Talk:Order of the Arrow

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Order of the Arrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213042152/http://scouting.org:80/Media/AnnualReports/2007/11memtotals.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/AnnualReports/2007/11memtotals.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719004053/http://www.wfhb.org:80/news/daily-local-news-july-14-2009 to http://www.wfhb.org/news/daily-local-news-july-14-2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll check on these when I get home; archive.org is blocked by my workplace's webfilters. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The links look correct. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of ceremonies

As a Boy Scout leader, I think it is positive and shows respect to mention potential concerns with the issue of Indian American appropriation. The "STATEMENT OF U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS ON THE USE OF NATIVE AMERICAN IMAGES AND NICKNAMES AS SPORTS SYMBOLS" is relevant in a fair unbiased article on the Order of the Arrow 15:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stocksdale (talk • contribs)

 So, how does a handshake sash ribbon pin and so on impinge on native americans. The ceremonies where based on many sources. Is THE SONG OF HIAWATHA evil? I like poetry for the singing in the lines and the vision. Maybe the boys doing the ceremony should only wear black robes and no reference to any culture. So, if a boy who's father wrote some story about living as a member of a tribe some where? But the son is an eagle scout and OA member? Keep the concept of local tribe consultation. What is the proper place for this other informtion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeenWh (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC) 

I think the Order of the arrow is a great organization. I'm a leader in Boy Scouts. However in a fair and balanced article, it would be appropriate to include these concerns. It is wikipedia, not a public relations article. (talk • contribs) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And what are your credentials to claim you are a leader. So what. When I see this argument on the Tribe of Mic-O-Say page then I will accept your claim. Until then, why does mic-o-say get a pass? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:8200:1DFD:983B:C8D3:24F5:24C3 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |}

I also want to point out the the OotA is not a "Honor Society", the qualification is simply to be voted in. Wulfy95113 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Indian vs. Native American

While it's mentioned in the FAQ, I don't actually see where in talk consensus was to use "American Indian" here, instead of "Native American" as is substantially more common elsewhere on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia isn't an extension of the BSA, the use of the BSA's manual of style is entirely optional and up for debate. Obviously, consistency with Wikipedia takes priority over consistency with the BSA's published materials, since this is not a platform for promotion. Discussions I've seen in the archive seem to be based on WP:OR-anecdote and personal opinion, which are unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not attached to one term over the other. Personally, I don't see a reason to change from the BSA's manual of style since it's already consistent with the rest of the BSA-related articles. While NA may be more prevalent than AI, it looks like there are other articles using American Indian and Indigenous people. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

While, I guess I'm not either, but it does seem odd to have this be a FAQ issue if it hasn't been discussed before. I tend to prefer links to match article titles as closely as possible, but maybe I'm being dogmatic. If nobody else feels strongly about it, I'll drop it. Grayfell (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Association with Native American Cultures

@PeaceandHonor: There are several very serious problems with the changes you have been aggressively attempting to add to this article. Using primary sources to explain the history of this highly controversial aspect in extremely flattering language would be bad enough. ...respect for Native Americans is profuse... is one of several examples editorializing, non-neutral language. This is a claim being made by some in the BSA, not an objective fact. That you have added this information in detail as a prelude to the entire section about the controversy primes the reader to take a specific, more flattering view of this issue, which is not acceptable.

These sources are also unacceptable for this perspective. These are relatively obscure articles from specific BSA groups, not outside documents about this issue. Due weight doesn't mean balanceing both sides of an issue, because that is false balance. It means covering it in proportion to how reliable, independent sources cover it. If you know of reliable, independent sources discussing how effusively respectful the BSA is towards whatever tribe happens to be convenient to them, let's see them. I think if such sources exist, you would've already added them.

As a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion of any group, no matter how ostensibly noble its intentions might be. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello Grayfell. The Order of the Arrow article now presents, accurately, that some Native Americans approve of the use of Native American elements as part of the organization, while some Native Americans criticize this as inauspicious cultural appropriation. Previously, the article presented the situation as if all Native Americans criticized the OA for cultural appropriation. As Native Americans are not a monolithic group and there is diversity of opinion, the article now properly reflects the reality of the situation. As for labeling the last section of the article with a banner saying "This section contains content written like an advertisement," this criticism is inapplicable, as if the section were advertising the OA, the section would not include robust perspective of criticism that is many times longer than the previous version of the criticism that was present on the page. An advertisement for an organization would not present such criticism; instead, the section provides multiple perspectives. Merely showing the OA's perspective is not an advertisement, just as showing the perspective of detractors is not an advertisement for that position. I humbly request that you therefore remove the "Written like an advertisement tag". Thank you.

You are correct that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of any group. That is why the article was insufficient before. On the subject of use of Native American traditions as applied by the OA, the article previously exclusively promoted the view of the group of those who view this as negative. The article now provides perspectives of those who are supporters of this, in addition to perspectives of those who are detractors.

I understand your point about some language "flattering" and agree that some of the language could be adjusted to make it less so. As for the sources I used, if criticizing them on the grounds they are "relatively obscure" is to be a legitimate one, then numerous sources that were used in this article before I edited it at all and that were used to say that the BSA is engaging in inauspicious cultural appropriation would need to be removed, as they are "relatively obscure."

Please take these factors into consideration. The goal here is balance and factual accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor (talk • contribs) 03:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources, like this one, should be contextualized by reliable, independent sources.

@PeaceandHonor: This is a complicated issue, and trying to represent this mainly from the perspective of the BSA is only going to complicate it further. If you're associated with the BSA, you should review WP:COI, as this might explain some of my alarm at your edits.

The section as it was before was covering a discrete issue: that some NA groups strongly objected to how the overwhelmingly non-native BSA has been treating their many cultures for over a hundred years. There are many reasons for why this has been a problem, but this is long-term issue according to these sources.

If this article is going to use Wp:primary sources from within the BSA to discuss this, there are two big problems that need to be handled first.

First: They absolutely needs to handle it in the context established by the other sources. If sources do not explicitly mention the issue of cultural appropriation, then we have a high risk of this being original research. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research, and this includes linking two sources together to make a point not made by either alone (known as WP:SYNTH). If the BSA is changing its guidelines to be more sensitive to tribes, this should be explained (ideally by independent sources) in that context. Priming the section by covering how super-duper sensitive they are now, while downplaying how unbelievably crass they were in the relatively recent past, is cherry-picking the most flattering sources while ignoring the context which produced those sources.

Think of it this way, if you can add current PR or guidebook material, I could come along and add older material which (accurately) reflects the more overtly offensive and condescending history of the society, right? Wikipedia historical view, and so this isn't based on who can do the deepest digging of sources to support their view (although I admit it feels that way sometimes).

Second, and closely related: All sources, even sources from the BSA, need to be reliable and proportional. While it might seem pedantic, the BSA's own material is not inherently usable for this content. Wikipedia strongly favors Wp:secondary sources for this kind of thing. Instead of finding a quote from some random BSA website which tangentially supports a general point about how respectful they are, and then trying to counterpoint it with a arbitrarily selected quote from Lastrealindians.com (which I believe is just a blog, and isn't usable at all), we need to find a way to summarize this. We judge sources by context. Wikipedia seldom includes PR from companies or other organizations because the context of those sources makes them less encyclopedically important. When something is contested, context is established by outside sources.

Does that explain my concerns? Grayfell (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I appreciate your elaboration of your concerns and, to be abundantly clear, agree that the use of Native American elements by the OA and BSA is a sensitive issue. It must be recognized, however, that in Native American communities there are differing opinions on this issue, and that the article NOW conveys this, whereas the article before my edits was disrespectful to Native Americans who support the OA's use of their cultural elements, as the article previously excluded their perspective. The diversity of perspectives enriches the thoroughness of this article's discussion of this topic.

I reviewed the details of Wikipedia's guidelines for using primary and/or secondary sources, and it is indubitable that as per those guidelines, a sufficient number of secondary sources were used as the basis for the general construction of this article so as to permit employment of primary sources therein. In fact, as a result of my edits, the percentage of sources for the Order of the Arrow article that are NOT primary sources INCREASED. I reviewed the guidelines on synthesis and the details on avoiding original research, and after careful and meticulous review of that which I wrote based on the sources I provided, I am confident that each of the statements I wrote is sufficiently in accordance with the context of the source material and that multiple sources were not combined to form some assertion not originally present in the sources. As for your assertion that the article should make mention of past practices of the OA that were found offensive, it already does because of my edits: I detailed how the OA previously allowed face paint and religious dances and that when this was allowed, this was found to be offensive. I also am confident based on the context of those presenting the material that the sources I cited with regard to support and opposition to the use of Native American cultural elements by the OA are sufficiently reliable.

As for your concern that the phrasing of the section in question is such that it is too supportive of the OA, I will adjust the text right now so as to allay your concern. With all this said, I believe it will be appropriate, following the imminent conclusion of my adjustments to the phrasing of the section to make it more neutral in tone, for the "advertisement" tag to be removed. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeaceandHonor (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@PeaceandHonor: First a couple of technical things: Please sign your posts per WP:SIGNATURE. Otherwise, the "re:" template will not notify the person you are trying to contact. Also, please use colons to indent each paragraph more (or at least differently) than the paragraph you are responding too. Yes, it's weird, to say the least. Wikipedia's talk pages have some odd conventions inherited from its older software. Following these will make it much easier to keep track of the conversation. The preview button is very helpful, here.

On to the article. Since we are discussing this, I wish you would've waited on removing the advert template. This is still being contested, so until consensus is reached, the problem has not been resolved. I request, as a show of good faith, you restore the template until we have reached consensus. I have many problems with the current content. As I review this, I have some problems with the entire article, also, but I would like to tackle this one thing at a time.

I'm going to get into the nitty-gritty of the section. I'm not oblivious to the many problems the previous version had. To be blunt, I don't think these changes are an improvement which is why I reverted them, but that doesn't mean it was perfect before, or even good. So let's discuss how it is now.

So, do sources lump all NA groups together in opposing the BSA's activities? Who is saying they do? I would argue that it's just as condescending to assume the need to spell out the existence of both a pro and con-camp as it is to treat all NA as monolithic. Both are gross simplifications. I understand the urge, but we shouldn't have to bend-over backwards to remind people that people are people. Any given person from any given tribe will hold a nuanced opinion on this, and the endorsement of some tribal members, as reported by the BSA, really doesn't mean much. A better approach, which doesn't risk false balance, is to weigh and summarize each source without presenting is as representative of some larger trend. Unless, of course, a reliable source explicitly supports this as a trend. This is not just my opinion, this is how Wikipedia usually works. Well, this is my opinion on how Wikipedia works, anyway.

Your edits were a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Saying "for example" is a form of editorializing. If you have a source which says this is one example among many, you could attribute this claim to that source. Otherwise, this is using a single source to make a broad but vague implication about the entire organization. I hope it's clear why "broad but vague" isn't going to cut it. Likewise, using "however" to cover past use of face paint is misrepresenting the issue. Worse, this is also unsourced. This is totally unacceptable. This is essentially burying the society's controversial and offensive behavior in the middle of a paragraph explaining how much better they are now. This is, by the way, what I meant on my talk page when I said that adding controversy was compatible with promotional intent. The article is now explaining it, barely, in a way that is mostly flattering and contemporary, based entirely on the BSA's own sources. Obvious complaints have been answered before they have been raised, which is a classic advertising technique.

As for the "other side", why is Ozheebeegay Ikwe's opinion being included based on a single source? Who is she? Is that source reliable? If we do not have a reliable source for this, it doesn't belong. Without any other context, the article is essentially using her to represent the entirety of opposition to these practices. This is exactly backwards, isn't it? There is no monolithic reason to oppose this, instead there are many individual people who are opposed to this. Citing one as an example is arbitrary. It's not even clear why you chose that particular quote from her. The article raises some interesting points, so why is this the quote that's being used? This quote is not a summary of the article at all. If you cannot summarize a source, secondary sources are necessary. Not just optional, but necessary.

We have a source from Indian Country Media Network, which is (from what I know) a reputable outlet. This source is being used for a single sentence. This sentence is then followed by a much longer paragraph about how the BSA started a fund to send a few dozen "American Indian" scouts to camp every year. This is, again, from another entirely routine internal source, which incidentally, mentions "...our nation's American Indian culture...", singular. Even that is in the context of discussing the person the fund is named for, not anything at all about NA Scouts. Nothing. This is an about page with information on financial donations to the fund, not a document discussing the reason the fund exists. Adding it in response to the points raised by the much longer, much more interesting ICT source seems... bizarre frankly.

I could go on, but this is already far too long. While I acknowledge your intentions are good, I hope this explains why this content is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Grayfell (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Grayfell: Hello, Grayfell. I had removed the banner because I had thought that my edits had sufficiently addressed your concerns, but have restored the banner as per your request.

As for the content of the article, it is inevitable that no Wikipedia article, because of the nature of how Wikipedia works and because people have the right to have opinions different from others, will ever be totally in accordance with an individual's preferred form as to how the article should appear. In this context, it appears that there are components of the article that I view as sufficient that you do not, and I am confident that there are components of the article that you view as sufficient that I do not. In light of this, it therefore is important to prioritize components of the article for potential adjustment, and not overly devote focus to every single component of the article.

Before we continue, I was alarmed to see on your personal talk page that in a conversation with another editor you characterized my edits as "blatantly promotional garbage," which is a fundamental mischaracterization of the overall nature of my edits. I am highly offended that you referred to my work to achieve greater neutrality, greater accuracy, and enhanced detail on an important topic in this article as such, and I hope that you will, as a result of this overall experience, be more open to the perspectives of others and truly seek to understand their views.

I appreciate that you acknowledge the previous version of the article was problematic. It is precisely because it was problematic that I performed the adjustments I performed. In essence, I provided more context and detail, with greater diversity of voice, as to why some Native Americans have found aspects of the OA to be problematic, and because Native Americans are not a monolithic group, added details on some Native Americans supporting the OA. As per the diversity of perspective, adding details on the BSA's own view of its relationship with Native Americans as well was essential for a more thorough understanding of the context of the overall situation.

One of the main criticisms you have had of the section as stated is that, from your perspective, it provides a "false balance." It is undoubtedly true that one's life experiences and endeavors highly affect one's perceptions, and that a significant reason why people's opinions vary is because they have encountered different sets of data. While you perceive the section to provide a false balance, I perceive the section to now provide sufficient balance based on the reality of the circumstances. There is no condescension here; there is mere identification that some Native Americans support the activities of the OA, while some Native Americans do not support the activities of the OA, with details provided for each to help readers better understand the context.

I also appreciate that you viewed my edits as a step in the right direction. I think that calling for "for example" to be removed because you perceive it to be not in accordance with Wikipedia's editorializing policy is a bit of a stretch, but I will restructure that section to address that. My edits to that part as well will address the "broad but vague" aspect of your criticism.

You mentioned that you had fault with the use of "however" in the sentence about face paint, and yet the word "however" does not appear in the sentence. You criticized the face paint discussion as unsourced, whereas a source IS provided for this; the sentence regarding face paint, and the subsequent sentence, are covered by the source immediately after the two sentences together. I have seen NUMEROUS Wikipedia articles throughout the years source material this way: covering multiple sentences that together are based on material from one source with a citation to the source at the end of that group of sentences, without each sentence needing a cite link. Your criticism of the face paint component is a nitpick (you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into the way I wrote that sentence), and based on the fact that, as mentioned before, the breadth of the overall criticism of the OA's practices now is far greater in the article as a result of my edits than it previously was, with numerous paragraphs and details added regarding modern criticism, this fundamentally undermines the idea you have asserted that controversy was added to the article for promotional intent, and very importantly completely undermines the legitimacy of having the "advertisement" tag present.

If you look at the complete history of the article, Ikwe's article was first used as a source many years ago and therefore was part of the page for many years. I decided to adjust the way it was used for the article to emphasize her point so as to provide more context on one dimension of why Native Americans have contested the OA's practices. As the page sourced her article for many years and you did not have a problem with it as a source before, it should not be a problem to use her as a source now. Based on the context of her statements, she is a sufficiently reliable source. Your criticism that highlighting her statement in particular is flawed because it presents there as being a monolithic, singular reason to oppose the OA's practices is completely undermined by the fact the article is explicitly clear that there are multiple aspects of why individual Native Americans have opposed the OA's practices, with Ikwe's merely being a highlighted one so as to provide further context to readers on one of these aspects. The summary of a source does not need to be the basis for a Wikipedia citation or other reference citation in general; rather, as has been done countless times throughout history as part of standard practice, a part of a source may be used that is not itself a summary of the work as a whole but which is relevant in a particular way.

As per your concerns with the sentence on the BSA fund, I will remove that sentence.

In light of all of this, it would be reasonable for the "advertisement" tag to be removed following brief edits I am about to make.PeaceandHonor (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I have adjusted the section by modifying the second paragraph and deleting the sentence on the fund, as per our discussion. At this point, in light of all we have discussed, it would be reasonable for the "advertisement" tag to be removed.PeaceandHonor (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• First, I must apologize for misrepresenting the content as unsourced. There are still problems with this paragraph, but this was a mistake on my part that I should not have attributed to you. The source did mention this history, and more.

Likewise, the (pedantic) point about "however" was my error. I meant to explain the issue with starting a sentence with "While..." This is a form of editorializing which needs to be handled carefully, but I completely failed to explain this, obviously.

I've made several changes to help demonstrate the problems I am talking about. While I believe these improve the article, they are mainly a demonstration of the kinds of issues the section, and the entire article, has. It doesn't really matter where the problems came from. What matters is how to fix them. I think as a whole, the expansion of this section sets a bad precedent. Building an article from a non-neutral starting point is often more frustrating than it needs to be.

Yes, "garbage" is strong language, and you have every right to be offended, just as I have the right to be offended by your first edit. This edit removed unflattering content from the lede, which is intended to be a summary of the body. It also appeared to highlight flattering content and drowned-out criticism with yet more of the primary-sourced minutia that already fills the rest of the article. I maintain that this was extremely inappropriate. Couching this in civil language doesn't make this less offensive. Your edit was written from the perspective of the OA, not from a neutral outside perspective. I can understand that these edits made the section more like the rest of the article, but this only highlights the larger problem. There are too many lengthy sections based on relatively trivial sources published by the BSA about the BSA. This is a flaw of the entire article, and your edit, reasonably, continued that.

When I said "false balance", I did not mean balance between your perspective and mine, I meant balance of reliable sources in accordance with due weight. This is a Wikipedia policy. The article should not be based entirely on primary sources. If the only sources discussing the OA were from within Scouting, then this likely wouldn't even meet notability guidelines, and the article would've been deleted. I don't think that's going to happen, of course. I'm not bringing that up as any sort of threat, but as a demonstration of how Wikipedia handles these kinds of things. We absolutely must rely on outside perspectives. Giving the OA the benefit of the doubt about how respectful they are, as though this were an objective fact, or an old problem which has now been "solved", is deeply flawed. It is not the OA's place to say how respected other people are allowed to feel, and it is not Wikipedia's place to confirm. This isn't a platform to share the OA's perspective on itself. This is a summary of reliable sources about the OA.

This is what I meant when I said that the BSA isn't necessarily reliable. Again, all sources must be judged by context. Why, exactly, does the article need to explain, for a third time, that the Lenni Lenape used to live near the Delaware camp? Who is saying that they "appreciated" the Lenni Lenape? Why is "appreciation" presented as though it were inherently positive? (It really isn't). "Lenni Lanape" isn't mentioned in that source at all, nor is any specific group. The source only mentions "early American Indian campgrounds". (Why is it always "early"?) That document is extremely flimsy for demonstrating due weight. It's a single paragraph of a lesson plan which mentions the issue as a "myth" but doesn't actually answer the accusation. The document barely even addressed this issue, which is a very strong sign that it's being abused for this section. Responding to a criticism before that criticism is explained is good for press releases and lesson plans, but not for encyclopedias.

I know this seems like nit-picking, but these issues do matter to real, living people. Regardless of your intentions, this approach isn't neutral. Grayfell (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Grayfell: Hello, Grayfell. Thank you for endeavoring to enhance the article. I have performed additional edits to enhance the article, as detailed below.

Your latest edits introduced numerous issues regarding synthesis of research. These included, but were not limited to, assertions about Seton that are not directly referenced by the source you cited. The article’s lead as introduced through your edits diluted the focus on the Order of the Arrow’s particular association with Native American cultures by providing a more general discussion of those of the BSA as a whole. As this article is about the OA in particular, and as the source you cited does not definitively say that the OA itself was influenced by the negative general trends you mentioned, the focus of this section should be on the OA itself, so I performed modifications in accordance with this. The Deloria source you cited contains numerous aspects regarding the OA’s direct association with Native American cultures that were not included in your round of edits, and as these are important contextual elements that were academically recorded, I added them into the article. As a result of my latest edits, the Deloria part of this section now directly focuses on his comments regarding the OA itself.

I have restored aspects of my preferred phrasing for certain sentences that were in sufficient accordance with Wikipedia’s policies and that were changed without apparent necessity.

There as well were some grammatical issues in your edits that I have corrected.

To say that my edits were written strictly from an OA perspective, when I added NUMEROUS details about criticisms of the OA, is disingenuous. To say that the BSA sources are “relatively trivial” is your subjective opinion for which disagreement is abundant countrywide.

I completely understood that “false balance” did not mean balance between our perspectives; and we both are on the same page about, as you said, there needing to be a “balance of reliable sources in accordance with due weight.” The edits we have performed have, in my opinion, collectively resulted in a work that is sufficient in this regard and far superior in comparison to how the article had been days ago. Thank you. PeaceandHonor (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Order of the Arrow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003809/http://www.unamilodge.org/history.htm to http://www.unamilodge.org/history.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014053041/http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/misc/basics/ to http://www.main.oa-bsa.org/misc/basics/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wfhb.org/news/daily-local-news-july-14-2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent revisions

"The OA as well has been criticized by Native American groups for being a group consisting of non-Native Americans using Native American imagery, and giving the impression that they can in any way represent Native American people or cultural practices."

The issue here is that the sources cited do not back the assertions

1. The source for "criticized by Native American groups for being a group consisting of non-Native Americans using Native American imagery" is a single "group" consisting of ONE member of a Native American group and another unnamed individual.
2. The second half represents a book/reference in which the to OA is only tangentially mentioned, does not assert that the OA represents Native American people, and instead references a different, defunct organization: the Buckskin Men of America.

While I understand that the Boy Scouts have faced some criticism, nearly the entire posting on criticism revolves around a single event in Indiana in 2009. I feel that's probably giving too much emphasis on a single event.Buffs (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC) I should also add that most of the criticisms of the event are things that no longer occur. Buffs (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I rephrased the the last bit. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

New phrasing and why it's problematic: "The Order of the Arrow has been cited as an example of non-Native Americans who, through their misappropriation and misuse of Native American imagery, spread misinformation and stereotypes about Native Americans."

1. Neither cited article mentions "misappropriation", "misuse", or "misinformation". Such word choice is certainly synthesis and the sources given don't back up such a conclusion
2. The mentions of "stereotype" in the first reference is used as a caution to the OA NOT to do it, not that they are actively participating in it. In the second is essentially in a widespread question about stereotypes of Native Americans and some efforts to marginalize them. There is then a break and a mention of the OA's beginnings & dress, but no mention that these are stereotypes or that they are even in reference to the stereotypes previously mentioned.

It'd be best to simply remove the sentence. Buffs (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Tangentially related concern

moved by Buffs (talk) as it isn't directly related to the above discussion on the content of cited sources

These activities are still occurring Indigenous girl (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not disagree that they are wearing Native-American regalia to include facepaint, but that isn't the point of the phrases you reverted. What is mentioned there is religious dances and ethnic slurs. I emphasize SLURS because only ONE term mentioned is considered to be a slur/slight/offensive based on the given terminology: "squaw". I do not see any such words used on the sites you just gave nor the previous sources. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no need to mention the Author's name in the first sentence. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Related problems with the lead

In the lead, it mentions "Native Americans have criticized the OA's various symbols and 'rituals' as cultural appropriation based on non-Native stereotypes of American Indians.[7][8]". Of the two cited sources, one is a blog that fails WP:RS and the other is a broken link. That should either be reinforced or deleted. As a WP:GA, this article should be better. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Responding to all of the above: Buffs, all this stuff is still happening. Hiding it or minimizing it isn't a good approach. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The link I just added directly from BSA states that there have been criticism for a number of Nations. I'm wrangling children at the moment but will include the link in the lead.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll fix the sourcing and add it to the lede; hang on. And Buffs, keep your points in one place, rather than starting multiple sections for each point. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection adding that quote, but it should be done with care as to not make it misleading. They have stopped such events at Cub Scouting due to inconsistencies and inappropriate "freelancing", shall we say. Nor are they stating that Scouts are using disparaging terms. They are not stopping all ceremonies. Buffs (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's add "often" to the mix. If it's so often, surely we can add a reference for it. From WP:WEASEL: "...views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." I don't see a source that shows "often" cited here. Accordingly, it should be removed. Buffs (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so this edit is exactly what I'm talking about as what is wrong. It still says the same thing, with the same unreliable sources, but you've just added another source that doesn't back up that claim! The statement includes "many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed". It does NOT include anything about "cultural appropriation" or "stereotypes". You are extrapolating too much from the given information. Buffs (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You tried to remove the sources that specify cultural appropriation. They've been reinstated, as the links were not dead, and more cites have been added. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Reading through the external link I just added, I realized that he does include citations. So, though it is first-person, it is sourced. I think this could also be used as a source, not just an external link. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a reason I broke this conversation out. You're referring to some other edits that aren't in the lead. Without a break, it's hard to know what you're talking about when you are nonspecific.

No where in the statement from OA/BSA does it mention cultural appropriation or stereotypes. If you think otherwise, please feel free to respond with where I'm missing it. Buffs (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's add in as well that the entire "protest" at MSU was TWO people...one of whom was the author of the article. Given the thousands of scouts involved and hundreds of tribes, this appears to be giving undue weight to their concerns by placing it so prominently in the lead with evidence of a single article in a school paper and a single "protest" by TWO people. While some "felt" it was "cultural appropriation", most do not or are at least ambivalent about it (judging from the "protest of two") Lastly, these articles are advocacy pieces by political organizations about the SAME event. Putting it in the lead is adding WAY too much weight to the proportion of those who "object". Buffs (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Re:"the links were not dead". Yes they were. They defaulted to the main page of the site. YOU fixed the URL. Please don't say things that aren't true. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The site says there have been too many complaints, so they're not going to imitate Native regalia anymore. The meaning (misappropriation and misrepresentation as the reason) is clear, especially with the surrounding sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, not what has been stated. This is a violation of WP:NOR, a policy that we need to adhere to: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Buffs (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You are also reaching a conclusion that isn't stated when you said, "they're not going to imitate Native regalia anymore". That isn't what they said. Buffs (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're finding something I'm not, please provide the quote/location so we can all see/discuss it rather that just re-include it. Buffs (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed Content Senior paper & Keene

I've removed the senior paper content as it is not considered to be a reliable source (Any senior can write a paper and there is no peer review/publishing criteria; it's possible that this paper got an F) . The current sources are sufficient for the stated content. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Keene's isn't a reliable source either as it is self-published. Buffs (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Adrienne Keene is a notable expert in the field and Native Appropriations is her official site. It is often used as a source on these matters. She is the exact example that is the exception to that rule. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm noting a LOT a vague terminology here ("in the field", "often used", "these matters") and no explanation as to how it is "the exception to that rule" (which rule?). WP:RS states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on...personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions..."

If you believe this should be an exception, it's incumbent upon you to explain how/why. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Keene is a professor at Brown who is a highly respected scholar and well sought out speaker on the subject of stereotyping, cultural appropriation and racism regarding Indigenous Peoples in past and contemporary culture. http://convention.myacpa.org/houston2018/adrienne-keene/ https://www.speakoutnow.org/speaker/keene-adrienne Would you like additional links? I don't want to provide them if you're not going to read them or only skim. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying she isn't a professor, a respected scholar, or a sought-out speaker on any subject. I'm not even saying she is wrong (or right)! I'm not even contesting she's notable enough for her own article. I'm contesting that her opinions are just that: opinions. They are NOT reliable sources in and of themselves as defined by Wikipedia. If we are going to make an exception, we need to justify why we shouldn't follow the criteria of WP:RS for inclusion. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If "Keene is one of the most-cited authors in the field", then it should be easy to find an article from a reliable source to support these claims. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Where's all the third-party sourcing on this group, period? As I said below, most people think these groups have gone the way of other unfortunate, racist historic practices. Official sites by academics are usable, and certainly better than BSA sites speaking about themselves. Most of what's out there now is commentary about the racism. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok...so at least you're open about calling it racism. That at least puts your POV on the table...

Now, put it aside. This isn't the place for it.

My POV is that it needs to be neutral and well-sourced. Statements of fact (such as "<organization A> meets weekly" and linking a calendar of events is not controversial nor demeaning. While it is a First-party source, it falls under exemptions crafted by Wikipedians and meets our criteria for inclusion, if applicable to the subject.

I truly don't care about your opinion on the subject. You shouldn't care about mine. Whether you view it as racist or not is immaterial. Whether I agree with you or not is immaterial. What matters is if it can meet the editorial standards of WP. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs there are articles and transcripts by Keene that address appropriation, stereotyping and racism however she addresses the issue of the OA on her blog. If I were to use her as a source regarding the harm that stereotyping and appropriation cause and how they are racist and rooted in colonialism you would revert that because it doesn't specifically address the Order of the Arrow.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If she isn't specifically addressing them, then yes. And of course it should be reverted. You are applying synthesis to advance a POV. That's the whole problem.

I've helped write 5 FAs. I'm well-versed in WP policy. I'm not out here to whitewash opinions on the subject. I'm not out here to censor opinions. Hell, I practically wrote all the sections in the Texas A&M page regarding people with nefarious connections to A&M and related controversies. We need to maintain our editorial standards or this becomes a free-for-all which doesn't help anyone. Buffs (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

How am I applying synthesis to advance a POV? What exactly did I add that does this? I added the information stating some of their practices are no longer allowed as of the first of the year. If I wanted to bias the article why would I have added that? How is it bias that they have appropriated indigenous regalia, face paint, dance and ceremonial items whether in the past of currently? That's not opinion, that did this. It's documented. But because there are not reams of ref material nothing is good enough? I don't care what articles you have created. I really don't. That has nothing to do with this page and the fact that plenty of Native people have called them out on their actions, we just haven't gotten media attention and haven't written a plethora of articles. There is nothing to source these activities so they have not been included. With the minimal amount of data available on this issue and the fact you refuse to even allow an article from Dr Keene's website this article will remain biased. No one is adding the past accusations of racism (in general) or the historical links to white supremacy, we are trying to highlight something that, to most people, if shown the ridiculousness that goes on, is very obvious.Indigenous girl (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's address each point you brought up:

1. Your addition, rewrote what was actually said. While it is a minor difference, we have the obligation as editors to accurately quote a subject. In your case, you wrote that they changed their policy "because of the, 'many complaints surrounding these ceremonies from various American Indian tribes due to the manner in which they are conducted as well as the inconsistent nature in which they are performed.'" However, their statement didn't say that. They said that they had received complaints and that they were changing their procedures, but it didn't state that the complaints were the proximate cause. There are a number of reasons they could have done so and, though I'm not privy to their discussions, it could have been because they felt it was the right thing to do, because they discussed changes for years, because the ceremony was too long, it was offensive to some, etc, but they didn't state that outright. Accordingly, I rephrased it and removed the causality you added.
2. It is not biased to say that they use regalia, face paint, dance, and ceremonial materials relating to Native Americans, but it IS a POV to say that these are "appropriated". Many scout groups have participated in numerous pow-wows of Native American culture and participated in that culture as invited guests. This group (and BSA) has advisors from many Nations and I think that most in scouts appreciate their traditions and culture. I'm sorry, but facepaint, drums, dancing, etc are NOT exclusive to Native Americans. Nor, does it appear, that scouts are under the impression that their ceremonies are, in fact, actual Native American ceremonies.
3. Regarding "With the minimal amount of data available on this issue and the fact you refuse to even allow an article from Dr Keene's website this article will remain biased." Wikipedia specifically addresses this issue in the lead paragraph of WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, internet forums, IMDb, Ancestry.com, content farms, most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." Accordingly, if reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) on the subject don't exist, it shouldn't be here. It's really that simple. I'm not saying that people haven't spoken out about the subject, only that there aren't WP:RS that show this is anything more than the opinion of a small minority. If it is notable, there should be ample media on the subject that address it.
4. To address the primary point, if you take a statement from Keene: [this is just an example, not something I know she said] "Cultural appropriation is a problem in the US amongst many organizations" and then apply it to this article "Many people have spoken out about the Order of the Arrow's use of Native American symbology..." and cite this statement, you are applying synthesis as the OA was not specifically mentioned. You cannot take a general statement and apply it to a specific situation.
5. Likewise, we need to be accurate in our citations. If we say that <Author X> wrote "The OA is an example of terrible leadership" and cite a book's page 126, I should be able to look at the book at page 126 and find that statement. If page 126 doesn't have that quote or doesn't address the points it's supposed to reference, then it should be removed. If it's just a page numbering issue, no biggee. Hell, if you can get me the right page number I'll change the ref myself. I'm not against inclusion of negative opinions on any subject as long as they meet editorial criteria.

Bring reliable sources on the subject and I'll even be happy to help include them. I hope this answers your question(s)/remarks. Buffs (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your point about the use of regalia, face paint, dance and ceremonial items and the BSA/OA please check out the Albuquerque Tribune, August 18, 1973 page 10 link 1 link 2 I'll respond to the other points later. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I assume this is the article to which you're referring: "Iowa Fair Replaces Scouts with Indians"? If so, I don't disagree with its inclusion under Boy Scout criticism in general, but it wouldn't apply to the Order of the Arrow. Additionally, there's a level of civility here that is also entailed. While one group you referenced performed a Zuni dance, they were asked to stop and they complied as a matter of respect. While it stands that some don't like it, others don't mind. My initial statement that facepaint, drums, dancing, etc are NOT exclusive to Native Americans stands nor is use of such things inherently offensive (though it COULD be offensive or even, in some cases illegal). Buffs (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

When you say facepaint, drums, dancing, etc are you implying that they are not attempting to play Indian? Huh. I thought they were very clear that it is exactly what they are trying to do. The OA participate in those dance teams. They've clearly been protested at events and generally called out by more than two people which you have repeatedly stated.Indigenous girl (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that each of those individually are not exclusive to Native American culture.

Likewise, I disagree that they are attempting to "play Indian". That implies that this is a game or kiddie play time. An analogous situation would be Civil War re-enactments or a history lesson involving cultures of Africa or the Middle East.

If my OE you mean OA, there is no component of OA of which I am aware that partakes in the Dance teams. From my understanding (I'm not and have never been in Boy Scouts), they are related, but not comprised of OA members. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've corrected my typo, thank you for pointing it out. They are absolutely playing indian. They are dressing up as Native Americans and the large majority of them are not and when the whole dress up thing started out there were even fewer indigenous boys that participated. It's not re-enactment, Civil War re-enactments portray real events involving dead people. Native Americans haven't gone away. It's certainly not a history lesson because they are still getting a whole lot wrong when it comes to representation. OA members absolutely participate in the dance teams, have their own dance teams and competitions occur at the National Order of the Arrow Conference. Here is an example http://www.hudsonvalleyscouting.org/home/48446 of one.Indigenous girl (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in the previous section "members of the [OA] should note that their practices are discussed at length with representatives of other tribes and found acceptable". It is indeed a form of re-enactment in that it portrays a real event; members of the Union Army haven't gone away either. They indeed may be getting some things wrong, but it is also inaccurate to state that their actions are exclusively "offensive" to Native Americans when they are also endorsed/explicitly stated as acceptable by some Nations & NatAm individuals. I get that you find it offensive. I get that others find it offensive, but that opinion isn't homogenous and it does a disservice to the truth to portray it as such. Additionally, the dance "team" you cite consists of a single person. Again, I don't know the OA, but I'm not aware of an entire team of people that perform from that group; it's possible I'm wrong. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no third-party, reliable source for any Native people, at all, and certainly no one with any standing to represent for a community and culture, saying their community and culture is OK with what the Order of the Arrow does. There are no third-party sources confirming Native consultants who are actual Native people. There are only primary sources, from the OA itself. Those sources are not usable. What we do have is many examples of asking the OA to stop. This article over-relies on statements from the OA, and needs more third-party sourcing on them. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There are PLENTY of third party sources where some in the Native American community support BSA and the Order of the Arrow. While you have "sources asking them to stop", what you don't have is the footing to establish a claim that the opinion of ALL Native Americans (or even a majority/significant minority) is exclusively negative. I don't contest that some find at least some of what the OA does offensive. Buffs (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Re-adding Deloria as a reference

Re: "The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.[7][57][53][58]"

CorbieVreccan, you've re-re-re-added several references

• #7 is literally the opinion of TWO people as quoted in an online advocacy piece from a highly biased site and fails WP:RS without qualifications (See above). It also qualifies as a WP:FRINGE opinion (just two people).
• #57 is an opinion piece in a blog that quotes the same article/people of #7. It does not mention "stereotypes" or "racism" and only mentions "appropriation" in regard to the letter to the editor referenced in the #7.
• #53 is Deloria's page 126. I'm not saying that somewhere in an entire book he isn't critical of the Order of the Arrow, however, I don't see such criticism on p126 as referenced. There is nothing about the OA and "stereotypes" or "racism" or "appropriation" and, therefore, doesn't belong here. If I'm missing it, please quote it. I've read it about a dozen times and I'm not seeing it. If it's elsewhere, tell me where and I'll personally re-craft the reference to be more specific/accurate.
• #58 is Keene's piece and that is addressed above. It is a violation of WP:RS for the aforementioned reasons.

I'm not interested in censorship. I recognize that there are differing opinions on this subject and criticism, but we also need to be mindful of the editorial standards of Wikipedia for inclusion. Buffs (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the reference of Deloria in this context as the source doesn't include any of the key phrases. This source on p126 does not support the assertions in the statement. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be worded identically to be included, or to not be considered synthesis. This is stuff you learn when writing book reports in fourth grade. There was no consensus to remove Keene. Multiple sources for criticism are relevant because editors, such as yourself, have shown a tendency to remove sources and then try to say there isn't a significant amount of criticism. Your are engaging in a drawn-out edit war here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• "It doesn't have to be worded identically to be included, or to not be considered synthesis." I asked for clarification on this 2 weeks ago. I've asked for clarification as to what Deloria's passage supports and I've been met with the sounds of crickets. let me make this abundantly clear: WHAT ON PAGE 126 BACKS UP ANYTHING SAID IN THIS PASSAGE?
• "This is stuff you learn when writing book reports in fourth grade." Keep the condescending remarks to yourself.
• "There was no consensus to remove Keene...<etc>" I've pointed out this for 2 weeks that there's no reason for inclusion. Given that there has been NO response, it was removed. I never said there wasn't criticism. I said there isn't anything in this passage that supports the given sentence. I didn't even remove the source (it's still in the article). Buffs (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

If I'm missing what part of that applies, please quote the exact phrase. Nothing stated on p 126 backs these claims. Buffs (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source improvements

I think this piece would be better than #7. It's the opinion piece referenced and extrapolates much more on the criticism. Given that it's from a student newspaper with editorial controls/reliability, I'd say it's a viable piece and a significantly better option, though its inclusion could be challenged on the grounds that it is strictly an opinion piece. That could further be couched by simply stating this is his opinion. "The OA has been criticized for <X> and <Y>. In 2015, Philip Rice, a student at MSU, wrote..."

Criticism here seems to be confined almost exclusively to academia and blogs, not mainstream journals and that's going to make WP:RS a tougher road to cross to show it isn't a fringe view. Buffs (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think most people assume groups like Order of the Arrow no longer exist. Few academics are bothering to write about them because they are seen as relics like blackface. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"I think", "most people assume", "Few academics are bothering to write about them because"

1. That's a mess of assumptions.
2. Equating its existence with blackface and racism, and you're accusing me of POV? That's rich.

This is not justification for ignoring the standards of WP. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Use both sources. I included the other one as it has photos and video. Better to have multiple sources than too few. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No. #7 doesn't meet WP:RS. Again, that's the problem you don't seem to be willing to address. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking over this paper, about which connects OA to the Native American mascot controversy. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That all depends on what you want to say about what the paper addresses. Buffs (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Keene

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) The result is Yes, the reference to the Keene blog can be kept.

Blogs as sources : The RfC concerns the inclusion of a blog as a source. Per WP:BLOGS, Wikipedia, in general, frowns upon the use of blogs as sources. However, opinions of experts expressed in a personal blog of theirs can be admitted as reliable sources in Wikipedia, again per WP:BLOGS : Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

Issue discussed : The issue tabled and discussed here is about the "cultural appropriation" in which Order of the Arrow allegedly engages. It is not about the order itself, about the Boy Scouts of America, or about the history of Native Americans. Therefore, an expert on cultural appropriation is needed above all else, and if that expert happens to be an expert on the issue as it concerns Native Americans so much the better.

Expertise forensics : On the basis of the above, this RfC gravitates then to one question only, as to the expertise of the author of the contested text, who in this case is Adrienne Keene. According to Wikipedia, Ms Keene is an "American and Native American academic, writer, and activist" and "member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma". This in itself has nothing to do with expertise as demanded by Wikipedia. If Keene was simply a Native American activist academic, we could perhaps include her personal testimony about the issue of cultural appropriation but only as an "affected individual" and as part of a wider presentation. In so many words, she would not be an expert. However, still according to Wikipedia, Keene has "earned a B.A. from Stanford University in Cultural and Social Anthropology and Native American Studies." She has also received a Master's in Education in 2010, which was followed by a Doctorate in culture, communities and education from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Keene works as an assistant professor of American Studies and Ethnic Studies at Brown University, where her research "focuses on educational outcomes for Native students".

Conclusion : We can confidently conclude that Adrienne Keene is an expert on the issue of "cultural appropriation" and her opinion on the issue can be legitimately included in this article.

Balance : The inclusion of Keene's opinion does not mean that she is correct in her assertions, nor that Wikipedia endorses them. Editors, for the sake of WP:BALANCE, can expand the relevant section with different or even contrary viewpoints, always of course following the rules on verifiability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Should we include references to a blog by Keene for the following passage? GMG^talk 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans. Concerns have included OA's imitation of Native American ceremonies, regalia, and promotion of stereotypes of Native peoples.

References

Survey

• No As proposer. It's a blog. There have already been two threads at RSN that reached no consensus for it's inclusion to support unattributed facts ([1] [2]). Both citations are ref bombed anyways, and there's no reason to cite a blog for a statement where a number of more reliable sources are readily available. GMG^talk 00:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Native Appropriations and Adrienne Keene clearly meet that criteria. I'm not going to paste the entire page of policy here, but WP:BLOGS makes it clear that we don't use blogs by Internet randos. But now that many experts in the field use blogging platforms as their official sites, there are some exceptions. This is precisely one of those exceptions. This has already been beaten to death over at the reliable sources noticeboard, twice, after Buffs disliked the consensus here.WP:DROPTHESTICK - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. GMG^talk 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  Corbie is attempting to muddy the waters here by tossing in a straw man argument. The inclusion of this source in Native Appropriations and Adrienne Keene is perfectly acceptable and no one has claimed otherwise; nor is it the subject of this RfC. Since you brought me up personally (when there was no reason to do so), you've repeatedly, intentionally misled people by calling those discussions "consensus". You additionally label my edits (and those of others) with which you disagree as "POV pushing". WP:RS is the ONLY standard we're discussing here. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies as well:

  "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include...challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest"

• Given that the author is pushing a POV and this is both a primary and self-published source, it should be removed. Buffs (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes There has already been consensus as to the usability. GMG, you said,"Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This article isn't about Dr. Keene, it is about the Order of the Arrow.Indigenous girl (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• BLP may also apply to contentious statements about groups of people on a case by case basis. The only consensus you appear to have had here is is between the two of you. Using the source for unattributed statements of fact when higher quality sources are available is not in line with comments that were made at RSN by uninvolved editors, and is not exercis[ing] caution when using such sources. Since there doesn't seem to be any desire to take the comments at RSN with any serious consideration, then we'll have a structured discussion with an uninvolved closer, and the WP:ONUS is on those wishing to include content to establish consensus for its inclusion. GMG^talk 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I can't even understand the rationales for not using the source. Dr. Keene is so clearly an expert in the field, I find it hard to object to citing her. I noticed this link above in the opening for this RfC with pictures of white men in "war bonnets" and dressed as Indians. Was this a citation in the article? I don't see it. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing that link in the RfC or the article. It was a link that was added at one point (referenced in prev discussions; see above), but I later removed it per WP:SYNTH and that it didn't support the claim made above. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes as others have said, it's a blog by an expert in the field. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes I find Keene cited as an expert as far back as 2014 [3], through multiple cites through at least, 2018. [4]. See WP:USEBYOTHERS. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Then shouldn't we use these sources instead? Buffs (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  No. There is no need to go through an intermediary, we know reliable sources consider her an expert on Indian regalia and cites her blog and we should too. Whereas, neither the world, nor Wikipedia, cares that you don't like that she is an expert on Indian regalia and its uses. As an aside, the BLP argument is fallacious, she is an expert on Indian regalia and on its meaning and appropriation, and that is what matters, here, and this article is about an organization. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• No It's a personal blog with no editorial standards. As cited above, WP:BLP and WP:RS apply. As cited above, if there are PLENTY of OTHER reliable sources to use that have editorial controls, we should use them as appropriate: [5] [6]. There's no need to include the inflammatory opinions of an ardent activist and it is explicitly prohibited by WP:BLP. Buffs (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  WP:BLOGS has been quoted, but only the portions that support such an argument have been used. It is worth quoting the entire relevant portion and not just snippets out of context:

  "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (note: Citations omitted; emphasis mine)

  As stated above by GMG, WP:BLP applies and the standards are higher. Given that WP:BLOGS specifically and explicitly mentions that such sources should not be included, it should be removed. Buffs (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes Per comments above. The author seems clearly an expert on the subject matter. I've asked why this apparent expert should not be treated as one.[7] I'm asking again below in Discussion. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but she isn't an expert on the Order of the Arrow or Boy Scouts and no one has demonstrated otherwise. Likewise, I'm not contending that her opinions shouldn't be included, just not her blog. Use any of a number of highly reliable sources for these opinions, if you feel you must. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for the response. Using OR to try to dismiss an expert. That's a POV problem too. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  How am I using OR to dismiss an expert? Has anyone demonstrated she's an expert on Scouting? Buffs (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes: her opinion is highly valued by groups on one side of the debate and her blog is therefore germane to establishing the specific points made in this article. Vizjim (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Seems fine to me as well per the expert carveout for SPS, and of encyclopedic relevance given her stature in the field. Will add I think the only BLP material here is that we are using the cite to verify that Keene has made this criticism, which is a legitimate use. If we only had a third-party SPS claiming Keene made this criticism, that'd be a no-go as a source on her, a living person. But her opinion is cited to her, so it's fine. Saying BLP policy applies to the entirety of entries on orgs because they have living members, not just to portions of an org's entry that discusses specific, living individuals, isn't how I understand either WP policy or standing practice. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• No. Only use blogs (per limitations specified in WP:BLOGS) when other reliable sources do not exist. There are plenty, so no. Jschnur (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Summoned by a bot. The author of the blog is an expert in their field and meets the exception to be considered a reliable source per WP:BLOGS. Comatmebro (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
• No "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Barca (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_260#Is_this_Native_American_advocacy_site_an_RS?
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Case_#1:_Citations_sourced_to_a_blog

It's been disputed at War bonnet as well, but I'm not finding other discussions. --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a difference between these topics. WP:BLP applies here, but not at war bonnet. Buffs (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Not identifying related discussion is bad form at best. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

...or it could just be an honest mistake. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed the policy-based response to the expertise and credentials of the author of the blog? Could someone provide diffs and summarize? [8]. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's much dispute on that topic. The associate professor is an outspoken activist on topics in Native American studies. I don't dispute that she is knowledgable on the subject from her personal experiences/opinions, her research on the subject, etc. But as an activist, she doesn't present a NPOV on the subject (nor would anyone expect her to do so! She's advocating a position!). We shouldn't use her unedited blog or her rants as gospel on the subject just because she's an expert in her field. If a physicist at CERN said on his blog that "anyone who disagrees with me is absolutely ignorant on particle physics!" we shouldn't put that theory on top and label all others as "ignorant theories". We should stick to what is in published, reliable sources. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute that she is knowledgable Then it should be used, and attempts to remove it could be a POV vio. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Wow. Way to take a statement WAY out of context/present manipulative quotes. Selective quoting like that is part of the problem.

I'm talking about the fact that she's an expert on Native American studies, not Boy Scouts. I don't dispute that YOU are knowledgeable either. But my point is that she is highly biased and that better sources exist/we should use those, NOT A BLOG! Buffs (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment regarding Deloria

Should we include references to the book excerpt authored by Deloria for the following passage (reference #3)? I'm not seeing anything on page 126 that supports this assertion in this passage. Note, this book excerpt DOES apply elsewhere in the article and should not be removed in those places; this RfC is solely about this usage. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). Buffs (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Order of the Arrow has been protested and criticized for engaging in cultural appropriation and spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans.

References

Survey/Discussion

• No As proposed. I've repeatedly asked above for how that excerpt applies to this passage/for the section to be quoted, but to no avail, being accused of "POV-pushing", and others. I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this RfC if someone can explain what I'm apparently missing. Otherwise, it should be removed from the passage listed above ONLY. Buffs (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment [Clar: Yes, but the text needs adjusting, and the source should be integrated into the rest of the article, not segregated into the appropriation section. Don't refactor others' comments, Buffs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC) ] Philip J. Deloria's background on this group, its founding, and the larger issue of Playing Indian certainly belong in this article, to source all of the above. The problem started, Buffs, when your arguments about precisely where to put the reference became a slow edit war to remove it entirely. This is the same thing you have done with Keene - tendentious editing with what appears to be the goal of eventually removing Indigenous objections entirely. (And leaving a lot of primary sourcing to the OA itself.) Your pattern has been to try to change the wording of a passage, then to later claim the source no longer fits the precise wording, eventually trying to remove the sources entirely. I've held off on editing while you stir up all this drama at multiple locations, but all it requires is slight changes in wording, not removing good sources. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Moved to a discussion section for clarification. So your response to "it should be removed from the passage listed above ONLY" and "Note, this book excerpt DOES apply elsewhere in the article and should not be removed in those places; this RfC is solely about this usage" is "you're just trying to remove it from the article"? Unbelievable. You're saying my alleged goal is the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying the point brought up here isn't addressed for THIS sentence. I've repeatedly asked what phrase/sentence on page 126 supports this sentence and your response has been (effectively) "you're just POV-pushing". You've completely disregarded WP:AGF and instead anyone who you view as opposition is a boogeyman hell bent on destroying information because they express the objections of indigenous people.

  I'll make this clear: I'm not.

  We cannot have a reasonable discussion if you insist on assuming I'm out to eliminate all objections. I'm not. I'm here to make sure that Wikipedia's editorial standards are upheld with reliable sources to back up claims.

  So, let's just assume we're going to keep it and we really want to rephrase it because it's just that great of a reference and deserves to be emphasized. WHAT PHRASE/SENTENCE ON PAGE 126 SUPPORTS THIS PORTION OF THE ARTICLE?! Buffs (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  As for Don't refactor others' comments, Buffs. I'll be blunt: shut up. I did it EXACTLY as described in our how-to guide. I didn't include a discussion section and was trying to make it clearer for future discussions.

  But hell, I mean, you did decide to change your comments/categorization. Why didn't you move my comments up with yours? You decided arbitrarily to split my comments from yours Seems to violate the aforementioned how-to guide. Talk about tendentious editing... Buffs (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Why don't you answer the question? Buffs (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the page is pertinent. The entire book, inclusive of the second paragraph and beyond in onto the next page is a criticism of the exact behavior that occurs in the OA.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, IG. Maybe you're new to citing things. If it's on the next page. The reference should be "pp 126-127", not just "pp 126". You have to cite the pages of what you're referencing when it comes to a book.

Here is the second paragraph

"While some Indian people used antimodern primitivism to assert the crucial Americanizing role of real Indians in a melting pot society, Ernest Thompson Seton's departure from Scouting in 1915 signaled an opposite tendency—a new era in boy scouting in which leaders attempted to redefine Indianness as some-thing less than 100 percent Americanness. Ironically, at the very moment of Seton's ouster, Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence. E. Urner Goodman and Car-roll A. Edson, the directors of the Philadelphia council's summer camp, created an honor society for exemplary scouts based on a loose interpretation of Hia-watha and Last of the Mohicans. Called Wimachtendiench Wingolauchsik Wita-hemui, or the Order of the Arrow, the organization gathered around summer camp bonfires in ritual Indian costume to tap out and induct new members.62 By the late 1920s and early 1930s, Order of the Arrow chapters had spread across the country and turned many scouting groups back toward the Indian-ness that West and Beard had strived to eliminate."

Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to another non-Boy Scout group. Here is the remaining paragraph on p 127:

"Even as Indianness was being contested in the early twentieth century, then, it continued to reemerge—often keeping odd company in unlikely quarters. If it seems strange to find Indians haunting the buckskin territory of Dan Beard and the honor society of the Indian-free Boy Scouts, it is also completely consistent with a long thread of American practices. Amidst the steel skyscrapers of the alienating modern city, the Indian continued to lie in wait, always materializing when citizens gathered to proclaim American—and now modern—identities."

None of them address any component of protests, criticism, cultural appropriation, or spreading stereotypes of, and racism against, Native Americans. Please tell me what in these sentences specifically pertains to any portion of these components of the given sentence because clearly you're seeing something I'm not. Buffs (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all I didn't add the Deloria reference and when reverting I did not have time to even look at the following page because of time constraints. If you can't see the fact of Deloria specifically addressing when, where and how a bunch of non-Native boys started playing Indian and their appropriative behavior, in a book that critiques playing Indian and appropriative behavior I really don't know what to say.Indigenous girl (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I never said you added the Deloria reference. The reference itself SHOULD be up top referring to the history (and it is). I'm not going to read an entire book to attempt to decipher the author's intent. The passages from a book need to be clear as to what supports the claim. For example, this passage seems to indicate a level of support "Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence." If it encompasses more pages, we need to edit the reference to include what makes the point. Again, if I'm missing something, let me know. I'll personally add it! As it stands right now, it's vague at best. Buffs (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, you said,"Maybe you're new to citing things. If it's on the next page. The reference should be "pp 126-127", not just "pp 126". You have to cite the pages of what you're referencing when it comes to a book." I did not cite this source. I didn't look at the following page until yesterday. a new era in boy scouting in which leaders attempted to redefine Indianness as some-thing less than 100 percent Americanness. This is a criticism. Scouting was redefining Indianness as less than Americanness. E. Urner Goodman and Car-roll A. Edson, the directors of the Philadelphia council's summer camp, created an honor society for exemplary scouts based on a loose interpretation of Hia-watha and Last of the Mohicans. This shows that they were not basing their interpretation on anything legitimate but on two pieces, written by white men, that stereotype the romantic savage trope. If you are removed enough from the subject matter as to not have read the book or Deloria's slightly shorter dissertation at least read the book's description. The description sums the basis of the book up very well. Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As for not addressing you, fine, I'll respect that, but I also haven't tagged you for anything that I'm aware of. But I'm not going to leave this assessment unaddressed as it is flawed. I'm sorry, but that's also not how a discussion works. You don't get to make a statement contradicting someone and then demand no one reply to it.

That sentence addresses Boy Scouts as a whole, not OA. The next sentence addresses OA as something in contrast to the previous with the word "Ironically": "Ironically, at the very moment of Seton's ouster, Philadelphia scouts were in the process of reintroducing Indian characteristics as a sign of scouting excellence." How is setting "Indian characteristics" (his words, not mine) as a noble ideal/something people SHOULD aspire to understand/emulate a racist or stereotypical problem? Why are these books (ok, one FICTIONAL book and one poem) a problem? Are they inaccurate? What's "stereotypically" wrong? This isn't clear what's being said here. Or is it just that you/Deloria views that they were "written by white men" (your words, not mine) and therefore are offensive? If there is something else that should be added to the reference, then add it. Add a page, the cover, the forward, etc. Until then, I do not think that this reference supports the claim...we'll see if others agree/disagree.

As for you being "uncomfortable", why? Disagreement is part of the editorial process. If you can't handle disagreement...I mean...I don't know what you tell you on a talk page. Buffs (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:AGF is especially important when interacting with a user who compares Cultural Preservation Officers to White Supremacists, Tribal Judges who publish books on Genocide to Flat Earthers, and tells an experienced editor to "shut up" when we ask to not have our RfC opinions demoted a discussion section of the page. AGF does not mean, "be naive and ignore the evidence." - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

That is slanderous. I never compared Cultural Preservation Officers to White Supremacists or Tribal Judges to Flat Earthers AND I clearly explained that. You've decided to just ignore it (as you do with any question or concern I bring up). I CLEARLY told YOU to shut up as in to stop whining about every single little thing I do if it doesn't meet your personal, ambiguous, nebulous standards and instead pay attention to the things you DON'T know...like policy. You've clearly demonstrated yourself to be incapable of a discussion that doesn't devolve into abhorrently terrible logical fallacies like ad hominems, straw men, and reductio ad absurdum, incapable of upholding editorial standards for inclusion, and a incapable of actually contributing to a discussion without insulting, demeaning, slandering, and otherwise being a general nuisance toward all those with whom you disagree. At no point are you actually addressing the questions asked; you just ignore them. At this point. I'm completely done discussing anything with you. You aren't interested in building a consensus; you are interested in dictating to others how things MUST be done and anyone who disagrees with you is just inferior unworthy of the attention of someone so arrogant. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus. Everyone calm down, stop using pointed formatting IN YOUR comments, and stop accusing each other of being various sorts of devils. What part of the book is being cited for this statement? In all this bickering I struggle to find anything of substance to that effect. Where does it address the subject of the article specifically and make the stated claim? Can we not just find that and add it using the quote= parameter in the cite template? GMG^talk 22:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  I've been asking that for weeks. Buffs (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  How about refactoring all your comments to meet the standards you're asking of others? --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  Is this somehow relevant to the topic of discussion? GMG^talk 17:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  I believe your comments were relevant, and I suggested a policy-based solution. --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (added diff --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC))

  To what? GMG^talk 18:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: RfC relisted to allow editors to answer GreenMeansGo's questions: What part of the book is being cited for this statement? ... Where does it address the subject of the article specifically and make the stated claim?

  Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Appreciated. To this point, I STILL don't know what's referenced with this source. Buffs (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• No – the burden should be on those placing it to demonstrate its relevance. Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is already in the article, as one of the only third-party citations that sources the founding of the group. This article needs to be cleaned up a lot as it is full of citations to the group itself. You want to remove one of the few third-party cites? Indigenous girl (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The other citations aren't the issue we're discussing here nor is the cleanup of the article. As multiple people have stated, the applicable text from this source isn't clear. You cannot both demand its inclusion and refuse to specify how it applies. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I specified how it applies in March Mathglot. If there is consensus that it it is not relevant in this particular instance then that is fine, I still feel it should be utilized in the article. It does go into the history of OA. The majority of current sources are from the OA or the scouts. That does not make for a balance. Indigenous girl (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Point of clarification I support this reference's general inclusion in the article (especially covering the history portion...which I've just added). However, I do NOT feel the passage in question supports the claim that is the point of this RfC. Likewise, let's please keep the discussion narrowed to the subject at hand (Deloria's use as a source for this specific passage) rather than the whole article or other concerns. To address IG's concerns, I've added several additional sources + added some previously used sources of information that were not added to relevant sections. Hopefully that alleviates those issues. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Ritual" vs "Ceremony"

Are we really at a point where "It was changed on purpose" is a rationale for reverting someone's edits? ANYONE'S "purposeful" changes don't override someone else's changes. No one owns this article. Furthermore, no where in official terminology is the term "ritual", but "Ceremony" is exclusively used throughout BSA and OA programming. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

We should follow the terminology used by reliable sources, not necessarily that of BSA/OA. However, it does appear that "ceremonies" is the commonly-used term and there is no indication that anyone uses "rituals" to describe the practices. CorbieVreccan could you elaborate on your reasoning for the change? –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

It's based on the fact that this article over-relies on primary sources - self-descriptions from the group itself - along with the ongoing issue that they have historically imitated what they believe are Native American spiritual ceremonies. They've been asked to stop doing this. More recently they have issued statements saying they have stopped or changed these activities. What do the third-party sources call their activities? I know some of the sources we've cited call them "imitation ceremonies" and "mockeries." I figured "rituals" was kinder. Note: in the Indigenous cultures they are, erm, claiming inspiration from, "ceremony" means "sacred spiritual ceremony". That's the reason. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Ceremony" is a neutral/accurate term. The article here is stating what the OA procedures are. Calling it something that isn't accurate makes no sense...

You are implying such usage of the word "ceremony" is cultural appropriation and shortening of "sacred spiritual ceremony" is unsupported by references, WP:OR, and POV pushing. If you have a third-party sources to back it up, please do so. Even from your own unsourced claims above, they use the word "ceremony". Reverting someone's changes based on "It was changed on purpose" and "I figured 'rituals' was kinder." in order to push an agenda is inappropriate. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wimachtendienk

I searched further and thought I had found some Lenape language dictionaries that do have this word. I was about to modify the text but then I saw that the only dictionaries where I found it all sourced back to Gilwell.com • a website for things Scouting. So far, the sites I can find run by Lenape people don't have the word. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, let's not just limit ourselves to current websites run by the Lenape people, shall we? Languages change some over time. It would be more appropriate to look at texts/resources that were present at the time and not on incomplete web listings. For example, perhaps a published English-Lenape dictionary? Historical context and reliability mean everything. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, there ya go... Buffs (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, let me check this one out. If this is legit I will remove that bit. I didn't see that you'd responded here before I reverted. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It's compiled by Moravian missionaries. I thought that suffix looked Germanic. I'm not sure. We need someone Lenape to look at this. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lenape dictionary does not strike me as "incomplete". But pending more info, I've turned it into a footnote. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

"“Wimachtendienk” is a word used by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren). It is grammatically correct Lënape and translates as “we who are brothers to one another” and thus, by extension, was used to convey the meaning of the European concept of a “brother-hood”. This European concept did not exist in the Lënape tradition, thus there was no word, so the Moravians had to invent one. But at least it’s gram-matically correct." The word is not Lenape. It's a Moravian invention. Indigenous girl (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

So, ignoring WP:OR, it is "grammatically correct" and a word used by the Moravians, German, and Dutch missionaries in conversation with the Lenape People to illustrate a concept in their culture not present in theirs? That's going to be the logic we're standing on? Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Your source is an OA newsletter. I'm not saying they are right/wrong, but you cannot complain about a group's reliability in one breath and then use the same group's newsletter as an ironclad fact. You're WP:CHERRYPICKING. Pick one and stick with it. Which is it going to be? Buffs (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't in the same breath claim that it verifies one claim but the same sentence/source can't be used to verify another. The missionaries used that word. There is no evidence they created it. That's not what any source claims. You're just making assumptions. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Buffs: this belongs on article talk, not user talk. There are tons of sources that show the group misrepresents Native cultures. Show me any sources that say it reliably represents Native cultures. It's a pretendian group. Natives protest it. IG just posted a source on talk that sources that the missionaries made up the fake Lenape words. It's a BSA source. Gilwell is also a Scouting source, who I've already discussed above. Keep this on article talk, where it belongs. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

And there is a whole section where you've taken over to air your grievances. That you personally oppose this group is irrelevant. We've covered this in excruciating depth. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments on YOUR behavior are on YOUR talk page, as they should be. Buffs (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I will incorporate this source now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought we were using the talk page. Hmmm...guess not. Buffs (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Lenape speak two related languages, Munsee and Unami. Within Unami there are three dialects (I am pretty sure one is extinct, I don't have time to look for sources, I'm in the middle of something). The Moravian dictionary has created words that did not exist previously in any dialect, the created words were used to push concepts used for conversion. I think the Moravian dictionary written in one of the Unami dialects however it is written from a German lens and there is a difference in how say an English lens (ear?) would transcribe it. As we have seen with other early diactionarys a lot is actually lost in translation and pronunciation. And then there's the made up words which are made up regardless of how real somebody wants them to be.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's EXCEPTIONALLY standard for ANY language where there are differences. For example. In English, Qatar is properly pronounced kuh-TAR or GUTT-er. Both are analogous to local dialects though not 100% accurate. That doesn't mean that the spelling or pronunciation is "wrong". Beijing spelled Peking is another such example. Written translations into other languages almost ALWAYS lose some accuracy, but it doesn't mean "it doesn't exist" or it's "wrong" or "there's no such word". It's a best-effort approximation. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you're looking at the language conventions - spelling, construction, all the things linguists take into consideration when evaluating these claims. I understand this is hard for you. You've believed this for a long time, I gather. But the sources you trusted are wrong. I think your fundamental block here is that you don't seem to believe that the Lenape have preserved their own language, and that they noted in that dictionary from the beginning that that wasn't one of their words. Look at the notations. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me. I've never even BEEN in Boy Scouts (or Scouts BSA as they are now called). I've never been even a Scout or Tenderfoot. What you think about me is irrelevant and is clouding YOUR judgement. You treating me in a condescending manner as if I'm some poor wayward scout who grew up just learning things that you know to be true and it's up to you to correct the poor, ignorant fool. The sources, I'm using are WP:RS which I'll stand up to your WP:OR any day of the week. You think "they noted in that dictionary from the beginning that that wasn't one of their words". You have nothing that says that anywhere in a reliable source. It's all WP:SYN and WP:OR.

However, even if what you're claiming is 100% accurate, it would still be accurate to say that "Brotherhood" translated into the Lenape (Unami) language WOULD effectively (and perhaps somewhat loosely) translate to Wimachtendienk when looking at it from a Dutch-English/Pennsylvania-Dutch perspective. In English, the word "prequel" didn't exist prior to the early 1990s, but we came up with a word that meant what we were intending. EVERY word is made up. When translating between languages, there isn't usually a 1-for-1 correlation and words/pronounciations are often approximations in foreign tongues. Buffs (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The word was made up for a specific purpose by and for a specific group. It is not longer used because the Moravians are no longer involved in Lenapehoking. It was a missionary word used within the dealings of converstion. It's use was historical and minimal. It is a made up word, created by Zeisberger. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The dictionary is not 'Unami' for what it's worth. Unami has three dialects, only two of which are living. If it was an Unami dictionary it would have inculded all three dialects. Albert Seqaqkind Anthony, one of the contributors, is recorded as solely a Minsee(Munsee) speaker. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Prequel was first used in the 1950s and entered into popular language in the 1970s for what it's worth. It's a new English word created by and for English speakers. That is not the same as a foreign person creating a word, utilized by foreigners for a specific purpose which is not used by speakers of that language. Not sure if what I just said is clear, I am multitasking. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Re:Zeisberger's creationBuffs (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You are correct that prequel became a word, but the point is that just like every other word, it was invented. The Unami language is not controlled by the Lenape any more than English is controlled by America. Other cultures will influence each other, period. Buffs (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't take the scouting newsletter's word for it that the invented Moravian words, with their added Germanic phonemes, are "grammatically correct". That's clearly the writer's opinion. But it's a source where they admit that they know, and admit, the non-Native origins of what they do. It backs up what we've found here. Also, it's noted in the Moravian dictionary that this word, and the others in that song, were invented (the initialing where it didn't pass review). And I don't believe for a minute that the Lenape "had no concept of brotherhood". That is one of many (possibly not intentially insulting, but insulting nonetheless) statements in these materials that show that these guys were making stuff up without full consultation or adequate cultural or linguistic knowledge. This is something that has also been clear throughout the entire process of working on this article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You're taking that they "had no concept of brotherhood" intentionally literally, not the manner in which it was clearly intended: they didn't have a specific word that meant the same with the same connotation. English doesn't have an exact single word that means "“softly falling snow", but the Inuit word "“aqilokoq” works just fine. If they wanted to translate from their language to ours like "softfall" snow, it would be completely appropriate to get the point across. Everything in the article you have show the approximation is grammatically correct, the pronunciation is simply slightly muddied when translating from Pennsylvania Dutch to English and the approximations made between languages. Buffs (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

However, if we're going to use YOUR standards below, the statement is 100% factual.

Your "note" is incorrect: Wimachtendienk only appears in the Moravian dictionary from 1888, and in Order of the Arrow, Eagle Scout, and other BSA materials.

• Gilwell.com is not a BSA site. It is independent of BSA and is a BRITISH site, not American. As I showed (and you deleted), multiple third party publications use this term when describing scouting activities. There were other books I also included, but you deleted in preference for a self-published article that purportedly supports your contention.

Neither Wimachtendienk, nor the other words in this song in appear in the dictionaries written and currently maintained by the Lenape language dictionary maintained by Lenape people themselves...

• You checked ONE site with that supported your assertion, not "dictionaries" (plural), but they only address ONE of 3 major dialects. As IG stated above, there is at least one extinct dialect and another dialect you haven't accounted for. On top of that, every language has slang terms that aren't officially part of the language, but are still used. Additionally, and most importantly, that site itself admits that it is an incomplete dictionary: "This is a work-in-progress so come back often as more words and sound files are being added." With the given evidence, you simply cannot claim that the word is never used. Get a reliable, third party source that claims it. Until then it's WP:SYN/WP:OR and you know full well it isn't allowed. Buffs (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added a total of 7 sources from a wide variety of places. Some are published by BSA. Some are published by other sources. I rephrased your note in a better format that, hopefully, addresses your points in an appropriate manner. Buffs (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. That scouting newsletter is not an RS for the grammar being correct. This is a total whitewashing. You are insisting on cutting valid criticism or relegating it to the Native section. You just turned that material on the made-up name into a joke, and misrepresented/cherry-picked the source to boot. I don't for a minute believe that you think this is appropriate. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've taken out the insulting commentary from the Scout newsletter, claiming Germanic phonemes are "grammatically correct", along with the personal interpretations of the material, and fixed the misuse of the quote function. The quote parameter in the citation template is for exact quotes of the source, not personal commentary. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said in the very first post in this discussion, only the Lenape online dictionary is a Lenape source. All the others, including gilwells, and the Moravians, are not Lenape. I checked them all, then I posted on here to see if anyone was able to find anything that contradicted these findings. What happened is that Indigenous girl confirmed my findings and found more to back them up, and Buffs wanted to argue that German phonemes are "grammatically correct" Lenape, and that non-Lenape know the Lenape language better than the Lenape people. So, no change from when this first started, except to reinforce the original finding. No consensus to whitewash this into "German missionaries know the Lenape culture better than the Lenape do themselves." or, "The Order of the Arrow is the true maintainer of Native American cultures" which, as I gather, is the entire aim of the group and certain editors' goal with their editing on this article. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

[ec] Ok, I guess I botched a formatting issue with the "quote" portion of the citation template? If so, that's a simple mistake we've ALL made. Conflating an honest mistake or minor disagreement over how much to quote with an "abuse of format" or "misuse" or "total whitewashing" or "cutting valid criticism" is very uncivil and not helpful. I did shorten it because we don't need every little bit of it, just the part to support the assertion. You want to add more to it? I don't particularly care, but that's not a major problem unless you're changing the meaning of the citation.

All that said YOU were the one who added the quoted material not once, but twice, not me. To blame me for something YOU added...I mean...what the hell? Is gaslighting people now also considered acceptable, civil behavior?

What you've put into the article and described here is still incomplete/misleading (as evidenced above). I'll repeat:

1. There is only one online dictionary that you linked and only one online that I can find. I'm not aware of another. Therefore the word "dictionaries" needs to be changed in your note to "dictionary".
2. You removed a phrase that said "" and your justification was "No link for statement of incompleteness." As stated above, I provided such a link. This is exceptionally tendentious editing to claim that there's no source when you know full well one exists. Accordingly, I've re-added & rephrased it this time with a link.
3. I am not "cutting valid criticism". You're conducting WP:OR and synthesizing your conclusions. You're choosing misleading phrases and adding your own personal commentary that are not backed by reliable sources. Either find a reliable resource or quit adding it.
4. I've also removed the spurious reference to "Translations of words and phrases related to "brother" That isn't the word/phrase/idea in question. Just because it has a similar word usage in English doesn't mean its absence in a list of related phrases to a portion of the word in another language proves anything.
5. "The quote parameter in the citation template is for exact quotes of the source, not personal commentary." What? First of all, what was put there WAS a verbatim quote. You changed it to an almost-exact quote and changed a word that wasn't in the original and isn't backed by a reliable source: "constructed". No source backs the claim that they constructed or created the word. I can think of 100 innocuous reasons for any variation between now and 300+ years ago that are not nefarious, but you've chosen to assume the one reason that backs your assumptions/agenda. Therefore, you've changed the phrasing and added your own personal phrase in an effort to advance an anti-cultural appropriation political agenda and in violation of WP:NPOV. Claiming the "Quote function is not for an editor's personal commentary. Abuse of format." is outrageous! especially when you added your own commentary and removed the actual quote YOU added! Accordingly, I've changed it back to what YOU originally put in there and [https://nhscouting.doubleknot.com/openrosters/DocDownload.aspx?id=101803 what the actual quote was:

Verbatim as you originally added it and as was in the article YOU cited/quoted: "“Wimachtendienk” is a word used by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren). It is grammatically correct Lënape and translates as “we who are brothers to one another”"

vs

Your latest phrasing: "“Wimachtendienk” is a word contructed [sic] by the Moravians, German and Dutch missionaries who first interacted with the Lenape in the 1700’s, to describe themselves and their church (The United Brethren) to translate “we who are brothers to one another”"

Buffs (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

At this point, you've stopped addressing issues and are focusing exclusively on the motivations of me/others. You continue to view any change to anything you wrote as "disruption" and assume the worst of those who disagree with you without regard for whether their concerns have merit. If they oppose you, they must be wrong and the civility rules of Wikipedia do not apply to you, only others. I've NEVER said or claimed

• "German phonemes are 'grammatically correct' Lenape" (YOU added that source AND quote, not me)
• "non-Lenape know the Lenape language better than the Lenape people"
• "German missionaries know the Lenape culture better than the Lenape do themselves."
• "The Order of the Arrow is the true maintainer of Native American cultures"

You assume that because you are attempting to promote a political agenda of anti-cultural appropriation. You "gather [that] the entire aim of the group and certain editors' goal with their editing on this article." and, as such, you've stopped assuming good faith, you will not remain civil, and I'm done with it. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The online talking dictionary from the Lenape Nation is incomplete, yes, however authentic words from Moravian sources have been added. The majority of the dictionary has been a work in progress created by speakers, who knew or know their language. They are the experts.

There are Lenape language sources available online - https://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/Linguistics/LenapeLanguageResources/pdf/ConversationLenape.pdf is an example as well as Michael Pitzer's Handbook of Eastern Woodland Indian Languages (you can get it for free with a kindle). The words/phrases/terms, what ever one wishes to call them, are not found in them. They just aren't. I don't understand why there is a big to-do about the fact that wimachtendienk and other words were made up by non-Lenape in order to more easily proselytize. The Lenape choose not to claim those words that the Moravians, and more specifically Zeisberger, created - because they are not Lenape words - and that's perfectly acceptable to most people I think. I mean, really, they have the final say, not OA or BSA or people posting on Wikipedia. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason it's a big to-do is that

1. by your own admission, the source is indeed incomplete. Ergo, it may be reliable by what IS there, but, as it is incomplete, it is not reliable for what ISN'T there. Likewise, the sources you're citing are not dictionaries. They are VERY basic intros to the language. They don't include the translation for many basic words (like "airplane", "street", or "pregnant") much less more complex words/concepts like "brotherhood". While helpful, they are very incomplete, much less exhaustive. They cannot be used to say that "that word doesn't exist".
2. no source backs your claim that the missionaries "constructed" such a word (much less a specific person, Zeisberger, or for a specific intent, "in order to more easily proselytize"); it very well could be a word they construed with the Indigenous People's help to have better communication. Likewise, the original use in the Order of the Arrow was likely and simply a good faith effort to use the proper words in that language with no malfeasance. But that's just speculation...just like your assertions. According to the sources, they "used" it. If I'm missing the source, please let me know where I'm missing it. I'm willing to change my mind on the subject. To date, I haven't seen anything to back these claims, just speculation of malfeasance without evidence.
3. I truly understand your point of view that the Lenape should exclusively be able to control what is in their language, but that is a political position. Wikipedia relies on WP:RS and what others say in those published works. As such, these aims are at odds. If there is disagreement between reliable sources and what, for example, the Lenape people want, the default on Wikipedia is "what do the reliable sources say", not "defer to what this People over here want". I fully recognize that you don't share that viewpoint, but Wikipedia (and virtually all legal systems, if not all, for that matter) does not recognize that the Lenape People have exclusive control on their language any more than the Queen of England has control of English. Words are NOT static. They are fluid. They change over time. They are not as rigid as you're claiming (and certainly not over 300 years) nor do these People have the right to dictate how others use their language, approximate ideas, etc. Buffs (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Translation issue

Prefacing to state I am well aware that this is original research and that as it stands right now I have no intention of adding any of this to the article because it is OR and peripheral. There are critiques of David Zeisberger's works, contemporary to him as well as current, that his works are inaccurate and as I have stated before, creations on his part. I am simply putting this here for the record. I am not looking for an argument and will not participate in one. I will add contant as I find it in the future. At some point, if anyone is interested, it would be beneficial to this knowledge to his page.

• Proper Readings for the Two Forms of Zeisberger's Maqua-Delaware-Mahican Vocabulary by Carl Masthay. International Journal of American Linguistics Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 1986), pp. 172-181 https://www.jstor.org/stable/1265376
• A Harmony of the Spirits: Translation and the Language of Community in Early Pennsylvania by Patrick M. Erben. Omohundro Institute and University of North Carolina Press, page 1 so far, I have not gotten further into the book because I have other things to do. https://books.google.com/books?id=qTDqCQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1&dq=inaccuracies%2C%20zeisberger&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigenous girl (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No discussion warranted. This is WP:OR as both admitted and described ad nauseum previously. Might I suggest moving this to Zeisberger's article? Buffs (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

"Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." At this point Corbie has not faithfully reproduced the source. He has instead changed a quote to paraphrasing and introduced words not in the source to bolster his political position that were not in the original (changing "used" to "constructed") and has not provided documentation to back up that claim, just speculation. As such, it should be removed and properly quoted, not erroneously summarized. Buffs (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Constructed" vs "Used": There is no reliable source that states "constructed", only "used". That's an assumption. If you have a reliable source that states otherwise, add it. Otherwise stop.

Likewise, per the WP:MOS, there is no reason to add emphasis in a citation/note and certainly not html code. Buffs (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reduced quotes all over

I've reduced the number of quotes as they are unnecessarily lengthy and fail WP:SUMMARY and WP:MOS. In particular, the last one summarized I felt was BETTER than the quote as it further summarized the entire posting, not just a single line. I left the last one as I have no idea how best to summarize it right now. Feel free to jump in. If you feel we shouldn't follow WP:MOS, please explain why and let's discuss BEFORE reverting. We seem to have been able to do that with every previous section; I see no reason for an exception here. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

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 {{cn}} 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)

@Buffs: 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.[9] - 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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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:

OA lodges have also been criticized for incorporating into their ceremonies elements from Native American groups of other parts of the U.S., blending together the traditions without apparent recognition or regard to distinctions among Native American groups. Use of Native American sacred objects by Boy Scouts who are not members of that cultural tradition has been observed. This is emphasized by Ozheebeegay Ikwe, a Native American activist:

I have been told that if we are not using these sacred objects as they are intended, we aren't walking the walk. Along with carrying and using these items, comes a great deal of responsibility. Not just anyone should have them. I want my children to know the truth that is the Drum, Pipe, and Eagle Feather. I want them to understand that traditional ways are not a costume or boy scout initiation. They are alive, they are sacred.[69]

Proposed:

Use of Native American sacred objects by non-Native groups such as the Boy Scouts has been condemned by Native activists. Activist and mother *of former scouts*, Ozheebeegay Ikwe, writes, "While native children in residential schools had their culture and language beaten from them, the Boy Scouts were using the language and their version of “Indian culture” in their OA ceremony." She stresses that the proper use of "the Drum, Pipe, and Eagle Feather", along with other sacred ways, is a great responsibility in Native American cultures, that "traditional ways are not a costume", and that these sacred ways are still part of the lives of Native American people who want them preserved intact for their own children, rather than used by "just anyone." She called the OA's use of headdresses, face paint, eagle feathers, and dancing with a pipe, "downright offensive". After researching the OA and watching their ceremonies she said, "Use of these items by Boy Scouts indicates that there is very little understanding of the Native people they claim to admire and respect."

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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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:

OA use of Native American sacred objects has been condemned by Native American activists. Activist and mother Ozheebeegay Ikwe writes, "While native children in residential schools had their culture and language beaten from them, the Boy Scouts were using the language and their version of “Indian culture” in their OA ceremony." She stated that the proper use of sacred objects, clothing, and dances are a great responsibility in Native American cultures and are still part of the lives of Native American people who feel they should not be used by just anyone. Ikwe found such usage by the OA offensive and indicated to her that there was a lack of respect for the culture of the Native people that the OA claimed to admire and respect.

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. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 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)

Up for consideration -

The article currently shows -

In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard to the National Order of the Arrow Conference being held on the MSU campus: For years, the OA's official logo was a stylized image of a generic "native" face with a swirling headdress. Their logo has since changed to a rough-hewn arrowhead, and although it is better than a dehumanizing image a la CMU's old "Chippewa" logo or the current Washington Redskins logo, it is still a symbol deliberately and shamelessly appropriated from a stylized stereotype of Native American artifacts. The OA website, as of today, features a prominent image of the "original chief bonnet," a feather headdress on a young white man's head. There is nothing "original" about this "bonnet." It is a symbol stolen from a culture that has absolutely nothing to do with the British tradition of Boy Scouts. Although the Boy Scouts have made some very recent advances toward being more socially aware...their honor society remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism

Proposed change -

In a letter to the State News of MSU, OA member Philip Rice wrote in regard to the National Order of the Arrow Conference being held on the MSU campus about the former OA logo having been a "stylized image of a generic native" face with a swirling headdress" prior to the introduction of the new arrowhead logo likening it to "CMU's old "Chippewa" logo or the current Washington Redskins logo". He noted that at the time the Order of the Arrow's website still included a prominent image of the "original chief bonnet" being worn by a young white man. While he acknowledged the recent changes toward social awareness he concluded that "their honor society remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism".

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):

In 2015, OA member Philip Rice wrote a letter to The State News of Michigan State University to protest hosting the National Order of the Arrow Conference on the MSU campus. He felt the OA's former logo, "a stylized image of a generic 'native' face with a swirling headdress" was offensive, but better than Central Michigan University's defunct Chippewa logo and the Washington Redskins logo. He also objected to a prominent image of the original chief bonnet worn by a young white man on the OA's website. He acknowledged the recent changes toward social awareness such as changing the logo to a rough-hewn arrowhead, but concluded that the OA "remains guilty of flagrant cultural appropriation and borderline racism".

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)

References

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)

What?

El_C, how on earth does this fall under "post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people"? Buffs (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

On the earth side of the United States and around that aforementioned timeline. Feel free to appeal at ARCA. El_C 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

AP2 DS applied and moving forward — key word: substance

Please note that I have applied AP2 discretionary sanctions to this article, as it very clearly could use further push toward substance and away from innuendo. I will not, however, allow the consensus required provision to be used as an instrument of attrition. Once reverted, edits as well as reverts of edits will need to be accompanied by substantive discussion, with the aim of trying to reach consensus. That said, please try to condense, so as to make the discussion accessible to outside input. Thanks and good luck. El_C 23:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Permission to make edits

Some of my revisions have been summarily reversed with no explanation. What is the rationale for scrambling up the order of the reference numbers (instead of ^{[21][16][9][13]} we reorder the refs so they are in order ^{[9]13][16][21]})? I don't think this should be a contentious issue to fix, but for some reason that I'm unable to comprehend, it's been undone with no rationale.

Does anyone object to fixing that? Buffs (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indicate here on talk exactly where in the article these edits would take place. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Um...everywhere with consecutive/redundant references. I have no idea why this would this even be contentious or why you undid them, but here we are. I would appreciate agreement or at least a reason why we shouldn't. Buffs (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That diff doesn't really tell us anything. It's your edit, and doesn't really explain what you want to change. The priority in sourcing a statement is accuracy, not whether the numbers are in ascending order. When sourcing a statement, I put the most relevant source(s) first. When you have tried to tack on extra, unneeded or irrelevant cites, then defended them via edit-warring, we have at times kept them at the end of the list as a compromise. They should actually be cut. Re-arranging them is not the answer. Let's just leave the sources where they are for now. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wow. really? It explains EXACTLY what I want to change. Let me summarize your remarks as I’m seeing them: <flippant remark><Condescending remark>WP:ILIKEITWP:ILIKEIT<Unnecessary condescending remark about the past...again x2> WP:ILIKEIT WP:ILIKEIT

You asked exactly what I wanted to take place, I showed you, and you say it doesn’t tell us anything. Why are you asking me to repeatedly jump through hoops? Are you just trying to waste my time? El_C, why no enforcement for WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and others? I thought we were focusing on the edits, not the editors...

If the priority in sourcing is accurately paraphrasing or quoting what people say, why are you still insisting on adding "constructed" above? No source says that. As for the order of the references, every technical writing course I’ve had insisted on footnotes appearing in order. If it's unimportant, why did you change them? Examples from around the world: [10] [11] [12]. My reasons are based on citation guides, not just WP:ILIKEIT. Buffs (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No response? Buffs (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)