User talk:CQJ/Safeguarded Material
The discussion starts with examination of what exactly is an honor society, and really gets kicked off with user Smack's statement that the WWW mark (meaning Brotherhood, Cheerfulness, and Service in the Lenape language) is "secret". Delirium states that Wikipedia "isn't obligated to respect secrecy of rituals of various organizations" and rewords some parts of the article to rid it of the secrecy aspect. Smack returns with a statement about interesting information omitted from the article and its valid concern about the idea of omitting ritualistic information and states that someone should contact National OA for guidance. Other users chip in with what is "secret" information and what is not, and their individual positions.
A fellow calling himself "A nonapathetic Arrowman" makes the following statement:
- I think it's important not to put all the secrets on here out of the interest of maintaining the organization's allure and interest to the young Boy Scouts that are non-members. It's not a real exclusive organization, almost any Boy Scout that sticks with scouting for a few years will eventually be elected into it. Meanwhile, not knowing what the "WWW" on member's uniforms stands for, and not knowing what goes on at the ritual ceremonies, helps impart some magic into the organization and increases the "honor" when a nonmember is elected (by other nonmembers) into the organization. If the secrets are readily available on Wikipedia, every 11 year old will seek them out and know them -- much to the detriment of the non-members. I'd say the "in loco parentis" rule should apply here, "we" know what's best for these non-members, leave them in the dark a bit and they'll apreciate their future experience a little more. Meanwhile, parents of the boys can learn whatever they feel they need to simply by asking the troop's adult leaders about it.
My real concern in this talk thread begins with Taco Deposit's return to Arrowman's statement:
- As someone who thinks Wikipedia should contain the details of all secret ceremonies, I have to disagree. Now don't worry; I don't think community consensus is to post OA ceremony details here (yet), but I'm pretty sure that doesn't extend to withholding what WWW stands for. Wikipedia contains spoilers. Now, if someone wants to rearrange facts on this page so they appear beneath a spoiler warning, I would not be opposed to it.
Seth Ilys makes a brief discussion of being disturbed about strict secrecy and that the Order is not a Masonic lodge, and that he encourages whatever is necessary to prevent the impression that OA is secret. The standard safeguard disclaimer is also shown in his comments:
- The Order of the Arrow, recognizing the attractiveness of the unknown, utilizes the form of mystery. This shall not be interpreted, however, as justifying the withholding of any information regarding the Order from any person legitimately interested in investigating its nature, purpose, or method.
I enter the discussion at this point in time.
- As to revealing ceremonial details on an open forum such as Wikipedia, for the main reason that anyone can update, edit, or move these pages, that's a bad call. For example, what if (and this isn't that far off) someone with the least of best intentions modified the ceremonies to include details that weren't true? True, members of the organization could access the page and return the details to normal, but what would the damage be in the passing time? I handled this issue on another page by stating that ceremonies are safeguarded similar to the Order's ceremonies. I think I'll refine it a bit, but still. Safeguarded material is safeguarded material. Would you like to have gone through the Ordeal, Brotherhood, or Vigil ceremony as a candidate knowing full well what was going to occur? Ruins the effect a bit, doesn't it?
Thesquire agrees with me, and states that a brief mention of the existence of the ceremonies, purpose, and possible symbolism would be appropriate. Genteen returns with the point that no one is suggesting putting up ceremonial scripts into the article, Cavebear states that Wikibooks would be the place to do that, and Taco Deposit makes the following statement:
- When I said this article should contain the details of the ceremonies, I did not mean complete transcripts of the scripts. That would be a clear copyright violation, either here or on Wikisource.
It is at this point in time that I started this separate talk page to keep my own position on this issue clear and concise. I want to make it perfectly and obviously clear that I'm not out to get anyone; my purpose is to do what any good adviser would do and protect the Order's safeguard. I can appreciate the positions of all involved, however, I openly disagree with posting any ceremonial details which could lead to the loss of the experience for a new member.
By running a Google search, I found that even National lists the four tests of the Ordeal on their OA Fact Sheet, but nowhere on the Internet can you find open ceremonial details such as descriptions on the ceremonial grounds, symbolic gestures, or symbolic items without knowing the Admonition of the Order, the answer to the chief's question, or the watchwords of the Vigil Honor.
My position is that we, as responsible Arrowmen, should include the National description of the Ordeal and Brotherhood experience as stated directly on National's own Fact sheets and leave the rest for individuals to find out on their own. We should use the Internet or other "publications" as the guide for what is said and unsaid and leave it at that, because as officers and advisers, we are responsible for maintaining the experience of the Order for all who still face the Ordeal, the Brotherhood, or the Vigil.
In addition, to quell the "secrecy" argument, we ought to include a snippet about how if one is really interested in the Order, they can call the Lodge Staff Adviser at their local Council Service Center and have all their questions answered to their own satisfaction and not even touch it here in this forum.
As to the spoiler warning, why flag the fact that spoilers are present on the page at all? Prospective members won't know that we've only "revealed" 10% of the experience, and we maintain our safeguard over what really matters - the Order as a "thing of the spirit".
I kindly request that my summary and main points above not be modified, rather, comments to go down here. Jeremiah Cook 19:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This morning I gave this a try and was able to retrieve the admonition and brotherhood question/answer within a few minutes (and I'd forgotten what they were after so many years) , but the vigil watchwords do seem to be better protected. That seems like a good state to leave things in; people who really really gotta know can go fishing if they want, but there's no need for the Wikipedia to go all out and spoil it for those who don't want to ruin the fun for themselves.
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:CQJ/Safeguarded Material" page.
