Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 1

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

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

message: I have been under the impression that once a youth in OA hits 21, they need to be re-elected to the OA as an adult.  Am I mistaken, or is this a tradition/rule that varies from chapter/lodge to chapter/lodge? --Kcbnac 20:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken. Once a person has been inducted into the Order, they can never be removed from it. There are many adults that were inducted as youth and none of them have ever needed to be reinducted. This has been national policy since the founding of the Order, to my knowledge. Any lodge or chapter requiring a member to go through the ordeal again is in serious breach of policy. However, members may at any time choose to go through the ordeal as a candidate again, as a personal reaffirmation to their committments, but they must do so with the approval of the lodge leadership and retain whichever honor (Ordeal, Brotherhood, Vigil) they had before retaking the ordeal. ArrowmanCoder 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-inducted? 

message: Ever since I have been editing on this article, the following text has been dissappearing and reappearing from the article : 
(OA), or Wimachtendienk, Wingolauchsik, Witahemui (WWW) (Lenape for Brotherhood of Cheerful Service.
Now, I know there are those Scouts and Scouters out there who don't like this text.  I don't particularly like the fact that someone slapped a spoiler warning into this article and pulled out the straight text from National's own fact sheet in regards to the Order of the Arrow and the Ordeal, but I haven't edit warred on this issue.  Been tempted to, but haven't.
The fact remains, if we're going to strip out the WWW straight text from this article on the basis that it shouldn't be there due a supposed violation of the National Safeguard, then we need to rewrite this entire article from a non-member point of view and leave all of the extraneous stuff out.  It's not rocket science. KC9CQJ 22:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard specificly the WWWs, that was the orginization's official, public, and only name for its first decade or so of existance.  It didn't become the Order of the Arrow until sometime in the 1920s, when it became an official program experiment of the BSA. To not include the three Ws would be to deny that period of the order's history. Gentgeen 23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree with you that knowing the meaning of the 3 words is not nearly as likely to reduce the meaning of the induction for a new candidate.  Not compared to, say, details of the ceremony itself.  In general, I prefer less to be included here, but that's just my opinion.  Leaving out the English translation might be a good compromise if others agree.  Johntex\talk 20:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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