Talk:Order of the Arrow/Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)