text from this article on the basis that it shouldn't be there due a supposed violation of the National Safeguard, then we need to rewrite this entire article from a non-member point of view and leave all of the extraneous stuff out. It's not rocket science. KC9CQJ 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * With regard specificly the WWWs, that was the orginization's official, public, and only name for its first decade or so of existance. It didn't become the Order of the Arrow until sometime in the 1920s, when it became an official program experiment of the BSA. To not include the three Ws would be to deny that period of the order's history. Gentgeen 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * After looking at the discussion on the three WWWs I feel this revision is the best compromise. Since it is not the name of the Order currently it does not need to be in the opening statement.  But since it is part of the history, I have moved it there.


 * Leave out or put behind spoiler warning. While it is true that it is completely possible for non-members to find out a lot of information about the Ordeal ceremony, the meaning of WWW, etc., it is also ture that most non-members don't find out these things until they go through their Ordeal.  Some non-members who come here will be future members.  I think we owe it to those non-members for them to have to make the conscious decision to learn this information prior to their induction into the order.  Note that I did not use the term "safeguarded".  This is a conscious decision because I am less concerned about what the organization would like us to do than I am about those members.  To me, it is at least as important that we protect this information as it is to avoid revealing important information about a movie or book.  Johntex\talk 19:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what policy is re WWW. I haven't been an active member for way too long (since a month or two after I got my Eagle, and I can't be involved in the Order since I don't have a primary membership in anything else).  However, I overheard members using the 3 W's in front of me before becoming a member, and without knowing the meaning of the words they meant nothing and did nothing to reduce my experience.  So I'm generally neutral, but maybe taking out the English meaning would be good?  I'd note that I have yet to see anything in this article that I felt obligated to remove, and I am happy about this.  Pakaran 20:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you that knowing the meaning of the 3 words is not nearly as likely to reduce the meaning of the induction for a new candidate. Not compared to, say, details of the ceremony itself.  In general, I prefer less to be included here, but that's just my opinion.  Leaving out the English translation might be a good compromise if others agree.  Johntex\talk 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am unopposed to the current location in the article of the three W's, and would be unopposed to a spoiler warning. But I strongly oppose the omission of either the 3 W's or their English translation. If someone wants to know what the three W's stand for, then they should be able to look it up in Wikipedia.

Everyone would do well to read Delirium's words above, posted more than two years ago: "Wikipedia isn't obligated to respect secrecy of rituals of various organizations, whether they be the Order of the Arrow or Scientology." Does anyone think we should remove references to Xenu to avoid cheapening a young Scientologist's future Operating Thetan III? Would a serious encyclopedia article really contain non-English words, and then omit their English translations? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There are many types of obligations. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia has no oblicgation to the Order of the Arrow to make a good article about them either, or any article at all, for that matter.  The fact is the that we have chosen to write the article, now we get to choose what goes in it (aside from having to respect copyright law, etc).  I happen to think we do a better service to our readers and their prospective members (some of whom will overlap) to choose to leave out this type of information, or to at least protect it below a spoiler warning.  That is our obligation, if we choose to accept it. It is very analogous to giving away the ending of a movie.  We care less about what the director or producer think, and more about what the potential movie-goer/reader thinks.  If we can respect the views of the director or producer or organization in the process, that is even better, if only as a matter of courtesy. Johntex\talk 21:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not opposed to the use of a spoiler warning. But no one is doing the reader any service by omitting information altogether. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally will not add text revealing the Ordeal tests. I feel that I would be in violation of my OA obligations to do so.  That said, I will not remove such text if others add it, but I may add a spoiler warning or something of the sort.  If someone casually asked me in person for details of the Ordeal, I would refuse; I feel that I should not publish those details to everyone online.  I also would not have wanted to see some prior versions of this article before my Ordeal (and in the unlikely event that I become a Vigil member as an adult, say if I have a son, become involved in the OA with his troop, and am elected to Vigil, I would not want to know details of the Vigil ceremony at that time).  However, I also feel that as a longtime Wikipedian, and especially as a sysop, I should not be actively censoring Wikipedia for the protection of anyone.  This includes removing OA information for the protection of candidates just as much as it includes removing information about sexuality because some might not want their young children to see it.  I think if we want to obscure anything, something like a spoiler warning is the way to go.  Someone said something about Xenu above.  If someone put something at the top of the Xenu or Space opera in Scientology doctrine articles suggesting that low-level Scientologists might not want to read them, that doesn't really inconvenience other people, so I wouldn't object to that.  Pakaran 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Here's my point. It's always been my point, even since the last time that Johntex and I exchanged words and I left Wikipedia for several months. We need to make up our minds, folks. Either we water it down for the non-members and pull the spoiler warning or we keep the spoiler warning and tell it like it is.  Why is the spoiler warning even here if there's nothing really spoil-worthy in this revision of the article? Personally, if the spoiler warning stays, then I'm for putting everything available on the National Fact Sheet  (including the 3Ws and the substance of the Ordeal tests) back into the article. What we say here cannot describe the emotion and symbolism that each new member gets from their first Ordeal and the feelings that each continuing member gets from each ceremony they attend.  That is the true essence of the Order, what E. Urner Goodman meant "a Thing of the Spirit" to be. We can't change that experience negatively by what we write here, provided that our content lies within what the National Committee has deemed appropriate for public consumption.  But as a good Scouter, I'll go with the consensus. I just don't feel like both placing a spoiler warning AND removing the WWW english translation, among other disputed material, serves our purposes here. KC9CQJ 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy with a spoiler warning. Again, I'm not sure I can in good conscience actively re-add the material, because I wouldn't tell it to a random stranger in person.  Pakaran 06:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The information on the WWWs isn't gone it was just moved to history. It doesn't need to be in the heading, but is part of the past.  It should appear in the article but it should only appear in the history.
 * Sorry Gentlemen but the words for WWW are not considered restricted to members. My lodge has used the complete words on various patches over time and we checked into it before we did it. Jg0017 12/5/05
 * Ok, I was told by my Elangomat that it was better to be careful and not use it. He was about 17 and may have misunderstood the policy himself. -- Pakaran 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't "safeguarded" (which, actually, it is. 2005 OA Guide to Inductions), I think it is better to leave it out of the article. I think it's a well-written article, and WWW seems to me to be the only thing that should be removed. It's true that non-members can find out a lot about the ordeal, but why put it in one more place? If somebody's looking for information about the OA, the first thing they're going to do is go to google, and look up "Order of the Arrow", and this article is one of the first things they'll run into. It isn't the words that are safeguarded, but the connection between the translation and the meaning to the OA. My lodge has shirts that say "ELANGOMAT" on the back, and you see guys wear these to non-OA events, but "ELANGOMAT" doesn't mean anything to you if you don't know what it is. I think it ought to be removed, and somebody ought to write a "disclaimer" at the beginning of this article about not disclosing "safeguarded" material. -- User, 19:59, 30 January 2006 (CST)

Regardless of their secrecy rules, this is information that can be sourced, and thus should be reinserted. "Why put it in one more place" is logic that is grounded in loyalty to the Order, not to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)