Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 3

Important information

 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Ordeals that the Ordeal canidates are going through are secret. Just a word of coution for you members out there. - Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Ordeal is not secret; the ceremony is safeguarded so as to not spoil the mystery. Any non-member with a decent reason can attend ceremonies—this has been policy since the introduction of the Youth Protection program.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maby i should re-word that. After I wen tthrough my Ordeal i had to take an oath of secrecy not to spred what we had to do during the Ordeal. It might be different for yall out there but thats how I went though mine. - Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Brotherhood membership
The statement, "The Ordeal member was traditionally required to successfully and effectively lead two groups of new Members through their ordeal weekend (making them Ordeal Members) as a requirement to his receiving the Brotherhood level of membership" is questionable. Aside from its structure and style problems (e.g., compound split infinitive and capitalization), I believe it is misleading. While this practice may have been a tradition in a particular lodge, it certainly has not been customary nationwide nor an explicitly stated OA requirement. It should be deleted IMO.  JGHowes talk  -  15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not remember that i had to require to "successfully and effectively lead two groups of new Members through their ordeal weekend" I just had to make a essay on why I am elligible and I had to be an Ordeal member for five months. - Helopusobiwa 8:54 Feb 07, 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The erroneous sentence has been deleted.  JGHowes talk  -  18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure of safeguarded OA ceremonial materials
Recently, there have been two instances when editors chose to post safeguarded OA material in this article. Please consider the feelings of others, for whom the OA ceremonies are intended to have "an air of mystery" and excitement. By longstanding consensus here, safeguarded Order of the Arrow ceremonial texts should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Please observe this and refrain from adding safeguarded OA material to the article, so as to preserve the memory of the OA induction for others and not hurt them. Thank you.  JGHowes talk  -  13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue is already covered in a messagebox at the top of the talk page. The problem is one of sources and verifiability.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thanks for pointing out that this is indeed one of the core content policies of Wikipedia and posting OA ceremonial details, etc. is contrary to WP:V.  JGHowes talk  -  13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The information regarding "the admonition" and "Allowat's question" were properly sourced to books that have gone through dozens of editions since the early 20th century. Therefore, calling them unverifiable is not supportable. Additionally, much of the information in the OA entry comes from the OA Handbook, itself a so called "safeguarded" book. The OA Handbook is sited as a source in this article so why should the Ceremony for the Ordeal be treated any differently? Saying that information which comes from OA books is off limits just because OA members prefer it that way is self-serving and thus indefensible in a community project like Wikipedia. For example, muslims would prefer that images of the prophet not appear in the article on Mohammad, but they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.11.135 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)  --Ahoalton (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Contrary to your assertion, those ceremonial texts are not published in the OA Handbook: they are in the controlled ceremonies pamphlets only, which are not verifiable sources meeting WP:V.  JGHowes talk  -  23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a parallel between this situation and Temple garments, which Mormons believe should not be described or pictured. In that article, consensus has been that Wikipedia is not censored, and thus, the fact that adherents believe they should be secret is not, in itself, a reason to remove the information.  Depictions of Muhammad is another article on a subject that members would prefer not be described, and Scientologists believe that Wikipedia should not contain information on Xenu  I'm not sure how information is 'unverifiable' if both sides agree that it has been published by the organization, even if it is in a book that is difficult to obtain.   -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some valid points Queenie, but the consensus here has so far been to leave this material out. But as the wired age moves on and on, this may be harder to maintain ;-) — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the talk archives, and I would not agree that the consensus was so clear as to make further discussion unnecessary. In fact, it seemed that many of the arguments against including this information were grounded in OA rules and not in Wikipedia policy.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We should respect the privacy of the ceremony. I think it can be described without giving it all away. --evrik (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By this logic we would have to rewrite half of wikipedia to conform to every interested party's biases. Actually, half is probably a conservative estimate. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just reported the user to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. --evrik (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection
I've semi-protected the article, please work this out on the talk page instead of edit warring. Dreadstar †  00:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --evrik (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Safeguarded" is simply censorship by another name
The Order of the Arrow is a topic like any other. Wikipedia editors are under no obligation to adhere to the rules of any organization in terms of what information about said organization may be made public in the relevant article. Moreover, if the information is coming from a credible source, in this case the recognized texts of the organization itself, by what right do other editors refute that information's validity? In looking at the personal pages of the editors who have insisted on the exclusion of OA "secrets" over the life of this article it is clear that they are themselves members. Since OA members are under obligation to keep this information secret it is untenable that they should be permitted to control the editorial process of this entry or to put blocks on editors who do not agree with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.1.53 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) --Ahoalton (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Take a moment to think why I might choose anonymity. Perhaps I am an OA member myself. Perhaps I am also a Wikipedia editor. And perhaps I see a conflict in turning my head to unilateral decisions being made by biased parties like the OA on Wikipedia regardless of my own affiliation with that party. I have watched a select group of editors and administrators remove content they deemed restricted for some time. The OA's restrictions are not Wikipedia's restrictions--simple as that. I am a strong believer in the project and I believe the way the administrators of this page have conducted themselves is not in the Wikipedian spirit. Even worse, it is not in the OA spirit. I consider the Wikipedia project to be of the highest importance. It is the "cheerful good service" I have chosen to do in my own life and secrets have no place here. Wimachtendienk, Wingolauchsik, Witahemui, Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.3.228 (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) --Ahoalton (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would give this more credence if the editor weren't anonymous. --evrik (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For real, that's the 3rd IP he's used tonight. Looks like WP:SPA and block-evading-sock to me. 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that the three administrators most actively against the addition of information drawn from OA texts are all members of the OA. A cursory glance at the user pages of JGHowes, evrik or Rlevse will reveal that they sport their OA affilliations very prominantly. This is not a personal attack, simply a request that people who have admittedly taken an oath not to disclose information about an organization not have final say on that organization's wikipedia entry. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you're accusing them of bias there, brave anonymous editor, what is your own bias? Why are you so keen to publish every bit of minutiae at all costs? What's your stake, what's in it for you? I don't care about "to thine own self be true" for you personally, but come clean for this forum. Signing my own username, where I can be readily identified myself, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of focus on my anonymity here. Are anonymous users secondhand citizens on Wikipedia? Many fine articles have been contributed to or even created by new or anonymous users. I know my first one was.
 * Not possible for an anonymous user to create an article, that is disallowed by Wikipedia programming. Your argument below doesn't wash either. Having a proper username still gives one plently of privacy, and it's not like there is an OA mafia that will show up at your door just for being an agenda-pusher. Next fallacy? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Imputing bias to other editors will not carry the day, friend, nor will attempts to portray this as a control attempt by the article's subject. Wikipedia policy is the crux: per WP:PROVEIT, text must be "attributable to a reliable, published source...to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content." In the case of ceremony scripts which the reader cannot find to support the content, the consensus is that it's not a verifiable source, nor are there any other reliable, secondary sources that can be cited. Absent that, all you have left is original research, which Wikipedia does not allow.  JGHowes talk  -  05:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this argument holds much weight, since both sides agree that the information is published in the works cited. It is verified, as both sides agree; I think that you're going to have to find a different Wikipedia policy that supports omitting this information. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IP hopper--who are you trying to kid with that last paragraph of 04:17? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

--— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing as an IP is perfectly acceptable, but you do need to realize that it is not exactly anonymous and it is difficult to carry on a proper dialog with a changing IP.
 * My about page shows information about me that is material to my editing here— this is called disclosure.
 * Without knowing who you are or what your background is, it appears to me that you are a former OA member with an ax to grind. Your editing also makes me think that you are not new to Wikipedia, so all this certainly puts me on the defensive.
 * The information in question is "safeguarded". This is not top secret, nor is there any earth-shattering information; this is stuff about the ceremonies.  It is only safeguarded so as not to spoil the ceremony for a new member.  As noted in the article, anyone with a decent reason can look at the ceremony material.
 * The information is published in the ceremony pamphlets, so it is verifiable. Those pamphlets are only available to OA members, so the information is verifiable, but only by other OA members.
 * The information you want to "disclose" just is not that important or central to the OA or the article. The OA could exist without the ceremonies, but they provide a central theme and educate young men about those who came before us.  If it is added, it will never be stable— one anon adds it, another rips it out.

Since it seems important to everyone that I have a login name, I have picked one. Now we can move on.

Suggesting that the OA books are not verifiable is simply untrue. Just about any scout that stuck with it long enough to get to First Class rank was elected to the OA for at least the ordeal. That means thousands and thousands of 13 year old boys were given copies of these books, which have gone through multiple printings, since the founding of the OA since 1915. Any researcher with an interest in the OA would not have much difficulty securing a copy. Even a quick internet search yielded papers citing both the OA Handbook and Ordeal Ceremony Handbook as sources.
 * http://100megsfree4.com/stimso/oa1.htm
 * http://www.vamason.org/ra1753/papers/1arrow.htm

As for the nature of what I am attempting to include, I think people will find it relevant on many levels: the uninitiated are fascinated by the esoteric nature of the ritual, scholars unaware of a previously jealously guarded social phenomena might find new inspiration for their research, parents might be interested to learn what exactly their OA member sons are doing out there in the woods and if it conforms to their values.

My personal stake in this debate is simply to see the principles of Wikipedia honored. I believe in the project and the open society that it advances. That the OA encourages its young charges to relish secrecy is entirely out of my control; what may be in my power is to prevent them from bringing that ethos to Wikipedia. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your links don't really prove your point. --evrik (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Safeguarded Info
Inasmuch as any editors have pledged to "safeguard" any information regarding this subject their editing of this article is a clear conflict and they should recuse themselves. I find it upsetting that these editors (apparently being admins that should know better) would continue to edit rather than seeking a 3O or some other input from non-conflicted sources. That being said, I'm not convinced the article needs to be so detailed that it includes the minutia of the steps performed during the ceremonies. It's not like this information is going to get lost in the passage of time or is even that secret to begin with. I think a note to the effect that given a sufficient reason (a parent whose child is going to participate) the ceremony and it's rituals can and will be fully disclosed. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. --evrik (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Third Opinion
I'm very sorry but Third Opinions can only be used when there are only two editors in the disagreement to begin with. You'll have to choose another method of dispute resolution, maybe informal mediation would be appropriate, if everyone agrees to participate. Thanks and good luck!--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Another view
I fervently disagree with censorship, and merely because some editors are duty bound to keep a secret, doesn't mean others can't disclose it. This is a source http://www.unamilodge.org/Forms/SelfStudy.pdf for Admonition = Ahoalton, but the other details are not relfected in reliable sources that I can find. And even if there is a valid point, you should not edit war or 3RR to insert your version. Right now your a blocked user evading a block.  MBisanz  talk 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No editor is duty bound to keep anything a "secret". There are no secret societies in Scouting.  Scouters are simply asked not to shove the ceremonies texts in front of a kid that might at some point be elected into the OA.  If he has already read the ceremony, then it isn't going to be as impressive.  Ceremony texts or anything else are given out on demand to parents or other adults with a legitimate interest.  Posting the password in the text of the article would be a gratuitous spoiler for the sake of spoiling (your understanding of the subject is not at all enhanced by being told the password).  A general overview of the induction weekend (not the full text of a ceremony, but an overview) is not out of bounds and the Boy Scouts of America gives one on their national website at http://www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/OrderoftheArrow/About.aspx - scroll down to "Induction". --B (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well something like the meaingful word would merit inclusion, if it had been covered in a reliable source. Like Skull and Bones rituals have been covered in newspapers, and those therefore covered at Skull and Bones (actually that needs sources, but for examples sake), but something like the secret handshake of Phi Beta Kappa Society, which I don't believe is covered in newspapers, isn't a good thing to include.  I prefer the reason of "there are no reliable sources" to the reason of "it spoils it for kids".   MBisanz  talk 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet there ARE reliable sources. There are dozens of so-called safeguarded books that have gone through multiple editions! And if any parent or interested party who wants to own a copy may have one as has been argued then what is the problem? Just because a book is somewhat less available than others does not disqualify it as a verifiable source. However, let me be clear on my main point. I am not interested in what specific information may or may not be approved for inclusion in the OA article. What I care about is the choice. All wikipedia users should have the choice to decide for themselves if this information is relevant. All I am arguing is that it is wrong that OA information which an editor may wish to include may be dismissed out-of-hand as "safeguarded" and therefore immediately disqualified for inclusion. Those are the rules and sensibilities of the OA, not of wikipedia. Admins seem okay defying the will of muslims by displaying images of Muhammad in the interest of keeping wikipedia free of censorship. So why is the will of a youth group being so staunchly defended? It seems like an overwhelmingly obvious double standard. --AhoaltonLives (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your blocked right now for evading a block and a username violation. 1. Don't register with a username containing Ahoalton, 2. If you'd like to be unblocked under a new name, email unblock-en-l at lists dot wikimedia dot org.  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "It spoils it for kids" was in response to your comment about "editors [being] duty bound to keep a secret", not a statement of Wikipedia policy. The reason that we don't shove the ceremonies in front of kids (in our off-Wikipedia lives) is so that we don't spoil it for them. The reason Wikipedia doesn't publish the contents of the ceremonies is that they are not verifiable.  Those are two separate issues. --B (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New discussion
The reason I went and archived the old discussion was that now that the person driving it has been blocked, the discussion appears to be over. Now, maybe we can move forward. --evrik (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that, but we should address the issue with calm otherwise it will probably come up again. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no reason to archive it yet. Yes, a large part of this was brought about by Ahoalton's actions. However, quite a few of the contributors expressed concerns over the broader issue, and that still has to be resolved. Beyond that, why the rush? This doesn't seem to be a high-traffic page, given that each archive covers a year's worth of discussion. --Ckatz chat spy  15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I had already discussed this with Rlevse, and we both feel that we need to open this up and clear the air. I would like to wait until Monday just to get over the drama of this past week.  I had planned to archive the discussion and try to start clean without all the baggage of this wildfire.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the above as a compromise? I've applied the "hidden" template to collapse the extended sockpuppet portion. (That way, it is there if anyone wants to see it, but doesn't disrupt the actual discussion.) --Ckatz chat spy  16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it's already on the archive ... so no need to archive it again. We can leave it here to see if we still need it. I'm going to block off that portion of the page so we can start a new discussion. --evrik (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have two issues: 1)If the information about the edit war is removed then information about the subject of the edit war will be removed and I think that is still relevant and important. I hope "clear the air" isn't a colloquial for "sweep it under the rug and ignore it". Which brings me to my secnd issue: 2) There was a very important point to the argument regardless of the editor posing the argument. Simply because he was sockpuppeting doesn't mean his argument was invalid. If there are editors here that have sworn to "safeguard" certain information their continued editing of this article is a blatant violation of WP:COI and they should excuse themselves. I also like some rephrasing of the infobox at the top since I don't believe "safeguarding" of information should be mentioned (since it's blatantly not policy) and there hasn't been a consensus yet either so that a little premature. Padillah (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, adult leaders in the Order of the Arrow are not sworn to keep secret information about its ceremonies. To the contrary, adult leaders are explicitly instructed to divulge such information to any parent, religious leader, etc., who inquires. This policy is to allay any possible concern that Order of the Arrow ceremonies are objectionable. The allegation to the contrary by the banned sockpuppet is a Straw man.  JGHowes talk  -  19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By "clear the air", I mean discuss the issues at hand including the messagebox. We could just sweep it under the rug, but I know this issue is not just going to go away.  The previous discussion got way off focus and I was hoping to restart this without some of the previous baggage.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Did you have any particular approach in mind? Padillah (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head: discuss the material in question, why it is safeguarded and what safeguarded means; the applicable WP policies and guidelines; how we can improve the article.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A few points: {{{Archive bottom}}
 * 1) I've removed it from the archive since it's still here.
 * 2) Just because it can be included does not mean it should be. Ceremony details are excessive. Do the articles on Fraternities, sororities, the Freemasons, etc have their ceremony details included? No, they mostly only talk in general about the ceremonies and that is what should be done here
 * 3) More later, I'll be gone most of the weekend. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Safeguarded material
I would like to discuss the issues about safeguarded material that were brought up last week. We in the Scouting project need to get this in the open and work within the greater Wikipedia community.

Here is the applicable policy of the Order of the Arrow:

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. Nothing in the Order shall be interpreted as interfering with any member's religious obligation.

If anyone has questions about this policy, or about the Order of the Arrow, they should contact their local Boy Scout Council or Lodge Adviser.

There sometimes confusion on this, as Arrowmen were admonished to keep ceremonies a secret up until the introduction of the Youth Protection program in the mid-1980s that included a ban on secret societies within the BSA. Safeguarding primarily relates to ceremonies used in the OA. These are based on American Indian ceremonies that have been reviewed and approved by tribal elders. Safeguarded material describing the ceremonies is not generally available to the public, but much of it can be found on the web.

My opinion: Details on ceremonies should not be included. A section on ceremonies should be added, including a general overview, principals and purposes. Some of this already exists in the Ordeal section. Freemasonry seems to be a good model for this. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Freemasonry is one of the articles I was referring to when I wrote item two in the section above. I agree it's a good model. Again, just because something can be included doesn't mean it should be. There is something known as excessive detail and WP:UNDUE. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a difference, though, between the OA and Freemasonry. Freemasonry rites have been the subject of books and news media stories.  There used to be a political party called the Anti-Masonic Party.  Numerous conspiracy theories exist about masonry.  There's obvious external interest about the subject.  Contrast all that with the OA - nobody outside of Scouting really cares about OA ceremonies. --B (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not comparing the organizations, but the articles. Freemasonry does a good job of describing ceremonies in general without excessive detail.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * B makes a good point. It is because of that very reason that there are no reliable secondary sources discussing OA ceremonial details. The only sources are primary, such as OA ceremonial scripts, and personal experiences (ie., OR). Another point, for consistency within Wikipedia a better comparison might be college fraternities such as Sigma Chi: details such as initiation rituals, handshake, etc. are not discussed. JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction that needs to be made is that the details that are left out are not necessary to an understanding of the OA. I understand that some editors have been asked by the order to keep certain things safeguarded but that isn't the question here and should not enter into the discussion. That path has led to trouble before. Let's keep this simple: Do the details being discussed add significantly to a persons understanding of the institution? I understand the impulse to compare to other institutions but let's try a different approach - let's view this like we do fair use pics, is this needed to understand the institution? If it is then it needs to be included to create a complete picture. If the information is not needed, it's not needed - safeguarding be darned. This decision will be a lot more stable if it rests solely on WP guidelines, it's not really needed. Mention that there is a ceremony and any parent that wants can get any information they want from the scoutmaster and call it a day. Padillah (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Details of down to that level are most certainly not essential to understanding what the order is about. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. I think that you guys are starting from the wrong point of departure, though. Your comments seem to begin from the presupposition that “safeguarding” any information on Wikipedia is acceptable conceptually. I think the inquiry should follow this order: It seems to me that the answer to the first two questions is yes. It doesn’t seem appropriate that the rules and preferences of the Order of the Arrow carry any weight on Wikipedia or that its members be allowed to establish and enforce a consensus based on those rules. I don’t have an opinion either way on the third question, but I will note that there seems to be a lot of detail given to other aspects of the Order of the Arrow in this article. I don’t see the justification of excluding the details of the group’s ceremonies when you already have an eight paragraph long section on its organizational structure and an entirely separate article devoted to the honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow. Maybe those ceremonial details belong there. In any case, I always thought that the more detail you could include in an article the better. But that’s another discussion. --Smokytopaz (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1.	Is a consensus establishing for the exclusion (“safeguarding”) of published information contrary to Wikipedia censorship policies?
 * 2.	Does the involvement of editors self-identifying as members of a group with a policy of restricted information access constitute a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy?
 * 3.	And only then: Is the specific information in question important in the scope of the article from an editorial standpoint?
 * Thanks for pointing out the other stuff and I for one will take steps to address that as soon as we settled this debate. Having said that there is a valid point here: Are we going to get into the kind of detail that needs eight paragraphs to describe the organization of the order? I don't think so. I think those types of sections should be the next to go under the same auspice that some of the information currently being discussed is going: basically notability. Some have admitted as much in their defense of the contentious information - it's not found outside of primary sources. That's a lack of notability if I ever heard one. Padillah (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you on the organization section. I think I chopped it down at one point, but is has grown back.  Those eight "paragraphs" are mostly one or two sentences, and that is another issue.  I definitely agree with the primary sources problem— I had just raised the same point on the parent Boy Scouts of America article, and I highly suspect the whole series has this issue.  We are working the BSA article towards FA and then I am pushing the rest— this would probably be the fourth on the list.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * With that in mind I think we can end this. Let's ditch the notebox at the top of this talkpage mentioning "safeguarding" and just take this forward as a simple article that needs improvement. I see no reason to upset the process if it's already in motion. Let's keep notability and openness in mind as we improve these articles and we should be fine. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The messagebox is confusing and divisive and should be removed.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than simply remove the box and allow this discussion to fade from memory, it may make sense to change its contents to reflect a new consensus. I would suggest that a new consensus acknowledge that the editors are aware that there is an Order of the Arrow policy of “safeguarding” certain materials and that since Wikipedia is not censored this material is not prohibited in the article but will still have to be justified for inclusion based on editorial merit. Something similar to this sort of notice appears on the talk page of Muhammad article in regard to images of the prophet.--Smokytopaz (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the fact that primary materials exist (some online even), eventually there will be secondary sources documenting them. I'd say the infobox at the top should say something along the lines of "We know there are safeguarded materials, but until there are secondary sources documenting them, we cannot include them in an article."  Some things like the term definition that guy brought here last week would seem novel and interesting.  Other things like the number of candles or time of day probably wouldn't.  MBisanz  talk 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposal, in light of the foregoing discussion, I'd like to propose this replacement messagebox, which omits any reference to "safeguarding" and instead points the editor to relevent Wikipedia policies:  JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm supposed to edit the box or make a copy. Making a copy seems too redundant to me, but if I'm wrong I apologize in advance. I'm just getting rid of some redundant wording. Padillah (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I’m not really sold on the idea that these Order of the Arrow books are “unverifiable.” I mean, this is written material, right? If it can be legitimately obtained by anyone who asks, as someone said earlier, how exactly can they be considered unverifiable? And these caveats specifically prohibiting the lyrics to the official song and encouraging the use of information from a promotional video made by the organization…it all seems a little Orwellian. I think the box should say almost the opposite of what has been suggested--that this "safeguarded" material is permitted as long as it adds value to the article. --Smokytopaz (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with you. The song issue is because editors have included the entire song in the past and the copyright does not expire until 2050.  Let me take a stab at this in a bit.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this one --— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about combining two of the statements:"The Order of the Arrow maintains some information as 'safeguarded' simply to create a mystery around certain ceremonies but this information should not be added simply to shock or disrupt. All content must add value to the article regardless of it's status." That gives a better relation between the two statements and specifically points out the issue and it's resolution. ??? Padillah (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me- simple is better. BTW, thanks for using quote box2 that I created, but notice is more appropriate for a talk page.  {  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to beat a dead horse, but I still don’t understand why the article should exclude primary sources. The Wikipedia policy on primary sources doesn’t say they can not be used, it simply says that if used the material obtained from primary sources can not be interpreted. So if someone wanted to include a description of the ceremony or mention these secret words and their meanings, as long as this information comes directly from a primary source I don’t see what the problem is? --Smokytopaz (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just went back and re-read that guideline and I see your point. Let's get rid of that statement.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  15:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK- like the last tweak. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good. --Smokytopaz (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

With no further discussion for over 24 hours, I have updated the notice and consider this resolved. I would like to thank everyone for a very civil and rewarding discussion. As usual, this is always open for re-discussion as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Now let's see how reality is ;-) — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

{{{Archive bottom}}

View from the gallery
Hello, fellow editors ... I became an Arrowman over 40 years ago, and was on the ceremonial team for my lodge ... when I became a Freemason, I was immediately aware of similarities between the OA and the Freemasons.

Well, apparently there have been some changes made since I was active, and after I've had a chance to read and digest the legacy threads, I'll take a closer look at the article as an editor knowledgeable of the subject matter.

Happy Editing! &mdash;  15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Adult membership
I've reverted the Lead, because adults are not supposed to be elected to OA as a "recognition". Adult membership, according to the OA Handbook, is "...only when the adult's job in Scouting will make OA membership more meaningful in the lives of the youth membership".  JGHowes <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

List of NOAC and Other National Events

 * 2009 National Order of the Arrow Conference Indiana University
 * 2007 National Conservation and Leadership Summit- Indiana University
 * 2006 National Order of the Arrow Conference Michigan State University
 * 2004 National Order of the Arrow Conference Iowa State University
 * 2002 National Order of the Arrow Conference Indiana University
 * 2000 National Order of the Arrow Conference University of Tennessee
 * 1999 National Order of the Arrow Leadership Summit- Colorado State University
 * 1998 National Order of the Arrow Conference Iowa State University
 * 1996 National Order of the Arrow Conference Indiana University
 * 1994 National Order of the Arrow Conference Purdue Univerity
 * 1992 National Order of the Arrow Conference University of Tennessee
 * 1990 National Order of the Arrow Conference Indiana University
 * 1988 National Order of the Arrow Conference Colorado State University
 * 1986 National Order of the Arrow Conference Central Michigan University
 * 1983 National Order of the Arrow Conference Rutgers University
 * 1981 National Order of the Arrow Conference University of Texas
 * 1979 National Order of the Arrow Conference Colorado State University
 * 1977 National Order of the Arrow Conference University of Tennessee

Honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow
Honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow is a duplicate of material here. Propose moving this section to this article. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  00:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Discuss:

Lodge numbers
The grapevine has it that lodges will be renumbered to match councils. Anyone else heard this? — Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, awhile back. I think the way it will work is that lodges just won't use their numbers any more.  So Unami will just be Unami Lodge, not Unami #1. --B (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the operations update that describes it, by the way - http://www.oa-bsa.org/annc/opup/OPUP-04-9.pdf --B (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OA Ceremony Scripts
I found ceremony scripts on the Web that are for OA Members "ONLY" ;). Anyway, I have accessed them and if you need to cite information from them, see the links on User:Cobra420/OA.  I have included passwords for the PDFs.  Hope this helps everyone.  —Preceding comment was added at 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of those databases use the same passwords. At the Ordeal level the the password is typically the admonition. At the Brotherhood level the password is the answer to Allowat's Question "Have you seen the Arrow?" --Spirit76 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the past we have agreed not to provide the actual words on the site. Let something remain a mystery. Marauder40 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Only National websites are allowed to publish copyrighted texts. Council, district and other sites that are publishing such copyrighted material in violation of the BSA's copyright policies. We do not link to content that is in violation of copyright, nor do we provide passwords to protected content. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just censor my comment on the discussion page? I looked at the debate you all had in the box above and it seems like you agreed that the OA books are fair game. In any case, censoring the article is one thing but censoring the discussion page seems a little unethical. --Spirit76 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Foundation copyright policies apply to all content on Wikipedia &mdash; mainspace, userspace, and talk pages. Copyvios and links to copyvios are deleted.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  00:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't link to any copyrighted material. All I did was write words that are under no copyright whatsoever. There is no justification for censoring my comments. --Spirit76 (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As you were already informed by Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  (above), we do not provide passwords to protected, copyrighted content. You stated that was your purpose in doing so.   JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  01:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My purpose is largely irrelevant. There is no reason to edit the words or phrases in and of themselves. Any number of words or phrases might be passwords to any number of websites, does that mean you can censor every word in the language? --Spirit76 (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your purpose is quite relevant. You aren't stating just "any words", you are stating the passwords to protected web content so please don't be disingenuous. I see that you listed a dispute at Third opinion; please note that this process is only for disputes between two editors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  10:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed copyrighted content again. Spirit76, please read the archives, and the note above about inserting copyrighted content into the document. Just in case you missed it "The Order of the Arrow maintains some information as "safeguarded" to create an air of mystery around certain ceremonies, but this information should not be added to the article simply to shock or disrupt. All content must add value to the article regardless of its status as well as meeting the standards of verifiability and notability." It doesn't add anything to the article and it is using copyrighted information. Marauder40 (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify the point here: he is not adding any content to the article, so the safeguarded issue does not apply. What he is trying to do is to post the passwords to protected content on other sites, and some of those sites have publications posted in violation of the BSA copyright. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Safeguarded Material"

 * I'd like to start a new discussion about the inclusion of so-called safeguarded material in the OA article. For example, OA members consider the admonition and the answer to Allowats question to be safeguarded and therefore unmentionable in the article. Additional material excluded from the article includes details about ceremonies and practices that would enlighten readers as to the nature and values of the organization. It has been argued that this information does not warrant inclusion, but I would argue that there are many who would be interested. People who were never members of the OA are not privy to the OA's "secrets" and former members who never attained a standing above Ordeal or Brotherhood may be interested in what occurs at the higher levels. This article seems to be routinely edited and administered by OA members whose affiliation takes precedence over wikipedia conflict of interest guidelines WP:COI. Editors should ask themselves if this article is a free and open collaboration among wikipedians or simply an extension of the OA's website. --Spirit76 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per previous discussion that is already archived. Also you can discuss the issue without putting the safeguarded material in your conversation.  There is no added value to knowing password to ceremonies and things that are in copyrighted material.  Posting the info on the Talk page is just to allow people to get passwords to protected sites.  There is nothing added about the organziation by knowing its passwords. Marauder40 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We can hardly have a discussion about  the inclusion of the word without mentioning them and their contexts. Only OA members know these things. Your constant consoring of my comments make it impossible for non-OA members to understand the discussion. Otherwise it would seem that the only people welcome to edit this article are OA members. That seems un-wikipedian, doesn't it? --Spirit76 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I'm confused. You started this by giving the passwords to third-party protected content. You have not made or proposed any changes to the article content. What "details about ceremonies and practices" do you want to include that is within encyclopedic context? And just for the record, check the article history and see how often the Ordeal content has been deleted and restored. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is more "wikipedian" going to an article/talk page and disobeying previously agreed upon concensus and posting what you know is safe-guarded material against the instructions posted on that page, or having a rational discussion about it. There is no reason to use the phrases, you can easily say the Ordeal phrase/password or Brotherhood phrase/passwords without giving the actual words.  Note that I have only deleted the safeguarded material itself, nothing else has been deleted from your comments. If an admin requests I stop deleting the safeguarded material from your posts I will.  I will also abide by concensus if they agree that the passwords should be posted, would you?  Of course this would open up all the fraternities, Knights of Columbus, Freemason groups, etc. that have varying degrees of secrecy.  The only thing I have removed from your posts have been the safeguarded material.  The only purpose of which is for identification in induction ceremonies.  The ceremonies themselves and the words from it are copyrighted material.  Publication of the "passwords" and that they are the passwords for the ceremony would violate fair-use provisions.  It also adds no value to the article (or the talk page.) Marauder40 (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am using the words and phrases in an entirely diffent context than the initial discussion. But if you prefer to deal with other so-called safeguarded information we can. For example, if I wanted to edit the article to include information about the Ordeal ceremony would it be censored by OA member editors? For instance, I think it would add value to mention that the entire ceremony is conducted at one site with 15 firepots in a circle with a radius of 4 yards. A firepit is prepared at the center, but not lit. The four principals dress in complete regalia except one item each, such as a headdress etc. Assistants place these on the fire lay. Members assemble at the south, east, or west of the ring, leaving room at the south for the candidates. I think including this information would help non-OA readers of the article to understand the symbology and essence of the organization. Other editors who are members of the OA refuse to allow such content to be posted simply because they consider it an OA secret. That is a conflict of interest . --Spirit76 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, you haven't tried to insert anything into the article. Your only edits to all of Wikipedia have been to the talk page adding safeguarded material (or requesting outside help) so you don't know what editors will or will not allow.  As you have noticed I haven't removed anything from this discussion.  I do question the importance of adding what your are proposing.  The article is about what the OA is as an organization.  The induction ceremonies are a minor portion of what the OA is.  To include in extreme detail, the details of a safeguarded ceremony proves little value.  You don't see an article about the Roman Catholic Church talking about every aspect of the Mass in minute detail, there is no reason to include this here. I personally think what is currently included about the ceremonies is sufficient. Marauder40 (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't try to add to the article because I saw what happened to the last person who tried to add so called safeguarded material. That person was bulldozed and banned by the OA members who have made this article their personal feifdom. Even though I feel the consensus to not include safeguarded material is against the principals of wikipedia I am abiding by it until some neutral administrators see the clear conflict of interest of the people who have been controlling this page. Incidentally, There is a whole article on rituals of the Catholic Mass: []. There is also a completely seperate article covering honors and awards of the OA: [] Perhaps there should be a separate article describing OA ceremonies in detail. --Spirit76 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I realize that there is an entire article on the Catholic Mass but it isn't included on the main page. The other difference is that the Catholic Mass is a major portion of the Catholic faith and they do not request it be safeguarded.  The induction ceremonies are only a small part of what the OA is.  The other problem is you would have to create the article with citations.  You can not use a password protected illegal copy of a possible OA ceremony as a reference.  Make sure you have read Archive 2 where this stuff has been brought up. Also you can not paraphrase the document because you are violating copyrights.  Using more then a few lines or paraphrasing more then a few lines violates fair-use provisions of copyrighted material.  As I said before, if Wikipedia starts allowing things like this in, will they start allowing people to post fraternity initiation rituals, passwords, handshakes, etc. How about the same for the Masons?  Marauder40 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your argument would be right if the safeguarded materials were not in published books--books, I might add, which the current OA article makes ample reference to. The article makes direct reference to the OA Handbook on two occasions and once each to the Ceremony Of the Ordeal book and the Ceremony of the Brotherhood book. If no written sources about the OA may be referenced, then how can the OA article exist at all? If you can reference OA publications to talk about how the sash should be worn or what the lyrics to the OA song are, why can't others use these sources to discuss the rituals? --Spirit76 (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The OA Handbook is an allowed reference. You can go to any official Boy Scout store and purchase it whether you are in the OA or not.  Try the same for the ceremony books.  The ceremony books as far as I know are not publically available books.  They are distributed internally.  As for the ceremony books being referenced by the main article, that is probably an oversite by other editors (note: I have only been watching this page for a short time.) The reference is for one version of the name of the OA song. Personally I am not sure what having the second name really adds. Marauder40 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because a book is rare or out of print does not mean it is an unusable reference. Any OA book including the ceremony books can be purchased online through used bookstores. Remember that the rules of the OA are not rules that wikipedia must abide by. Just because the OA says its rituals are a secret does not mean everyone else has to abide by them. Just because a company makes a "secret" publication for internal use that doesn't mean a journalist or other writer is not allowed to use it as a referance if it becomes available to them somehow. --Spirit76 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Per wikipedia policy cites must be verifiable. If the only way an editor can get a copy of a book is steal it (i.e. view it on a web page with stolen passwords, steal a copy they have no rights to, etc.) Then it cannot be used.  Read the verifiable link included every time you edit a page. As I said before this has been brought up before and commented on by an admin in archive 2. Marauder40 (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

←I've arrived at this discussion from WP:3O. Gadget850's right, third opinion is for disputes between two editors. Since I'm here, though, here's my suggestion:

All the discussions on censorship, respect for other people's sense of mystery, etc are irrelevant until we've decided whether we actually want to include the material that would cite the locked PDFs. Before we go any further, Spirit76, could you explain what material you want to add to the article? Could you also provide a link to the (locked) PDF you want to cite? --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 01:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's copyrighted material and protected for a reason. There are serious copyvio concerns here. Enough said. Agree with Marauder40 and Gadget850. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Copyvios shouldn't be here period. I'm with Marauder40, Gadget850, and Rlevse on this one. -MBK004 02:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, I would like to include information on the ceremonies OA members take part in to be inducted at the various levels. I would also like to to discuss the significance of the admonition "Ahoalton", the OA watchwords and other "secrets" of the OA. What I have been arguing is that editors who are OA members have made an oath not to discuss these things with non-OA members and therefore they have a clear conflict of interest. As for the PDF's, they are unnecessary. All of this information is available in published books. The OA member/editors will maintain that we can't site these books because they are copyrighted, but that is an absurd argument. Most books are copyrighted and yet many thousands of copyrighted books are cited as referances in millions of Wikipedia articles. Copyrighted doesn't mean we can't site them or paraphrase from them. The OA member/editors are looking for any reason to make these books off-limits to maintain the secrets of their organization. --Spirit76 (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that the books are copyrighted, but the issue is that a brand-new non-OA member editor would not have a way to access them legally to verify the information. -MBK004 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ownership of the books by non-OA members is not illegal, nor is making reference to them. Since most of the editors engaged in this discussion are OA members it seems clear my complaint will continuously fall on deaf ears. I have tagged the article for WP:COI. Hopefully some disinterested non-OA parties will offer some neutral commentary. --Spirit76 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

←Spirit76, please be civil. Maybe your complaint will fall on deaf ears, maybe it won't. For the moment, assume good faith, and see where it leads us. I'm not sure why you've gone to the COI noticeboard to ask for external input - you only just went to third opinion. Don't you want to see whether my input is of any use, first?

I think we can leave copyright alone now. Plainly, Spirit76 is right about that - the vast majority of books, papers, website, etc, that Wikipedia cites are under copyright. MBK004, could you explain for me, since I'm new to this discussion? Why would it not be possible to verify this information legally? --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Hugh. Bogus "copyright" concerns are the exact same tactics religious groups such as Mormons and Scientologists use to attempt to keep their "safeguarded" material off the Internet. I have reverted the removal of from a valid talk page comment. Mike R (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed words that 3O arbitration agreed shouldn't be included on talk page due to the fact they are passwords and have been identified as such. Marauder40 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that Sprit76 is going around posting on talk pages of participants that we should not participate in this discussion because of an alleged COI. Even if that were true, that does not prevent people from participating in talk pages, which he seeks to stop us from doing, on my page he said "you should recuse yourself from the discussion". See my talk page and Gadget850's for examples.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 09:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I can't "seek to stop" anyone from doing anything. All I wanted to do was point out to some people that I believe a conflict of interest may exist and that they consider stepping back from this particular debate. However, if they are convinced that they can participate without insisting on the exclusion of material simply because the OA considers it "safeguarded" then I hope they will participate. --Spirit76 (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "What I have been arguing is that editors who are OA members have made an oath not to discuss these things with non-OA members and therefore they have a clear conflict of interest": Er, no. As stated in the archived discussion above, there is no such oath, which illustrates why Wikipedia does not permit unverifiable (and often erroneous) original research. "For the record, adult leaders in the Order of the Arrow are not sworn to keep secret information about its ceremonies. To the contrary, adult leaders are explicitly instructed [in writing] to divulge such information to any parent, religious leader, etc., who inquires. This policy is to allay any possible concern that Order of the Arrow ceremonies are objectionable." Indeed, any concerned adult may view the ceremonies in which the children participate, so your premise that there's a COI because of some non-existent "oath" is not, in fact, the case.  JGHowes   <sup style="color:blue;">talk  12:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Let me try to explain the copyright issues: --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  11:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Spirit76 started this by posting the passwords to protected off-wiki content in response to an old message by another editor who had posted links and passwords some time back. Spirit76 did not post links to any the content. The passwords were redacted.
 * These passwords are used to access protected content on the OA national website. Some BSA local councils have posted OA manuals on their website using the same passwords, but this is in violation of the BSA copyright policies.
 * The content passwords are words and phrases used by the OA; posting them in the context of accessing protected off-wiki content is an issue.
 * Legality is not an issue: the BSA will only sell OA manuals to bona fide OA members, but they are readily available on the open market; it is not illegal for a non-member to own an OA manual.


 * COI: The policy is pretty clear: Any member of the O of A needs to be careful - make sure your aim is to make wikipedia the best encyclopedia it can be, rather than to push the agenda of the scouts. I'm sure everyone understands that, and we can leave it alone.
 * I removed the passwords again. On the one hand, we definitely need to decide for ourselves, on our own terms, what we use as references.  Having said that, until we have a good reason to mess with someone's mystery, we shouldn't.  After all, this whole thing is about a show for kids - to give away the ending to any kid who finds their way to this talk page is beneath us, I hope.  This page's history is available to us if we want it - I'm certainly not trying to prejudge the question of whether or not we should use those documents as references.
 * Copyright: Thanks for the detail, Gadget850. I think we can all be clear that copyright is no longer the question.  The question is whether or not this material has been published.  If it has, we can use it.  If it hasn't, we can't.  If I understand you right, you're saying that this is, in fact, published material.  Is that right?  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 12:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are published books. The Order of the Arrow Handbook and others are already used as references in the article. The real issues here is that the BSA has some websites that use these words as passwords to protected content, and that some sites have posted PDF versions of these manuals in violation of copyright. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, now I understand. In that case, the passwords really don't have a place on this page at all.  Copyrights makes it clear that we can't link to anything on the web that's a copyright violation, and the passwords have no other use.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 13:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't have an explicit policy against sharing passwords in this manner, but as JGHowes just pointed out on his talk page, circumventing protect content is a violation of the DMCA. I knew this had to be a bad thing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is why I mentioned the legal aspects since a violation of the DMCA had occurred and could have resulted in a take-down notice being sent to the Foundation. -MBK004 18:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

 * Should the COI tag be allowed to stick. At no point has anyone other the Spirit76 claimed COI.  The only changes that have been made have been to a talk page and only things removed have been things that have been agreed upon by concensus shouldn't be allowed.  I believe the party that posted the COI isn't posting in good faith. Marauder40 (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the conflict of interest:
 * Spirit76 has stated his concerns over COI by leaving messages on concerned editors talk pages using uw-coi, opening a case at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and applying the COI tag to the article. Per Conflict of interest: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Spirit76 has not shown any issues that are a result of COI.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On the COI Noticeboard, Spirit 76 has stated "many of them boast their OA membership on their userpages". User:Gadget850/about shows my experience and interests as related to my editing practices. This is more than vain boasting: this is also a disclosure of my relationship to the subjects I edit.


 * Also note that I started the previous discussion on in order to clear up previous issues and misunderstandings. This discussion involved editors from the Scouting project as well as outside editors. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, plain membership in the Order of the Arrow does not cause someone to have COI. According to the article itself there are over 180,000 active members of the Order and many more previous members.  Is every person in the order or been in the order not allowed to edit this article?  No.  Officers, professional scouters, etc. would have a COI, but a general member wouldn't.  There are millions of people that just got the flap and ran.  There are many more that were only active as youth. There is no pledge of secrecy.  No organization within scouting has that. If just membership (past or present) in an organization make for a COI, I believe most articles on Wiki would have to be removed. Marauder40 (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify on the secrecy: Arrowmen used to be pledged to secrecy on the details of the ceremonies, but this was removed in the 1980s (see the article). This shows up in the article occasionally when old-time Arrowmen remove the section on the Ordeal and we have to revert and educate them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  14:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marauder40: The conflict of interest policy isn't as clear cut as that - it doesn't define groups of people who can and can't edit articles. The bold section in the second paragraph is the key one.


 * I don't want to remove an entry from the COI noticeboard, but since we haven't been able to identify a dispute over content, I've removed the tag from the article. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Yes I realize that the COI policies aren't as clear cut as that.  The fact that Spirit76 was going to every member that has on their user page that they were in the OA that has edited this article and placed COI warning leads me to think that he doesn't understand the policy. Marauder40 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow amidst all the legalese we have lost sight of the issue, which is weather the very notion of "safeguarded" material has any place in a wikipedia article. While it may sound callous, keeping things fun for the kids should not be the goal of any wikipedia article. What if an adult who was never a member of the OA and never will be has an interest in the details of the ceremonies. Why should they or wikipedia be obliged to content themselves with the information the OA alone deems authorized for outsiders? The very fact that OA member/editors are defending the mere concept of safeguarded materials in the context of the article is an indicator of their conflict of interest. --Spirit76 (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Marauder40: I think Spirit76 probably misunderstood the purpose of the COI templates, yes, but there are worse sins, and I don't want to turn this article's talk page into someone's involuntary editor review. The point I was trying to make was a fairly minor one in response to your previous post: officers, professional scouters, etc, wouldn't necessarily have a conflict of interest, and a general member might well do.  It isn't about the position you occupy, it's about whether you consider your primary interest to be in improving wikipedia, or in defending your own or some external organisations interests.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Spirit76: I think you've misinterpreted the discussion. We weren't discussing the general principal of whether we should publish passwords on wikpedia, we were discussing the relevance of the passwords to this talk page.  It turned out, in the end, that the only use for the passwords would be in linking to illegal web copies of a book, contravening Copyrights - and we're already using the book as a source anyway.  Since we don't have the legal right to link to those documents, we have no business publishing the passwords to them.
 * If you want to take up the question of whether wikipedia can publish passwords to the documents we link to, the best way to do that is to wait until an example comes up, and then raise it at WP:Copyright problems. I don't think such an example will be easy to find, though - if a website is happy to publish a document, they're unlikely to encrypt it.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 15:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I should have used the word "might" instead of "would". Primary jist of what I was trying to say is that just being a member or past member of the OA doesn't necessarily mean you have a COI. Marauder40 (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

FAQ
In case no one saw the changes: there is now a FAQ linked at the top of the page. Please discuss any issues or concerns. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  14:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)