Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 7

Removed Redundant/Misleading phrasing
The phrasing as it currently stands is redundant:
 * "...Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society...calling the program, Wimachtendienk, a word he stated meant "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects."

By definition, since he's already "calling" it something, anything afterwards is what he stated. Likewise, it also wasn't just what he stated it meant. Reference materials available at the time concurred with his usage. Therefore, it should be
 * "Carroll A. Edson, he started an experimental honor society...calling the program, Wimachtendienk, or "Brotherhood" in one of the Lenape dialects."

Furthermore, it's what the sources of the time also said it was. By adding "a word he stated meant", you are attempting to push an anti-cultural appropriation POV. Please stop.

Likewise, stating "Wimachtendienk is not contained in any current online dictionary of the Lenape People, including the tribes own language site..." implies that there's more than one online dictionary. There isn't. There's just the single website. There are some sites that provide a few word lists, but not a dictionary. That's like saying "Out of all the people with a name starting in 'CorbieV' on Wikipedia, all of them agree that blue is their favorite color, including the primary account of the person most involved in this discussion..." You're just talking about ONE person even though you're implying more. It should be rephrased to reflect what IS in the sources:
 * No modern dictionary contains a translation for "Wimachtenienk", the English word "brotherhood", or related terms that fit the connotation of "brotherhood". Examples: Wimachtendienk, "brotherhood", translations of words and phrases related to "brother"

In ALL cases of known modern dictionaries, there is no direct translation for the English word "brotherhood" (If you find one, please let us know). Likewise, there is no known word with even similar connotations listed in those dictionaries. I have no problem including links to such dictionaries or footnotes, but we cannot claim things that aren't backed up by reliable sources. Buffs (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Kinship - lànkuntuwakàn, friendship among all - wëlànkùntin, friendship among each other - ulànkùntin, our brothers (by blood or friendship) - kimahtësënàk, calling together of people - wènchimtin, our brothers (by blood or friendship) - kimahtësënàk. These are all pretty darn similar to brotherhood. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the difficulties oral traditions face on Wikipedia, but even still, are you able to attribute any of that to a reliable source? Because your own original research, as convincing as it may appear to be, is unlikely to be good enough to merit inclusion in the article. El_C 01:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the above can be found at http://www.talk-lenape.org/ Indigenous girl (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! El_C 01:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This has all been addressed above, and at the noticeboard, ad nauseum. The Moravians cobbled it together. Your edits continually try to push the POV that the group uses actual Lenape words and culture. Come up with some kind of phrasing that doesn't falsely imply that they used actual Lenape. I don't care whether the link to the other terms for "brother" are included. I added it only to show it's not a common root form for the language. What you are doing here is continually making the same edits you've made for weeks and months (burying the criticism quotes) and then putting up misleading edit summaries to imply this is somehow new issues rather than the same, WP:TENDENTIOUS POV push and edit war. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 18:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In the The life and times of David Zeisberger, the western pioneer and apostle of the Indians by De Schweinitz, Edmund, 1825-1887 page 96 Zeisberger states,"Nevertheless, the more the Gospel spreads the more copious their language becomes. New words grow into use in exact proportion to the growth of the converts in the knowledge of the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ." New words were created by missionaries for the purpose of proselytizing. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Does De Schweinitz specify some of these words as an example? El_C 01:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have almost 800 pages to go through. If I find examples I will list them. Indigenous girl (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And again thanks! El_C 01:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, I just realized I put the above reference in the wrong place. I had intended to respond to Buffs comment that,"This is WP:OR/WP:SYN/WP:BIAS/assumption and no source backs up the claim." below. Oops, sorry! Indigenous girl (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We're still sitting at speculation and synthesis. "New words grow into use" is not the same as "New words were created by missionaries". I don't have this book, but I'm willing to take your word on it, so I have a few questions about context. This quote doesn't mention which group he's talking about the Gospel with. Whose is "their language"? The Lenape? Which group of people is it? Is it even in America? Does he mention who created the words? Was it Zeisberger? Other missionaries? The group to whom he was speaking? Etc. Lots of detail/context missing from the quote before we can call this conclusive, but it's a promising start.
 * As for other related words, to your point, they ARE certainly much closer, but most are not the same.
 * "calling together of people" is closer in meaning (and relatively close in pronunciation: wènchimtin), but "our brothers (by blood or friendship)" (kimahtësënàk) is closest amongst this list. Still, "brotherhood" is not listed.
 * User:Indigenous girl, why didn't you bring these forward WEEKS or MONTHS ago? What is their source? Buffs (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to be dishonest. He is speaking about the Delaware. You can see for yourself https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078/page/n103 While the link says page 103 if you look at the actual page it is 96. As I told El C, the words listed can be found at the Talking Dictionary http://www.talk-lenape.org/ I did not bring them up weeks or months before because I had not taken the time to look. At some point you had provided searches for brotherhood and words similar. I took another gander at them yesterday and realized the search was incomplete. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * El_C, I have access to Moravian Missions among American Indians Records; ca. 1735-1900 which are on microfilm https://orbis.library.yale.edu/vwebv/holdingsInfo?bibId=4183220 Unfortunately the entire collection is not available on line, I have only been able to find excerpts regarding the south east with the focus on the Cherokee though Delaware are mentioned. The on line excerpts do not contain the sections I need which focus on Pennsylvania, Ohio, Personalia, Generalia, Indian Languages and Other. While I would like to finally put this issue of language to rest I don't want to waste my time if this is considered original research. Though the library is air conditioned so I may just do it anyway. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More knowledge never hurts. But I'm afraid that for our immediate purposes, it would be original research, unless you're able to capture some of these somehow and put them online for the pertinent passages. Even then, it's best to limit oneself to the existing scholarship rather than engaging in one's own. El_C 17:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * [ec] Ok, so that summary is particularly misleading. He's talking about the Iroquois AND the Delaware and then specifically mentions the Iroquois. While the language used is vague, he seems to be talking about the Iroquois. Likewise, I don't want to see you waste your time. The point here is that people are insisting on adding "a phrase he claimed meant" and adding other "doubtful" language to the notes that isn't backed up in sources. Comments that the dictionary was "cobbled" together or that the word was "constructed" are again demeaning remarks unsupported by WP:RS. I'm perfectly willing to admit it's possible, but there's no evidence to back it up. Given the source above, it seems more likely to me that Zeisberger painstakingly pieced it together with the help of native speakers...and even if he DID make up the word using idiomatic language, those that started the OA made a good-faith effort to use the correct terminology. They didn't just make up something. The whole thing is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is initially talking about the Delaware and the Iroquois (which is a confederacy and not all Nations in the confederacy were known for exceptional oration, it was and is primarily the Mohawk). He then states "Thus the Delaware had ten different names for bear, according to it's age or sex. As touching religious ideas, on the contrary, there prevailed a dearth of words." which directly precedes the quote - This is AFTER he mentions the Iroquois. There is only one speaker, Albert Seqaqkind Anthony, that Zeisberger is noted to have consulted with regarding the compilation of his dictionary. Anthony is noted as a speaker of Minsi (Munsee) and not Unami. That's what the sources say.https://archive.org/details/lenpenglishd00brin/page/n19 I understand that those that started the OA and made the decision to use these words did so with the assumption that these were in fact actual Lenape words. I am not arguing that. They also in good faith had kids dress up in costumes and play Indian inaccurately. What I am and have been trying to convey is that we have statements showing that these are not words that originated with the Lenape and that should be noted just as the costumes these children get up in are not authentic. I am not trying to push a point of view I am asking that claims of authentic language, clothing and use of ceremony are not accurate. El_C, thanks for responding about the microfilm collection. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, both of you, I realize the points of view are likely antithetical, but try to come toward a resolution. Use your dispute resolution resources to try to get outside input and see what other editors say. This war of attrition on the talk page is not sustainable, and the edit war on the mainspace, even less so. El_C 18:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * El_C, fine. One problem at a time: "The Moravians cobbled it together." is a claim that Corbie has repeated ad nauseum and he is making edits accordingly. However, it is not backed up in any reliable source. This is WP:OR/WP:SYN/WP:BIAS/assumption and no source backs up the claim. Corbie (or anyone else), feel free to prove me wrong and just put the source here. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find it by Monday. I'll wait. Buffs (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Addressing the rest of the baseless accusations point-by-point:
 * "Your edits continually try to push the POV that the group uses actual Lenape words and culture." My edits reflect what reliable sources say about a single word, not "words" and certainly not an entire culture (something the OA doesn't do, near as I can tell).
 * "Come up with some kind of phrasing that doesn't falsely imply that they used actual Lenape." First of all Lenape isn't a language (it's Unami). Second of all, multiple reliable sources state that they indeed used words in the Unami language. You are claiming they didn't. The burden of proof is on you to prove they are wrong or that it's contested, not me.
 * "I don't care whether the link to the other terms for "brother" are included." then why are you fighting so hard to keep them? Remove them! I'm certainly not stopping you.
 * "(burying the criticism quotes)" No one is "burying" anything. This is how encyclopedic content is supposed to be per WP:MOS (specifically WP:MOSQUOTE). We should write what's said in prose. The entire content is still available. Footnotes are the justification for statements made in prose and should reflect an accurate summary of what was said (I've mentioned this before). Arguably, the complaints of a single college student are not notable, even if reported in a college student newspaper (the first quote in the criticism section). As for the last complaint listed, most of what's said makes no sense and I have no idea how to summarize it (Examples: the colonists dressed up as Native Americans solely to obscure their own identities, not to take anything of cultural value nor silence the Native Americans. Under that definition, every play about a different culture other than your own is attempting to silence people - an absurd conclusion (the last quote in the criticism section))
 * "What you are doing here is continually making the same edits" Yeah, I've noticed that you keep making that claim and you treat all of my edits as if there's nothing new by blanket reversions. Even if you don't like SOME of my edits, some were indeed completely new and didn't touch "old" ground, such as ordering the references. You just undid them as if there's nothing anyone can contribute to your work/POV. Again, I'll wait until Monday for you to unscramble the references that you scrambled.
 * I'm only here for the editorial standards of Wikipedia. THAT is my POV. WP:RS rules this discussion; If there's something wrong with that, we have bigger problems. El_C, I would expect you to note that. If you're seeing something I'm not, please let me know. Buffs (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not appropriate, Buffs. Please do not edit or add to the comment fields of other users. I would have thought that to be obvious. I note that the same can be applied to parts of your summary above, also. El_C 23:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:El_C, if clarification is needed, please ask/specify. Implying that I've said something untrue or unbacked by WP:RS without specifics is merely assigning doubt without the means to respond.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs)
 * If I thought it would advance the discussion, I would do so. The point is that you obviously are able to quote just fine. But I will say this, again: mentioning "complaints of a single college student" without a link and a diff is not making this accessible to outside input. It only makes this more opaque. Concise summaries, please. Less text, more links and diffs. El_C 09:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to your addition of a url to the "Letter." Maybe I'm a bit slow, but I don't I see what harm it does our readership to include a ref to the aforementioned The State News "Letter," written by a Doctoral student and (current?) Order of the Arrow member, immediately alongside several other refs? I dunno, maybe take it to RSN, if that important to you. I also am not following the rest of your argument, since it lacks actual diffs (for example: I ctrl. F'd "dressed up as Native Americans" and got nothing). El_C 16:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that I don't feel it passes the WP:N requirements, BUT I've also kept it per consensus. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability in relation to what? What threshold is it failing, specifically. But regardless, if you chose to keep it, anyway, it why are you even bringing it up now? Please, my time is precious. Get to the pressing points of contention. Have links and diffs available in advance, and continue to condense, though maybe not that much as the above. El_C 17:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, WP:NPOV would probably have been a better link: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". 10% of the article for a viewpoint held by a SMALL minority is disproportionate. This was ONE member of an organization of 150,000. Again, I'm not saying that it needs to be eliminated and it can certainly be slightly out of proportion for the sakes of an article (you'll never get it exactly...3-4 points of contention with solid references = fine with me), but Corbie seems to want to expand all criticism to the maximum extent possible and in a disproportionate manner. Summary style is what we're supposed to shoot for and Corbie continues to include multiple lines of quotes (see criticism section, no diff needed) where everything else is summarized w/ an inline citation in accordance with WP:MOS. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevance of a minority viewpoint is not to be judged by the size of that minority population. The reason there is not a large number of Native Americans still alive and with the available time and energy to protest the use or abuse of their cultural property by the dominant culture is due to the genocide by said same dominant culture. That's why we cover these views and protests based on their existence alone. Buffs has wanted to also downplay and remove these arguments on the issues of Indigenous intellectual property rights, Cultural appropriation, and on the Warbonnet article, to advance this POV. This is the same argument Buffs pushed on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, claiming that Native objections to these activities are "Fringe" and not notable due to the "small number" of people still alive to voice them. - CorbieV  ☊ ☼ 20:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Quotations
The other reason I have relied on direct quotes on these articles where Buffs has endlessly edit-warred is precisely because he insists on rewriting quotes in a biased manner, then fighting long, drawn-out wars of attrition on talk to push for his preferred phrasing. Then he has edit-warred some more when he doesn't get his way. It's not that I always prefer quotes. The many, many other articles I work on are not like this; only the ones where he has caused problems. No productive Wikipedian has the time or inclination to fight over every single word; it's exhausting and ridiculous. But he apparently does have the time to do this on this small group of articles. He wears people down. The exact quotes have been the only way to guarantee accuracy in the face of this obstructive behavior. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 21:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You both seem too fixated on the past, whereas I am trying to look into the future. Please, both of you, refrain from continuing to generalize and move this forward by dealing with specific and concrete items that need to be addressed. Enough with the distractions, already. El_C 01:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The first point was regarding the number of people in the OA vs the number in the OA that are protesting, a VERY small minority 1-2 vs 150,000+. Likewise, I also pointed out that such criticism, even with a minority opinion, is also probably appropriate to include them to the extent allowed under WP:NPOV.
 * If I've rewritten quotes in a biased manner, show us where. I/others can correct those.
 * If I've paraphrased incorrectly, feel free to make your own and we'll work from there; I offer no objection to such a revision. As it stands now, the quotes are over half of the criticism section. They need to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner via summary.
 * Like I said: write your own then. I'll wait.` Buffs (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The ratio of original prose to quotes is, indeed, a bit skewed. If anyone can change that for the better that would be greatly appreciated. If that fails to happen, then quotes may need to be shortened to maintain a balanced ratio. This is about readability and flow. I stress, though, that there's no rush. El_C 16:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very concerned about rewriting the quotes because historically this has been challenged. I can make an attempt but not until next week. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I read the LRI article. There are much better quotes than the one currently used. The page is also down, but archived. Putting the updated cite here. Current text:

Proposed:

These are different words, largely, than were there before, and I think go more to the heart of why this is an issue for people. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 23:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is fantastic! Indigenous girl (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's fantastic, but it is a good first step into incorporating it into prose.
 * If we're talking about replacing the entire criticism section with this, I think we're very close to consensus and it's indeed fantastic! If we're replacing 4 lines of text with 5 and expanding it, we're working backwards. Likewise, the quoting is still incorrect, misleading, or unnecessarily inflammatory. We can still get the gist of her objections without so many quotes; summary and appropriate attribution/references are sufficient. My take on the same section:


 * This IS the way forward here. Let's continue to work on this! Buffs (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

She is stating basic historical fact. The fact she's a mother is relevant, as her boys were Scouts, and invited to an OA event. (I'd include that, but was trying to keep it brief. Actually, I'll insert it now, marked with **'s) So she researched the OA before letting them go, and this is what she found. It is not acceptable to cut the line about life for Native children prior to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act as it goes to the core of the issue of why this is so hurtful and harmful to Native families. I also find your rephrasing of her words in other places awkward. This is only the proposed changes for one quote, not the whole section. I see nothing wrong with the version IG and I prefer. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 18:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Goodman and Edson both had kids too. It's irrelevant fluff. It doesn't add or subtract from the claim (besides, inclusion here means credibility is assumed).
 * How does using the language of Native Americans harm them? If they hadn't used it, would there have been less harm/abuse? If so, how?
 * Life for Native children prior to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act is not part of this article in any way and the OA had nothing to do with it
 * It's still too many quotes and not enough prose. Summarize in your own words per WP:MOSQUOTE.
 * (paraphrasing) "No, I like it this way" is neither collegial nor consensus-building. Buffs (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ozheebeegay Ikwe is speak as a mother. If it were not for her children she would not have researched OA. I see her speaking in this instance more as a mom than an activist.


 * The use of what they assumed was the language is harmful in context. It is being used by a group that emulates stereotypical and, more often than not, inaccurate caricatures of living people. It is a part of the bigger picture of what is seen by *some* as harmful. It is being peddled as authentic, all of it, the language, the costumes, the dances. If what they had assumed was the language hadn't been used they would have likely used words in English. Why the need to use indigenous language? Why the need to play dress up? When they were taking these words they thought were authentic to use for themselves, Native children were not allowed to use them under in boarding and residential schools under threat of violence. It was illegal to practice Native American spirituality until 1978 but it was perfectly legal for the OA to conduct ceremonies that they took from Indigenous Peoples. It was a felony for Natives but permissible for non-Natives. It doesn't matter if one or two or ten Native people gave anyone permission. That is not how it works in community, it's not how things worked when these groups were forming and it's not how things worked prior to them forming. I know you feel that I am trying to right historical wrongs. I'm not. It's impossible to do that. You can't change history but what you can do is tell the truth.


 * I am not opposed to changing the quotes to prose. I am not opposed to the prose being neutral. What I am opposed to is having what is an important issue white washed. The quotes to prose doesn't need to be changed immediately. We can take our time and try to come up with something equitable, can we please try again? Indigenous girl (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are deeming it "important" and that you're viewing my opinions/take as "whitewashing". I truly get that you, and others, are offended. The question is what should be included in accordance with Wikipedia editorial standards, not subjective criteria: "I think it's important!"
 * Your statements are assumptions/more attempts to demonize a group of 150K+ without WP:RS to back up such claims. For someone so willing to do research, the logical errors and spurious claims presented here are perplexing.        Yours is the closest we have to a middle ground. Why don't you try rephrasing? If not, I'll try something else. Buffs (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Buffs Ozheebeegay Ikwe is a pseudonym. It translates to Woman Who Writes. She is a well known artist and activist. She wrote under a pseudonym to protect the identity of her minor children. People use pseudonyms for many reasons. I'm not going to dox her for you so no I am not going to provide proof. I have left out a piece entitled 'For $1,000 You Can Be a Dog Soldier: The Tribe of Should-Be-Ashamed' by Sean Daley, Jason Hale, Shelly Bointy, T. Smith, Charley Lewis, Julia Soap, Chandler Williams, Christina Pacheco, and Christine Daley the authors primarily focus on Tribe of the Mic-O-Say from a meeting between American Indian Health Research and Education Alliance (AIHREA) and leaders from the Tribe of the Mic-O-Say. The article goes into the damages done by the actions and activities and highlights the similarities to the mascot issue. It's a pretty devastating https://sfaajournals.net/doi/abs/10.17730/praa.37.2.9x51g19018v8r461. I did not include that the OA and the scouting dance troups (which include OA members) have been protested since the 1970s. Scouting protests in the 70s had hundreds of people showing up. The converse is not true, there are organizations that address these issues that have the blessing of the community. There are statements from ceremonial leaders regarding appropriation. There is community consensus. I understand that you think it's a minority that is outraged by this stuff. During my lifetime it was absolutely a felony to practice my spirituality. It was a felony until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed. I don't have time to respond to the other things you said/asked. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok...so, if she's "a well known artist and activist", where is she well known? I'm not seeing anything online other than this article and Wikipedia mirrors. Why is her opinion worthy of being included? No one is trying to dox her, but credibility is an issue that cannot be ascertained here.
 * "I did not include that the OA [and related groups] have been protested since the 1970s." We absolutely should! Why would we exclude it? It sounds MUCH more convincing than what we have here.
 * "I understand that you think it's a minority that is outraged by this stuff." No, that's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying you've brought no evidence that it's a widespread opinion. If you have statements from leaders of the Nations (or councils), then they should ABSOLUTELY be included!
 * "During my lifetime it was absolutely a felony to practice my spirituality." A sidetrack, but an interesting one. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the only instance I'm aware of would be the use of peyote and in highly significant quantities. Anything else would be classified as misdemeanors (same level as a parking ticket). I'd like to include that information in other articles. Buffs (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * She's known in community. I don't know her personally but I know who she is. As I said, she used a pseudonym to protect her minor children. Why is she not credible? She is an example of an Native woman who did thorough research on the topic when her boys were in Scouts and based her decision to remove her children on the evidence that she found.
 * You've repeatedly called those opposed to appropriation fringe. I'll add the news sources regarding protests in the 1970s. I'll also include https://sfaajournals.net/doi/abs/10.17730/praa.37.2.9x51g19018v8r461 which ties things in nicely with the sports mascot issue. I do not have the time to do it immediately nor am I likely able to do it within the next few days. The link is there for 'For $1,000 You Can Be a Dog Soldier: The Tribe of Should-Be-Ashamed'. Indigenous girl (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I still think they are a fringe movement and I've not seen evidence otherwise.
 * If someone of note, especially notable Native American(s) (such as a leader or a council statement), has something negative OR positive to say about the OA, it should be included. If it's a general statement about cultural appropriation, it should be included in that article (we already have a link for it).
 * Fictional example of what should be included: "OA members beat the young scout unconscious"
 * Fictional example of what should NOT be included: "The UN has condemned actions of the OA as it condemns all acts of hazing" <source2 that shows a UN declaration against hazing>
 * The first is viable, depending on the source. The second is WP:SYN. While the UN indeed condemns hazing, it did not direct condemn the OA Buffs (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Up for consideration -

The article currently shows -

Proposed change -

Indigenous girl (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Indigenous girl, in general, it's fine. A few refinements to remove passive voice + split a run-on sentence + link + a few minor typographic considerations...need to add reference tags (not in dispute):
 * It's important to note that he didn't "liken it" to the other two logos, he stated it was "better than" the other two logos. From his writing he does indicate there is a lesser degree of objection than in either case. If no objection, I'll update today. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your version. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable if "Chippewa" is put back in quotations, and if we put in the other edited quote that IG and and I agreed is fine. - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 20:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should Chippewa be in quotations? That's the both the name of their team and the proper name for the First Nation tribe. I'm confused.
 * What is "the other edited quote that IG and and I agreed is fine"? Buffs (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought we agreed on your version of quote to prose regarding the Phillip Rice earlier today? Indigenous girl (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was fine with that version, but not with the quotes. Again, why the quotes? I haven't seen justification for it. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was fine with that version, but not with the quotes. Again, why the quotes? I haven't seen justification for it. Buffs (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the asterisks from around the three words I added during the discussion so the formatting is good to go. Also, as she's mostly writing as a mother in this instance, I've removed the word "Activist" from her descriptor. It doesn't matter whether or not she's an activist. If the connection is really that unclear, we could add the clause, "writes of her decision to pull her sons from scouting," - <b style="color:#44018F;">Co</b><b style="color: #003878;">rb</b><b style="color: #145073;">ie</b><b style="color: #006E0D">V</b>  ☊ ☼ 22:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you put this in the discussion above where it pertains instead of down here? (feel free to delete this remark once that's done). Buffs (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Moar stuff
This is not starting out the best, but I still have hope. I place much of the hope on the involvement of outside input to make sense of the various quagmires. To that end, I, again, remind participants of their dispute resolution resources. If need be, launch an RfC on every point of contention; use specialized noticeboards (like RSN to establish reliable sources); and again, try to make the disputes accessible to outsiders — condense, condense, condense. El_C 23:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:El_C, to the contrary. IG has brought some good information forward. It matters not to me that it doesn't support the given sources. The fact is, it's a reliable source (I guess...I don't know much about the book). It's much more than what we had even 12 hours ago. Likewise, I'll be happy to wait until Monday for Corbie's reply. Buffs (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * De Schweinitz work is based on original manuscripts, correspondences and journals https://archive.org/details/cihm_26078/page/n7 It is cited 50 times at Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=7814580555581337635&as_sdt=40000005&sciodt=0,22&hl=en I think it can be considered a reliable source. I understand if you do not feel it is applicable, it is, however, reliable. Indigenous girl (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I already said it was a reliable source. Like El_C, I don't particularly think it's applicable though to THIS article. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with Indigenous girl here. El_C thank you for bringing in outside opinions on the matter. TowtoeTwo (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a single purpose account with a total of two edits is not really what I had in mind when I called for outside input. El_C 20:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where to put this, but the OotA is not a "honor" society. People are voted in by popularity. They may well be among the best Scouts in the troop, or simply the most popular. I am loath to edit the main page as I can see this page is pretty hotly discussed, but not for what I am talking about. Wulfy95113 (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020
Include the following website as a source (https://www.scouting.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Order-of-the-Arrow-2019.pdf) that Order of the Arrow is recognized as Scouting’s National Honor Society.

Thank you! Katieryan24 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, but with https://oa-bsa.org/uploads/resources/factsheets/OA_Fact_Sheet_01.pdf as a source. GoingBatty (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2021
The OA will move from a four region system to a two region system starting December 28th, 2021 https://oa-bsa.org/magellan?fbclid=IwAR3E4TwycUZRxXG8aiZEXQPAdK4NHK3w1V_cnBcDTPV17TOPZN0d-kLshb4 50.237.77.218 (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   11:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm actually familiar with the change, I'm working on it now. So i'll chnage that from a not done to a ✅ Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)