Jump to content

Talk:Order of the Arrow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EightBall1989 (talk | contribs) at 19:51, 4 March 2007 (→Organization Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Current-ScoutingSATM

WikiProject iconScouting B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconOrder of the Arrow is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was the project's Portal article of the month (March 2007).

Order of the Arrow article specificity

This is a guideline that has been accepted by consensus.

  1. A spoiler warning should not be posted here.
  2. Do not include the lyrics to the official song.
  3. Do not include safeguarded material. You may add information available in the public video National released ("The Choice is Yours"), information that is not password-protected on the national site, translate WWW but do not spell it out, no info on details of ceremonies
Archive
Archives

Vandal alert

I have reported today's vandal in an attempt to get this spineless anonymous vandal stopped. Rlevse 21:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Training programs

I've created a section focusing on the OA's training programs of LLD, NLS, and NLATS. I don't think we really need to create separate pages for each one. But these sections might need some work. I tried to focus on what these are, how you attend, a little on their history/development. --Emb021 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Take a look at my proposal for a standard outline at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Outline for division articles. This fits right in with that. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scoutreach

Need to add the OA Scoutreach Mentoring Program. Info is on the OA website [1], but it is down until next Monday. --Gadget850 ( Ed)


Userbox

I have created this userbox for OA members of all levels. If placed on your user page, it will put you into the Arrowman Wikipedians category.

Code Result
{{user Arrowman}}
WWWThis user is a member of the Order of the Arrow.

--Myles Long/cDc 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for now, I'll replace it with the letters WWW. --Myles Long/cDc 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.::--Myles Long/cDc 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw, it's already in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests#Outdoor_pursuits. --Myles Long/cDc 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- but as fellow editors, we would rather let you know our thoughts. This allows us to reach a consensus amiably. Some folks don't take well to edit mercilessly, and a bit of politeness goes a long way, esp on a new article or object. I think it is obvious that there were a few things you did not know. You might remember that term guided discovery. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850 is precisely right. I could easily move it myself. BTW, it is NOT in outdoor pursuits. It seems Evrik (not a project member) created a special Scouting section without telling anyone. This is why we try to communicate. Actually, I like Evrik's idea, but he should have told us, which I will bring up with him. The Scouting userboxes are in an Associations/Scouting subcat now. 17:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Gadget850 might be right, but that's not the point. The whole point of this is that it's a community project. If something is wrong, everyone is empowered to fix it. That's how it works. And yes, I suppose I didn't know the details regarding user boxes, and now I do, and for that I thank you. As for it not being in "outdoor pursuits," well, it's with the other Scouting userboxes. If you don't want it there, go ahead and move it. I'm beginning to remember why I stay away from Scouting-related articles. --Myles Long/cDc 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining because we tried to communicate with you instead of doing something without telling you? Rlevse 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who's complaining? I'm communicating. You are of the opinion that pointing out mistakes that one comes across is the better approach, whereas I am of the opinion that fixing them oneself (if empowered to do so) is the better approach. There is no complaint here; I am merely engaging in a discussion with you. --Myles Long/cDc 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Vigil Userbox template for a discussion on that. Scoutersig 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Support, this is a no-brainer. Founder's Award is a stub, will never grow much, and it's discussed here already.Rlevse 23:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree. --Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 23:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Support I also agree. The Founders Award is a major part of the OA and it should be included in the said article. It serves no purpose as a stub. A separate section of the OA article should contain it. N1kk0 05:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm no fan of mergers, but I have to agree. I think it more useful for it to be a basic section within the OA page. Be nice if we could get a scan of the award ribbon. --Emb021 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - I don't think we can say for certain that the Founder's Award will never grow. For one thing, I could easily imagine a list of people who have received the award being part of that article, but it would look out of place here. Johntex\talk 23:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support What would be the problem with creating a separate article with a list of names of those who earned the award?N1kk0 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A list of recipients would be enormous IF you could out who there were; so you'd have to limit it to notable recipients, like the Eagle Scout list. Rlevse 01:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you did limit it to Eagle Scouts, it would still be a huge undertaking. Each lodge can give up to 4 of these awards annualy based on membership, and there are 300+ lodges in the BSA. --JCowe 03:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge for now until the article grows in such a fashion as JohnTex envisions, this article is the place it needs to incubate in the meanwhile. It will make it readily available for anyone who seeks the information, and if and when it takes off with a life of its own, it can certainly be separated again. For now, it's a stub and should be merged. Chris 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also recommend merger of Ordeal (level of OA membership), Brotherhood (level of OA membership), Vigil Honor and Firm Bound in Brotherhood into one comprehensive OA article, or; if this is felt to be too much, merge them into Honors of the Order of the Arrow.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFirm Bound in Brotherhood should be in the main OA article, not the Honors of... article. The others could merged into an Honors of... article. Rlevse 19:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes of course. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Support - I wonder if I could find my red dangly thingy. Maybe I'll just take a photo of my medal when I get home. Gentgeen 06:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge - If it ever gets too large, we can re-create the article anytime. So can we go ahead and do this? I only see one oppose vote.--Naha|(talk) 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. Enough time, enough votes. If someone wants to take the lead on this, go for it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what we have considered, plus a few other short articles:

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see that there is mostly consensus on this, but more importantly, all of the information in the article has already been included on Order of the Arrow. I completed the merge. NThurston 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the merge is complete? Once the old pages are merged, they should be turned into redirect pages (let me know if you need help on that) then strike out the lines above as approprite. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only part of this was done. Rlevse 18:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was never really completed, I'm putting merge tags on the appropriate pages (as we should have done) until they are fully merged. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History

At the begining of the article on the OA's history is this statement: "It had come to their attention that many other camps had created honor societies for Scouts who had attended them.". Uh, I'm fairly knowledgable about the OA's history, and this is news to me. AFAIK, the OA was one of the FIRST such groups (not THE first, there was atleast others). Goodman was aimed to create a tradition at the camp to perpetuate things, NOT create an honor society per say, and not in imitation of other such groups. I think this section needs to be re-written. --Emb021 17:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have fixed the history of the OA, giving the sources that influenced Goodwin and Edson. This is based on several works: Ken Davis' History of the OA, the bio of Goodman, and the soon to be published work on the establishment of the OA and its ceremonial history, which should come out next fall. I've added the published references. --Emb021 13:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Archive
Archives

Safeguarded material

I am fine with removing this information on the grounds that it cannot be sourced (per WP:CITE). I want to make sure, however, that we are not removing out of deference to the OA. If, at any time in the future, it can be sourced, I see no problem with its inclusion, and the previous "consensus", which began with the assumption that the information was unverifiable, would be null and void. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has responded, may I change the consensus from:
"2. Do not include the lyrics to the official song. 3. Do not include safeguarded material. You may add information available in the public video National released ("The Choice is Yours"), information that is not password-protected on the national site, translate WWW but do not spell it out, no info on details of ceremonies."

To:

"2. Do not include information in this article which cannot be cited to a public source. For example, the National released film "The Choice is Yours" and information on the non-password-protected website is acceptable. However, information from the password-protected portion of the site or from your personal knowledge is not considered verifiable."

My understanding of the consensus is that we are excluding this material on the basis of verifiability. Thus, I think we should write the consensus in terms of verifiability rather than the acceptability of specific information. Should a tell-all book, for example, be published in the future the lyrics to the official song, the ceremonies, etc. would become verifiable and thus should then be included. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I consider the Field Operations Guide to be public information. It should be cited by page number to back up most of things already in the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"may I change the consensus from" ... you make a formal proposal and make the actual change on the same day? Why do have to keep going in circles over this? There have been numerous debates on this page about specificity and someone's always seeking to change it despite it having been formalized. Rlevse 01:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the problem was the the box misrepresented the consensus on the page as literally only one person had supported that view point. However, I apologize for jumping the gun. That said, is there any objection? savidan(talk) (e@) 02:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that people don't particiapate until after the fact. When only 2-3 participate DURING a talk, how are we to know what others think? We also keep having this same basic discussion over and over. Rlevse 15:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long before I entered the Order of the Arrow (so probably 1970s...), there was a one-page feature in Boys Life about the Order of the Arrow, which said in general terms what the Ordeal consists of (that is, the three promises). As such, at least at that time, it was not considered reserved information... 62.101.102.226 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Song

I have to dispute the non-inclusion "consensus" for the song. Only one person has explicitly voiced the opinion that it should not be included, and that user made no reference to Wikipedia policy but rather to his own personal standard of secrecy. User:KC9CQJ has explained this thoroughly above. The song lyrics are available freely on the net here, here, and even at Scouter.com. Also at this site and this one. It is easily verifiable and should be included. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it encylopedeic? Is it central to the OA? Frankly a mention with a reference to one of those sites should be sufficient. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are national anthems included in articles about a country? Rlevse 01:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. To answer your question, yes, I do consider the lyrics to encyclopedic. There is ample precedent for this. To continue with the example that you used, the lyrics to the national Anthem are included in The Star Spangled Banner, which is essentially a sub-article of a country article. In this case I would say that this article is appropriate because it is unlikely to become so long that such a subarticle would be needed. The article Firm Bound in Brotherhood was merged into this one. May I assume from your responses that you both now agree the song is verifiable? savidan(talk) (e@) 03:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the song from the Russian Anthems Museum. Since there are multiple instances on the web, including some council sites I don't see the song as particularly safeguarded. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing what I thought was an erroneous statement above regarding the GFI, the Song is specifically mentioned and would be considered protected in its actual lyric form. However, the mention that it's to the tune of "God Save the Tsar" and possibly the title is fair game. (See Guide for Inductions, pg. 21)KC9CQJ 04:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stance on OA Article Specificity

There are recurring themes on this article. The Scouting WikiProject has been asked to look into this and help reach a consensus standard. Please provide your input on these issues or anything else of concern. Ssee the criteria tags at the top of Talk:List_of_Eagle_Scouts and Talk:List_of_Distinguished_Eagle_Scout_Award_recipients for how we handled those pages--it may help here.

  1. How specific and detailed should it be?
  2. Should it have a spoiler warning?
  3. Policy on safeguarded material?
  4. Should WWW be spelled out and/or translated?

I think spelling out these point would be good so hopefully they won't come up every year or so. My personal opinion is if National has released it, it's okay here and if they haven't, it's not okay here. Have many of you have seen the video made 1-2 years ago that is geared for parental viewing but is viewable by anyone? Rlevse 22:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • My Views:
  1. The article as it is seems very good to me. I think the level of detail is great.
  2. No. Anything constituting a spoiler warning should not be posted here. (see below)
  3. Nothing that even loosely considered safeguarded should be excluded from this article, even if it is accessible from National's website. National shouldn't be flaunting that kind of information on their site anyway. However, the National provided video for use in Troop/Team OA Elections is very good (although somewhat old). I think anything not included in this video should not be included in this article (as far as safeguarded material is concerned). Basiclly, the only thing here that isn't on it is WWW.
  4. We should include the translation and the abreviation (WWW), but it should not be spelled out. The video I mentioned above says "The original name for the OA was in the Lenni Lenape language, meaning the Brotherhood of Cheerful Service. . . It was renamed the Order of the Arrow. . .", which I think is what we should say here.

Basiclly, my view is that we should be overly zealous in keeping even only somewhat-safeguarded material off this page. If somebody is really interested, they need to go through their local lodge or National to get the information. --67.162.184.84 03:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really think it should be our goal to include as much information as we are able, barring material that is explicitly safeguarded (ceremonies text, the song, details of the Ordeal, etc). When there is material we're uncertain about including, let's ask oursleves this question: Would this be appropriate for non-members to know? If its a question none of us would be comfortable answering to a random non-member, than it should be excluded. With that being said, I would perfer for us to err on the side of inclusion. Bcaff 12:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a solution to this problem that also resolves the everpresent issue of citing sources. If draw strictly from public BSA documents, we'll have a clear standard for what to include and what not to include. --Smack (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above, here is my proposal, which I'll formalize at the top of this page after several days if there are no major objections:
  1. No spoiler warning should not be posted here.
  2. Do not include safeguarded material, which is defined as: info available in the public video National released, info that is not password-protected on the national site (which I believe is about the same as the info in the video), translate WWW but do not spell it out, no info on details of ceremonies. Rlevse 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should
  1. Not include safeguarded material
  2. Include a spoiler warning in front of any details about the ceremony. We do it for movies to keep people from accidentally learning plot details on a $8 movie, we should certainly do it for a once in a lifetime experience. Johntex\talk 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we clarify No spoiler warning should not be posted here. at the top of the page, as this includes a double negative? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See voting below, but for now it's supposed to say do not have a spoiler. Rlevse 23:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the meaning of WWW should be included, since it's not really very secret anyway and can easily be found elsewhere on the internet. I know for a fact that the first W is expanded in the dining hall at Big Springs Camp (part of Resica Falls, which is used by Unami Lodge 1) and I'm pretty sure that all three words are used in the video they show at elections and during tap out ceremonies. It's also easy to find elsewhere on the internet. --Victor 19:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that we should limit the content of this article other than by what is verifiable and can be cited. I am made nervous by the attempt to subordinate the editorial guidelines of this article to some users' interpretation of the OA secrecy guidelines, which by the way states, "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," which I think obviously includes Wikipedia. [2] If your concern is that potential future members will read this, then perhaps we can have a spoiler warning, even that would be preferable to censoring Wikipedia wholesale. I would like to suggest that user's who have advocated keeping information off this page look inside themselves and ask what their motivations are. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE ON SPOILER WARNING

(as I see a split going over the whole page, (will leave up for 10-14 days):

Comment: The header on this page currently reads "No spoiler warning should not be posted here." That is a double negative, which makes no real sense. I would change it, but I'm not sure what exactly it is trying to say. --Myles Long 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed for the time being as to what it's to say for now, but could change pending outcome of the vote. Rlevse 23:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. That's what I figured it meant, but I didn't want to change it in case I was wrong. --Myles Long 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I say only include a spoiler warning if "officially unreleased" information is included in the article. --Naha|(talk) 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Spoiler - I don't consider any of the info in the article a spoiler. I like the way the article indicates that some info has been left out but is accessible if necessary. --Victor 19:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No spoiler and under no circumstances remove the details from the article. This is first and foremost an encyclopedia. These are encyclopedic details. Anyone who might be "spoiled" by these details probably wouldn't read that section anyway. This is not analogous to a film or box plot. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and translate and spell out the WWW. It's not secret or anything, as it it is all is given out as part of our Pre-Ordeal ceremony to parents, non-OA's, and whoever else attends the campfire. --TinMan 04:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By no means should WWW be revealed nor should the translation be contained in this article. Contrary to what has been stated by others, WWW and the translation are both safeguarded items, falling under the domain of Induction Priniciple #9 , Symbolic Progression (for detailed information, consult the "Guide to Inductions," found on the national website). For example, WWW is NOT to be revealed during the Callout ceremony or, in general, to anyone else not a Brother in the Order. Indeed, notice that in the Preoreal Ceremony the WWW is not revealed; only upon being given the Obligation do new Brothers learn the WWW and the translation. --Rcshowman 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is hardly a secret, as a quick Google search will show. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, it is not secret; the word "safeguarded" is used for a reason. More importantly, though, the mistake that others out there one the internet--namely, decreasing the impact of the Ordeal experience to future Brothers by revealing the names and tokens of the Order in the public sphere--shouldn't be repeated here merely because others have erroneously done so and, to put it bluntly, "because we can." --Rcshowman 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are we really debating this again?CQJ 16:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AS a youth Brotherhood of the OA I say that no ceremonial details, the ordeal tests or the translation of WWW be posted. The tests are revealed in the pre-ordeal, but that is only supposed to be seen by candidates and WWW is not given until the legend is told Unsigned comment by IP address editor.
  • Comment: Honestly folks, I think the Guide for Inductions has spoken on this. Can we archive this mess so it doesn't come up again? CQJ 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Fact Sheet

A few months ago, I made mention of some information on the National Fact Sheet that was removed. A few other editors and I have discussed the NFS off-wiki and would like for some questions to be answered. Specifically, it was mentioned that the Guide to Inductions directly overrules the National Fact Sheet written by the National Office in regards to the Order of the Arrow. With the new consensus written by our friends at the Wikiproject Scouting, it would appear that some of this information is now fair play for addition to the article since it appears outside of a password-protected area on the website.

Keeping in mind the Ten Induction Principles, the GFI, and the National Fact Sheet, what is our stance going to be on the information in the Fact Sheet?

National Fact Sheet

My personal preference is that at least a link to the NFS needs to be in the article, if not parts of the text put into the proper perspective. KC9CQJ 05:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is publicly available, especially if it it on one of the official BSA sites, then it should be referenced. This article needs a lot more references to back up the information. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes

I was reviewing the article's recent changes by PGNormand - does anyone else think they're a little too adult-centric and downplay the role of the youth member, or am I reading too much into the edits? KC9CQJ 14:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Kc9cqj. I think they are too adult-centric and at a minimum need reworded. Rlevse 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy: Native Americanism?

Not being American, I know nothing about BSA, but after reading this article, I'm wondering if anyone criticizes it for appropriating or parodying or stereotyping Native American culture? If so, it should be mentioned. I recall a parody of BSA on The Simpsons, my primary source of knowledge of American society. jnestorius(talk) 02:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to be included, however, my understanding is that the OA has worked closely with NA groups to ensure that traditions and culture are respected. In fact, I believe that the OA tries to view themselves as helping to preserve NA traditions. However, I do not have any sources or references, so I cannot feel good about editing the article in this regard. --NThurston 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: per the Language of Scouting, the BSA style guide, the preferred term is American Indian. There is a good discussion on this in the article Native Americans in the United States. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's debate on this naming all the time. Some American Indians like being called Indian (ex: Russell Means, AIM leader) and some prefer Native American. I am (small) part American Indian and I actually dislike the term Native American becase IMHO Native American means anyone born here in America. I personally prefer Indian, American Indian, or Indigenous Peoples. This is one of those cases where you'll never please everyone. And yes, the BSA/OA work closely with American Indians in order to not offend them. I personally am honored that the BSA based its honor camping society on an American Indian theme. Rlevse 11:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Council Lodges?

Would it be appropriate to make such a list? Please forgive me if this has been discussed already, I am new to the Scouting WikiProject. I feel such a list is warranted and would not overstep any specificity guideline since, in most cases, lodge names are evident and/or omnipresent at most council campsites. Ordeal Member, Aal-Pa-Tah Lodge 237 Watermellonman 12:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Boy Scouts of America Local Councils. Lodges are in the state articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert from Flyingember

I reverted the following graph, added by Flyingember.

One recent trend in the midwest has been the addition of a second honor camping program to increase older scout attendance at camp. The most common example is where the Mic-O-Say program has been added at four councils over the past 15+ years that were previously OA only; Salina, KS[3], Omaha, NE[4], Belleview, IL (East St Louis)[5] and Springfield, MO[6]. One of these programs has been shown to have increased active OA membership.[7]

I reverted this graph for the following reasons, and anyone may feel free to dispute my reversion and revert my revert if they can refute my points below:

  • The claim fails WP:OR. You cannot prove that a second honor camping program added at a long term camp improves older scout attendance alone without hard, fast numbers from the councils themselves.
  • Mic-O-Say is already mentioned in the article. Any claims about it increasing summer camp attendance should be mentioned in their article, not the OA article.
  • There may be other factors outside of Mic-O-Say's involvement in summer camp driving increased attendance at camp. The councils may have added other older boy programs, or strengthened what they had in place.
  • The claim is only valid in councils where OA programming wasn't or isn't strong at summer camp. It would fail in places like Hoosier Trails, Anthony Wayne Area, and what formerly was Wabash Valley, where OA programming was/is strong in both winter and summer operations. It would most certainly stand in Crossroads of America, Okaw Valley, Heart of America, and the other places you cite above.
  • And it's not that recent of a trend. Midwestern councils have been toying with a second honor camping program since the early 1920's, but most of them dropped the idea after the Order came along as a sanctioned National program.

Basically, this would probably be more in place in the Mic-O-Say article, not this one. That's my feeling on it. Who's next? CQJ 20:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OA lodge dual programs

Perhaps change the text to reflect on the trend towards multiple programs or implementing areas from other programs (MOS-based lanyards mostly) over the membership amount changing or a focus on any single honor program. I went digging for information but very few lodges put information up their own membership.

Is there a place to find ordeal to brotherhood numbers for most councils since brave->warrior numbers for MOS are easy to obtain for several of the programs. If this number has increased in OA where MOS is in place it'd be objective due to the largely older age requirements for MOS. (You must be Star or above to join)

My personal favorite MOS/OA situation is Black Hawk Lodge. Two councils merged in the mid 90's. the lodges merged, split, merged again and most recently half of the "council" just left the OA and formed a seperate program as of April/May based on MOS like their lodge was.

On strength do note that Heart of America has a 3000+ member lodge. seems strong is subjective.

---flyingember

training.oa-bsa.org

I think this would be appropriate to mention in the training section, but I'm not sure what program it was developed under... anyone know?

See Also

Should these links be included? They seem out of place here. All three appear to be Philmont programs and would more appropriate there (if they are not there already). PerlKnitter 19:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would make more sense to include Order of the Arrow Trail Crew and then move these links to that article for further info. --NThurston 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OATC

Should something be mentioned about the OATC (Order of the Arrow Trail Crew) program available at Philmont for arrowmen? --Mathboy965 16:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is discussed in depth in Philmont Scout Ranch- you might add a statement with a link. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversies"?

Guys,

I'd like to suggest that this sub-section be deleted from the O/A page, based on Wikipedia guidelines regarding controversies.

In the first place, the statements made are unsourced.

Secondly, while undoubtedly individual troops may have unfortunately elected unworthy scouts based on personal popularity and not scoutlike cheerful service, does this rise to the level of a major national debate? I think not, O/A election guidelines are quite clear and widely accepted. It is not the policy which is "controversial", but rather its supposed non-observance in some (unquantified) cases.

Likewise, regarding "secrecy", again it is settled policy that the O/A is not (and never has been) a secret society. Where is the raging "controversy" over this? Who disputes it? (Sources, please).

I'd propose that this sub-section be deleted if no one objects.

JGHowes 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not objecting to it being removed, but would like to know where the Wikipedia policy on this is. meamemg 03:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV#Undue weight JGHowes 20:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.....CQJ 02:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the secrecy part should stay (a quick Google will bear this out), but the popularity issue does not seem notable or prevalent. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've somewhat edited and relocated the texts regarding elections and secrecy to the relevant paragraphs dealing with those topics JGHowes 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Section

I found the article while searching for some history information, and in the process of reading the Organization section, some things popped out at me... since there seems to be a group already maintaining the page, I thought I'd make sure there was a consensus before changing anything.

  • The claim "Most lodges also have other youth officers such as Vice Chiefs of service and inductions, to lead certain activities of the lodge." isn't citied/sourced, and while it is true for several lodges that I am familiar with, Most might be going a bit too far (not to mention that it isn't wonderful grammar)... perhaps it would be better worded along the lines of "Most lodges also have other youth officers with more specific duties. Examples of this might include a Vice Chief of Inductions responsible for overseeing the induction process, or a Vice Chief of Service responsible for coordinating Lodge service days"
  • "OA activities, primarily meetings and service projects, are usually organized by the chapters." implies to me that the Chapters plan the events. In my experience, they often organize activities, but it might be better to explicitly state that they are in addition to those organized by National, the Region, the Section, and the Lodge.
  • The section talking about conclaves is also strangely worded. I'm not sure how to fix it without completely re-writing the paragraph...
  • I may be mistaken, but I believe that the statement "The sections are subdivisions of areas" is incorrect... I know that the Area is used in the naming scheme, but I don't believe the Area is recognized as being part of the OA organization...
  • The statement "The Section Chiefs in turn elect from their number the Region Chiefs and Vice-Chiefs, and the National Chief and National Vice-Chief, who serve two-year terms." is almost entirely incorrect; there is no region vice chief position, and all three real positions (RC, NC, NVC) are all one-year terms.
  • As part of the adults section, should the person responsible for appointing each adult be listed? (I believe it's Area Director -> Section Advisers, Scout Executive -> Lodge Adviser, Lodge Adviser -> Other Advisers)
  • Side note - in the OA, any position containing the word Adviser spells it with an e

If anyone has any feedback, please let me know. If there isn't any negative feedback in the next little while, I'll make the above changes (if it slips my mind, could someone please make the changes?). I should be able to provide citation for any of the above from the FOG. --EightBall1989 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&oldid=112627506"