Talk:Order of the Arrow

message: The first sentence in the second paragraph of this article states "Influenced by Scout camp customs, the OA uses "safeguarded" (privy only to members) symbols, handshakes, and private rituals to impart a sense of community."  While perhaps not entirely incorrect it is definitely not entirely correct either.  "Safeguarded" does not mean it is "privy only to members."
Based on the OA web site (https://oa-bsa.org/safeguarded-material) the term Safeguarded refers to:
:"Safeguarded MaterialTo ensure that Scouts and Scouters who may be going through various Order of the Arrow ceremonies in the future do not have their experience lessened or spoiled, some of the material on this web site is protected.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 you have any questions about this policy, or about the Order of the Arrow, contact your local Boy Scout council or lodge adviser."
As you will note in the above, the information is not privy only to members, but rather it is requested that the information not be shared with candidates for the levels shown to allow for the mystery of the process.  Even with this, a Scout can get access to the information.
In addition, the BSA official policy is there are no secret organizations in the BSA.  Youth protection guidelines prohibit this.  This section needs some rewrite.  I would suggest the "(privy only to members)" should either be stricken or rewritten to better describe the actual process.  When I read this article, I was given the definite impression this was a "secrete organization" and had things parents or other outsiders could not access.  This is a very wrong impression to leave on this great organization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motesewed (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with the language, but if you feel strongly, go edit it yourself. --evrik (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What appears to be an incorrect statement in the article 

message: Matt Dukeman is no longer the OA Director. Kilburn.C (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  OA Director 

message: The “History” section includes an incredible claim that the OA is uniquely influenced by Freemasonry, viz.: 
 The traditions and rituals of Freemasonry contributed more to the basic structure of the OA ritual than any other organization. In fact, there appears to be no known fraternal organization more faithful in form to Freemasonry than the OA.
The evidence given is scanty and is equally descriptive of numerous other organizations just within the United States. Considering that “no known fraternal organization” is a global claim, the passage is even more difficult to believe. It also may constitute original research and should be removed on that basis. 
I mention this here, rather than just deleting, because someone clearly put thought and effort into this passage and may be invested in keeping it intact. I don’t wish to trigger an edit war so am stating the case here for deletion before deleting. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. I would support this change. Please see my userpage for my noted COIs. Mrwoogi010✉ 21:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims re Freemasonry