Talk:Order of the Arrow

Q1: Are the ceremonies a secret?

A1: No, the Boy Scouts of America now describe their ceremonies as "safeguarded", which they define very differently. In the past, Arrowmen were admonished to keep these details secret, but in the 1980s, the BSA introduced new Youth Protection program policies which include:

The Boy Scouts of America does not recognize any secret organizations as part of its program. All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders.

• "Guide to Safe Scouting: Youth Protection & Adult Leadership". Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2008-11-07.

The BSA has made clear that any legitimately concerned person may view videos of ceremonies, attend meetings, or read scripts upon request to assure themselves that there is nothing objectionable. Such persons are asked to safeguard the details relating to ceremonies for the sake of the participants.

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.

• "Safeguarded Material". Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2008-11-07.

If after discussing the ceremony with the lodge advisor, the parent, Scout leader or religious leader continues to have questions about the content of the ceremony, that person will be permitted to read the ceremony text and view the Ordeal's ceremony training DVD. Following this, parents will be in a position to decide whether to allow their son to participate in the ceremony. Nonmembers should not attend the ceremonies.

• Order of the Arrow Handbook. Boy Scouts of America. 2008.

Much information is now publicly available from the BSA; for example, information on the Ordeal induction is available on the BSA website and in other BSA publications.

• "Order of the Arrow". Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2010-06-24.
• Davis, Kenneth P (1990). The Brotherhood of Cheerful Service: A History of the Order of the Arrow. Irving, TX: Boy Scouts of America. ISBN 0839549989.

Q2: What if I want to add content that is considered to be safeguarded?

A2:

Further information: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not censored

Safeguarded material 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. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on whether or not it is safeguarded, but on whether it is appropriate to include in the article.

Q3: Are the official publications secret?

A3: No. The BSA will sell The Order of the Arrow Handbook to anyone, although some council Scout Shops may still believe it is a restricted item. Current and old versions of the handbook are readily available elsewhere. When adding content, care must be taken to use the current versions of publications.

Q4: Can I publish the passwords to protected content?

A4: No. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the act of circumventing any access control. The English Wikipedia operates under the laws of the United States and the state of Florida. It is unlikely that any website we could link to legitimately would protect their content with a password.

Q5: Can I link to copyrighted publications posted on a website?

A5:

Further information: Wikipedia:External links § Restrictions on linking

No. We cannot link to illegally published material. Only websites operated by the National Council of the BSA are allowed to publish BSA copyrighted material. Council, district and other sites that are publishing such copyrighted material are in violation of the BSA's copyright policies.

• "Local Council Web site Guidelines". Boy Scouts of America. Retrieved 2010-02-11.

External links to content that violates copyrights may be considered contributory infringement.

Q6: Are editors who are members of the OA in conflict of interest?

A6:

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Only when they violate the core of the conflict of interest guideline:

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

Regular editors who are Arrowmen have voluntarily disclosed their association on their userpages and on the talk page of this article.

Q7: What about the lyrics to The Order of the Arrow Song?

A7:

Further information: Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry

The song was written by E. Urner Goodman who died in 1980. It has been continuously published in The Order of the Arrow Handbook, a copyrighted publication. The earliest the copyright would expire is 70 years after the death of the author: 2050. How much of the song could or should be included is open to interpretation, especially given the short length.

Parents Attending Ceremonies

Recently someone added that concerned parents, religious leaders, etc. may watch a video of the ceremony if there is concern. That is correct if you are referring to concern over the content of the ceremony. If you are talking about concern based on youth protection policies which the section is talking about, then a parent is allowed to attend. Within scouting there are no events where parents aren't allowed to attend (except for Board of Reviews). There are procedures in place such that concerns can be addressed (i.e. if the concern is about the content of the ceremony the parent can view a video before, if they are just trying to see their son receive an award they are suggested that it isn't really appropriate, etc.) If you want to rewrite the entire section to mention this you can, but a far as youth protection goes a parent does have the right to attend. Marauder40 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not provided a reliable source for your claim, "should not" does not equal can not. All training materials for Youth Protection have the specific case, where a Chapter Adviser is deniying a parent can attend a ceremony and it says that a parent is allowed to attend. The specific case you stated on my talk page about a scout Executive talking to a youth is wrong. A parent has the right to be at any meetings where the scout is present, whether the exercise that right or not is their choice. The only thing a parent cannot be present is the Board of Review. Youth protection polices are not trumped by OA polices, youth protection takes precidence. That being said, youth protection is the only reason, like I said, parent just wanting to see little Johnny receive his reward is something different. Marauder40 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The OA explicitly removed a line from the book that previously granted parents permission to attend ceremonies and replaced it with two statements that they should not attend, along with an exact process for addressing the concerns of parents. It's not like we're talking about one council's policies here - the Boy Scouts of America that created the youth protection policy is the same Boy Scouts of America that says parents cannot attend ceremonies. If you do not have a copy of the 2007 handbook, you are operating with old information. The parent's opportunity to "observe" this aspect of the program is that they can talk with the adviser, read the script, and watch the video. --B (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't provided proof of what you are saying, "should not" does not equal "can not". The Youth Protection training specifically gives this case and says that a parent CAN attend. Even the thing you provide says that Lodge Advisers have been provided with the proper procedures to address this. Do you have those policies? I saw preliminary versions of the policies and they include figuring out why the person wants to see (i.e. religious reasons vs. other reasons) and addresses how to handle each. Marauder40 (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the date on this youth protection training? Is it pre-2007? Is it online somewhere? The procedure is given in the OA handbook, just as the update says. I summarized it for you and can email you a scan of the page from the book if you want. The fact that they explicitly removed the statement saying that concerned parents could attend the ceremony, replaced it with a statement saying they should not, and released a policy update to say they should not ought to mean something. Can I prove "can not" means "should not"? That's picking apart semantics - the plain language makes it obvious that parents attending is no longer an option. They have three remedies spelled out in the book if they are concerned - (1) read the script, (2) watch the video, (3) don't allow little Johnny to attend. Period. If they don't want little Johnny to attend without them being there, then little Johnny isn't going to attend. --B (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You will have to take the youth protection training course to see the message. It is current and the latest policies available. Feel free to register and take the course it is available at http://olc.scouting.org/ A case of "should not" and "can not" is important. If you have looked at the Guide for Safe Scouting they have two types of policies. Those in bold and those not in bold, anything not in bold is a guideline. You are required to follow the things in bold, those things not in bold are guidelines. "Should not" equals a guideline "can not" equals a requirement. I have dealt with stuff like this in the past where we needed to have a parent at a VIGIL ceremony because the child was handicapped. If you want to re-write the paragraph to reflect what the actual policy says you can, but just changing it the way you want IMHO doesn't reflect reality. Of course what happens in the end depends on concensus. Marauder40 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Having a parent attend for a handicapped child or having a non-OA interpreter attend if someone needs sign language are different situations. I have encountered both situations before (albeit never with a vigil ceremony) and have no problem with it, nor do I think that it is out of line with the new policy. This policy is specifically addressing remedies for parents who are concerned with content of the ceremonies and the like, not with all conceivable situations involving a non-member possibly being at the ceremonial grounds that have nothing whatsoever to do with assuaging parents' concerns. A handicapped child has nothing to do with this situation. I will go online tonight and review the training video, but if it is the same one I saw several years back, it probably predates the policy change. --B (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)See that is what I am getting at. There is a difference between it being an absolute versus a guideline. I have been saying all along that the important thing is why is the parent wanting to come. If the reason is to see little Johnny receive an award they need to be discouraged and even told no. If the reason is they are concerned for religious reasons then they can see a video or get a copy of the actual script. If the reason is they are truely concerned for youth protection reasons an adviser can suggest things like having another adult that is in the OA that the parent trusts attend in their place and things like that, but youth protection policy would require the parent to be allowed if they are truely concerned. This all assumes that the parent brought this up before, if they waited till last minute, then it is another ballgame. As for the training it isn't a video it is flash based, it is totally new, I hadn't seen it before and I took the online version a couple years ago. Marauder40 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest OA policy is that parents who are concerned are to discuss it with the lodge leadership. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To say "Youth protection polices are not trumped by OA polices, youth protection takes precedence" creates an artificial dichotomy – there is only one BSA which sets national policy, after all, and policies do change. The most recent BSA guidance is the 2008 OA Handbook, which can be cited in this article as a reliable source. It was published two years later than current reference [#34} and states:

"If after discussing the ceremony with the lodge advisor, the parent, Scout leader or religious leader continues to have questions about the content of the ceremony, that person will be permitted to read the ceremony text and view the Ordeal's ceremony training DVD. Following this, parents will be in a position to decide whether to allow their son to participate in the ceremony. Nonmembers should not attend the ceremonies."  JGHowes  ^talk 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of what I was trying to get at. If the editor wanted to put up the actual quote and modify the article to reflect the changes that was fine. To just add that the adult may watch a video if there is a concern to the youth protection part of the article didn't reflect the actual policy. The modification made it sound like if a person was concerned about youth protection they could just watch a video. Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes to reflect the OA guidelines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

I have no problem with criticism of ceremonies and the like. The issue here is of reliable sources.

The last addition was from a web site that appears to have the name of RACISM, STEREOTYPING, DISCRIMINATION, OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR. There is absolutely no indication of who operates the site; the page for Who wrote this site? is useless. The discussion link does not work.

There is a link to a "success story" about the Indian Guides dropping the Indian theme and becoming Adventure Guides— this rather implies that the site operators were significant in this, but the linked news article has no related information. Nor does it mention the formation of the Native Sons and Daughters as a continuation.

Bottom line: if it cannot be attributed to a specific person or organization that can be evaluated, then it cannot be considered reliable. If the editor who added the content disagrees with my assessment, they can discuss it on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's established as a primary source, the critical opinion is still problematic for inclusion if it hasn't been discussed in independent, secondary sources (per WP:FRINGE). The first time this was added, I reverted it because it had only unsourced WP:WEASEL attribution, therefore not meeting our core policy of verifiability. I've also looked at the source subsequently cited in the second attempt, but it appears to be merely an unpublished letter to the organization. Unless there are reliable independent sources discussing the criticism, it's not appropriate for inclusion, per WP:SOAP.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct— the linked site will never pass the tests for verifiability. Its anonymity is just one issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Those interested, please review this article, reprinted for free on the site linked above, for reliability and other concerns.

Brantmeier, Edward J. (1 August 2002), "Scout gathering allows stereotypes of American Indians to be repeated." The Herald-Times.

Also, for those interested in researching OA critiques, please see the 2007 discussion in the archives.

Dkreisst (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Cultural Appropriation and the Crafting of Racialized Selves in American Youth Organizations," by Pauline Turner Strong, published recently (April 2009) in the journal Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies may have some use, though I don't have access to it. Similarly inaccessible is "Teaching American Indian Studies to Reflect American Indian Ways of Knowing and to Interrupt Cycles of Genocide," by Laurence William Gross, in the Wicazo Sa Review, Fall 2005. Dkreisst (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)OK, I do not have the financial resources to access any of your sources, can you provide the information so that I can review them for my understanding of what you are trying to say? The web site as noted above is dead, no new content in over 2 years and authors are anonymous. The Herald Times is behind a firewall and asks for a subscription. Can you provide the column, otherwise it is just noise to me. The Order of the Arrow is not about Indian singing and dancing, It is about what is stated in the 4-fold purpose of the OA. I would gladly get rid of all the Indian dancing and singing if I were in charge, however it will take years of effort in teaching at NOAC's and section conclaves. Not editing of this page to push a personal agenda which has not been clearly explained.

Tkopechief (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Please note that KeenWh is also Tkopechief. I regret any confusion.

Working with this user on his user name problem. See Tkopechief talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the link to the site that has reprinted the Herald-Times article. Dkreisst (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't think that wikipedia's citation requirements include the provision that the source must be free. If that were true, all books would not be allowed, right? Dkreisst (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement sources have to be free, nor even in English. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will reinstate the criticism section then. Unless there are other concerns? Dkreisst (talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk)Who cares? The website is dead. No update since 2007 and the authors refuse to identify themselves. The only part I may be interested in is if Edward J. Brantmeier, an associate instructor of Cultural Immersion Projects, School of Education at Indiana University has anything new to add as there is another NOAC at IU this year. Frankly, the only honest criticism would be around the Indian Dancing performed in some Order of the Arrow Lodge's. Indian Lore is not a purpose of the OA. Can the criticism make this point?

Brantmeier is now an assistant professor at Colorado State University.[1] He seems to specialize in peace education (crisis management, conflict resolution, peer mediation) and has written a book on it. He has done some work with American Indians, specifically Navajos. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh, I'm not sure what you are asking folks to care or not to care about, but if you are interested in Brantmeier's article, you will find that it does mention Order of the Arrow's Native American-style dancing as part of his critique regarding the cultural appropriation of Native American culture. Whether teaching "Indian Lore" is a purpose of Order of the Arrow or not has less to do with the article than the fact that Order of the Arrow uses tropes of American Indian stereotypes to construct its own identity. Dkreisst (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes the opinion of one assistant professor notable enough to justify the recently added Criticism section? This does not adhere sufficiently to Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE:

•Is the section's sole cite a reliable source and, secondly, is the ref correctly used here?

Brantmeier wrote "Scout gathering allows stereotypes of American Indians to be repeated", as a Guest Column in the August 1, 2002, Bloomington (IN) Herald-Times. It is an opinion piece, not a newspaper article by a staff reporter. At the time, he was an associate instructor of Cultural Immersion at Indiana University and was responding to the Herald-Times ' favorable coverage of a national Order of the Arrow conference held at IU in 2002. WP:RS states that opinion columns should not be cited as news reports, but only as a reliable source about the opinion of a notable author. To be cited here, we must ask, is Brantmeier notable? With all due respect to Brantmeier, he is no more notable than the average assistant college professor, based on the notability guidelines of WP:PROFESSOR.

•Is this criticism given undue weight?

The opinion of one college academic does not adequately support the section's opening sentence, "American Indian advocates have criticized the Order of the Arrow... ". He represents no group and is speaking only for himself. To refer to plural "advocates" conveys to the reader that this is a widespread or commonly held view, which is misleading and inaccurate, nor does the cited source say that.

Now, let's be clear: if a duly constituted tribal council or a notable Native American rights organization or spokesman (such as AIM or Russell Means), criticized the BSA for its OA program and it was reported by reliable secondary sources, e.g., news media, then that would certainly be significant and justify full coverage in a Criticism or Controversy section of the Wikipedia article about this organization. But, as it is, all we have is one educator's personal opinion, which arguably is no more than WP:FRINGE.

To quote Jimmy Wales:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

In the absence of any reliable sources verifying that this viewpoint is held by more than a tiny minority, the Criticism section should be removed.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Brantmeier's article is an opinion piece. In the opinion piece, he brings up actions taken by the Order of the Arrow and comments on them, which falls in line with the criticism written in the wikipedia article. However, if wikipedia does not consider opinion pieces reliable (rightly, I think), we should find other references.

As for undue weight, I disagree. Order of the Arrow itself is not widely known, even, at times, in boys scouts itself. It would make sense that any criticism of it would happen infrequently and in formats not regularly checked by non-scholars. I think that a criticism section in the of Order of the Arrow article would strengthen its notability and certainly it would make the article more complete. Dkreisst (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

KeenWh (talk) Firstly, Order of the Arrow is widely known in Boy Scouts itself. Unless you live in some insular location like St. Joseph MO or Long Beach CA. Only 2 local BSA councils do not have chartered OA lodges. My point is that all Indian dancing and associated activities have no place in fulfilling the purpose of the OA. Whether the 4 principles in the OA ceremonies should wear any kind of Indian vestments may be debatable. I have trained OA ceremonies teams and I have always trained from the acting craft, in other words, no "wooden indians", all natural and relaxed posture, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of the Order of the Arrow could be completely (and probably better) fulfilled without reference to Native American people. However, what the critism section points out is that Order of the Arrow does use Native American culture, currently and historically, and that the fact that it does is inappropriate. As noted (far) above by KeenWh, removing all references to Native American culture, including a name change, would take a lot of work. But that is neither here nor there, as this is not a forum for how Order of the Arrow should be run, but an article about what Order of the Arrow is.

I support removing the criticism section unless an editor finds a different reference to support the statements in the section. Dkreisst (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A note to fellow editors, I'll be taking a break for two weeks. Thanks for you reviews and feedback. Dkreisst (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Tkopechief (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)I should refer back to the original concern, the Order of the Arrow (OA) uses the trope of the archetype as providing a form of growth and change for boys who have been chosen as their representative of boys in their Scout Troop who exemplify the Scout Oath and Law. As an example I would reference Joseph Campbell The man with a Thousand Faces, also the Song of Hiawatha, by Longfellow. At this point, the only reference to Indian Lore is the point that this is a sidelight, not important. The only authority that any OA Lodge should refer to is what is produced from the National Office in reference to the OA. I accept with over 300 BSA Councils, getting them all to accept this is a challenge. I do not understand what native american culture means. If a large group of "native americans" can explain this I could understand. I should make clear it comes down to whether my family arrived 500 or 10,000 years, I need a better argument.

Let us get back in focus here— this is not a forum. We need to discuss the article based on reliable sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

History

"At one time, many Lodges included an actual "blood brother" ceremony as part of the Brotherhood initiation ritual; usually involving pricking the middle finger of the right hand (unlike other uniformed Scouts and Scouters, OA members exchange handshakes with their right hands), moving from the ceremonial chief to the first inductee in line, he, in turn passing it to the second, and so on, until the last inductee, who would become blood brothers with the ceremonial medicine man. These "blood brother" ceremonies were banned in the 1960s and '70s, as the public awareness of danger of blood-bourne pathogens increased."

Sounds like this is before my time, but is certainly needs a source. The left handshake became standard in 1972 for all, including the Order of the Arrow. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree it needs a source, I have seen copies of the reproduction of the original ceremony (which was very different from the current ceremonies) and many old copies of the ceremony books and none of them mention blood brothers or blood transfer. Unless it is verifiable it should be deleted.Marauder40 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While it does need sourcing, I took an OA history class at NOAC last week which did cover how the OA integrated itself before most of the BSA, and that this was so controversial because in the brotherhood ceremony actual blood was drawn and transferred. According to the teacher, this was stopped after one brother told his parents, who were doctors, about it, and they made a fuss about how dangerous it was. It was officially stopped by National in the 1950s, but some lodges continued to do it into the 1960s. Again, I sadly don't have a published source, just what I heard from this guy who's been in the OA for like 50 years. – Joe N 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As you well know, I heard it at NOAC doesn't qualify as a reliable source. You don't even know if the teacher had all the correct facts unless the teacher was someone like Ken Davis (author of several books on the history of the OA.) If I was still active in my lodge I could ask Ken himself, but sadly I can't. This needs sourcing because there could be questions about whether it was part of the official ceremony or just a local variant. It may have happened, just like others on here, this was before my time of entering the OA in the mid 80s. Marauder40 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course that doesn't qualify as a reliable source and I didn't mean to claim that it did, I was just putting forward what I had heard to the best of my knowledge. – Joe N 00:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I maybe able to find a source. It would be a policy statement from the National Order of the Arrow Committee. Would this be acceptable? Also, another source would be when the brotherhood ceremony was republished to exclude this practice. Would date of publication be sufficient? On a side note, I have never found any official OA publication to refer to "tapout", only "callout". How can this be addressed so that, yes some lodges have used the term "tapout" but official publications seem only to refer to "callout".```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 02:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You will have to go back to the 70s to find references to tapout. They used to literally drag candidates out of the audience, run them through a short ceremony and tap them on the shoulder, sometimes as hard as they could. With the Youth Protection programs in the 80s, anything that could be perceived as hazing has been removed and any additions are expressly forbidden. The name was changed to callout, the candidate is simply escorted from the audience and there is a gentle shoulder tap. This is really more in depth than needed in the article; and we do note Youth Protection and the prohibition against hazing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you missed what I said, nowhere in the literature was "Tapout" mentioned, only "Callout". By the way I was around it the 60's and 70's. I realize that it took "Youth Protection" to force the issue. I would state that term was always "Callout" but until "Youth Protection" a number of lodges would say "Tapout", the name change forced these lodge's in compliance with correct terminology. This is a semantics issue which many readers may not understand. If that is the case I'll leave it there.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(←)I actually just recently completed my Brotherhood ceremony, and I can see where an actual blood brother ceremony could have been assumed to have happened.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(looking at the FAQ, I will proceed) Basically, take a blood brother ceremony, replace the blood with paint, and you have pretty much what we did.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pulled my 1975 Order of the Arrow Handbook where it is referred to as the "calling out ceremony"; seems like tapout and callout are informal names. The same chapter also states a no hazing policy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-criticism statements

I re-added the following statement after it was removed by an anonymous editor:

This attitude is not universal however, and many American Indian tribes actively participate and advise the OA Lodges and Chapters in their area, to make their regalia, make-up and ceremonies more authentic; the Seminoles of Florida and the Oglala and Yankton Sioux of the Dakotas are among tribal groups who see the Arrowmen as a force for helping to preserve and promote tribal culture.

I remember myself as a youth a large controversy over the use of face paint erupted across the organization, with a statement from national saying not to do it unless you have specific permission to use specific patterns and colors from a local tribe. My lodge was one of those who did receive permission (even though we had rarely used face paint in ceremonies before, and rarely did afterwords). There is obviously documentation of this kind of working relationships between lodges and tribes, so hopefully someone with more time on their hands can help find some? - IanCheesman (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Team Leader

Looking at the National Bulletins, Mayer was listed as the national director as of May 2009, but in August he is listed as the OA team leader; Carey Miller was the associate national director but is now the OA specialist. Anyone know what this is about? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• The OA changed the titles for some of the positions. Clyde and Carey are still essentially in the same position, just with different titles. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)