Talk:Order of the Arrow

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The Ordeals that the Ordeal canidates are going through are secret. Just a word of coution for you members out there. - Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Ordeal is not secret; the ceremony is safeguarded so as to not spoil the mystery. Any non-member with a decent reason can attend ceremonies—this has been policy since the introduction of the Youth Protection program. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maby i should re-word that. After I wen tthrough my Ordeal i had to take an oath of secrecy not to spred what we had to do during the Ordeal. It might be different for yall out there but thats how I went though mine. - Helopusobiwa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood membership

The statement, "The Ordeal member was traditionally required to successfully and effectively lead two groups of new Members through their ordeal weekend (making them Ordeal Members) as a requirement to his receiving the Brotherhood level of membership" is questionable. Aside from its structure and style problems (e.g., compound split infinitive and capitalization), I believe it is misleading. While this practice may have been a tradition in a particular lodge, it certainly has not been customary nationwide nor an explicitly stated OA requirement. It should be deleted IMO. JGHowes ^talk - 15:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not remember that i had to require to "successfully and effectively lead two groups of new Members through their ordeal weekend" I just had to make a essay on why I am elligible and I had to be an Ordeal member for five months. - Helopusobiwa 8:54 Feb 07, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helopusobiwa (talk • contribs) 13:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The erroneous sentence has been deleted. JGHowes ^talk - 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure of safeguarded OA ceremonial materials

Recently, there have been two instances when editors chose to post safeguarded OA material in this article. Please consider the feelings of others, for whom the OA ceremonies are intended to have "an air of mystery" and excitement. By longstanding consensus here, safeguarded Order of the Arrow ceremonial texts should not be included in Wikipedia articles. Please observe this and refrain from adding safeguarded OA material to the article, so as to preserve the memory of the OA induction for others and not hurt them. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 13:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue is already covered in a messagebox at the top of the talk page. The problem is one of sources and verifiability. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, thanks for pointing out that this is indeed one of the core content policies of Wikipedia and posting OA ceremonial details, etc. is contrary to WP:V. JGHowes ^talk - 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The information regarding "the admonition" and "Allowat's question" were properly sourced to books that have gone through dozens of editions since the early 20th century. Therefore, calling them unverifiable is not supportable. Additionally, much of the information in the OA entry comes from the OA Handbook, itself a so called "safeguarded" book. The OA Handbook is sited as a source in this article so why should the Ceremony for the Ordeal be treated any differently? Saying that information which comes from OA books is off limits just because OA members prefer it that way is self-serving and thus indefensible in a community project like Wikipedia. For example, muslims would prefer that images of the prophet not appear in the article on Mohammad, but they do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.11.135 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC) --Ahoalton (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, those ceremonial texts are not published in the OA Handbook: they are in the controlled ceremonies pamphlets only, which are not verifiable sources meeting WP:V. JGHowes ^talk - 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I see a parallel between this situation and Temple garments, which Mormons believe should not be described or pictured. In that article, consensus has been that Wikipedia is not censored, and thus, the fact that adherents believe they should be secret is not, in itself, a reason to remove the information. Depictions of Muhammad is another article on a subject that members would prefer not be described, and Scientologists believe that Wikipedia should not contain information on Xenu I'm not sure how information is 'unverifiable' if both sides agree that it has been published by the organization, even if it is in a book that is difficult to obtain. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some valid points Queenie, but the consensus here has so far been to leave this material out. But as the wired age moves on and on, this may be harder to maintain ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the talk archives, and I would not agree that the consensus was so clear as to make further discussion unnecessary. In fact, it seemed that many of the arguments against including this information were grounded in OA rules and not in Wikipedia policy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• We should respect the privacy of the ceremony. I think it can be described without giving it all away. --evrik ^(talk) 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • By this logic we would have to rewrite half of wikipedia to conform to every interested party's biases. Actually, half is probably a conservative estimate. --Ahoalton (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I just reported the user to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. --evrik ^(talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safeguarded Info

Inasmuch as any editors have pledged to "safeguard" any information regarding this subject their editing of this article is a clear conflict and they should recuse themselves. I find it upsetting that these editors (apparently being admins that should know better) would continue to edit rather than seeking a 3O or some other input from non-conflicted sources. That being said, I'm not convinced the article needs to be so detailed that it includes the minutia of the steps performed during the ceremonies. It's not like this information is going to get lost in the passage of time or is even that secret to begin with. I think a note to the effect that given a sufficient reason (a parent whose child is going to participate) the ceremony and it's rituals can and will be fully disclosed. Padillah (talk) 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. --evrik ^(talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Third Opinion

I'm very sorry but Third Opinions can only be used when there are only two editors in the disagreement to begin with. You'll have to choose another method of dispute resolution, maybe informal mediation would be appropriate, if everyone agrees to participate. Thanks and good luck!--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another view

I fervently disagree with censorship, and merely because some editors are duty bound to keep a secret, doesn't mean others can't disclose it. This is a source http://www.unamilodge.org/Forms/SelfStudy.pdf for Admonition = Ahoalton, but the other details are not relfected in reliable sources that I can find. And even if there is a valid point, you should not edit war or 3RR to insert your version. Right now your a blocked user evading a block. MBisanz ^talk 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No editor is duty bound to keep anything a "secret". There are no secret societies in Scouting. Scouters are simply asked not to shove the ceremonies texts in front of a kid that might at some point be elected into the OA. If he has already read the ceremony, then it isn't going to be as impressive. Ceremony texts or anything else are given out on demand to parents or other adults with a legitimate interest. Posting the password in the text of the article would be a gratuitous spoiler for the sake of spoiling (your understanding of the subject is not at all enhanced by being told the password). A general overview of the induction weekend (not the full text of a ceremony, but an overview) is not out of bounds and the Boy Scouts of America gives one on their national website at http://www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/OrderoftheArrow/About.aspx - scroll down to "Induction". --B (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well something like the meaingful word would merit inclusion, if it had been covered in a reliable source. Like Skull and Bones rituals have been covered in newspapers, and those therefore covered at Skull and Bones (actually that needs sources, but for examples sake), but something like the secret handshake of Phi Beta Kappa Society, which I don't believe is covered in newspapers, isn't a good thing to include. I prefer the reason of "there are no reliable sources" to the reason of "it spoils it for kids". MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet there ARE reliable sources. There are dozens of so-called safeguarded books that have gone through multiple editions! And if any parent or interested party who wants to own a copy may have one as has been argued then what is the problem? Just because a book is somewhat less available than others does not disqualify it as a verifiable source. However, let me be clear on my main point. I am not interested in what specific information may or may not be approved for inclusion in the OA article. What I care about is the choice. All wikipedia users should have the choice to decide for themselves if this information is relevant. All I am arguing is that it is wrong that OA information which an editor may wish to include may be dismissed out-of-hand as "safeguarded" and therefore immediately disqualified for inclusion. Those are the rules and sensibilities of the OA, not of wikipedia. Admins seem okay defying the will of muslims by displaying images of Muhammad in the interest of keeping wikipedia free of censorship. So why is the will of a youth group being so staunchly defended? It seems like an overwhelmingly obvious double standard. --AhoaltonLives (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your blocked right now for evading a block and a username violation. 1. Don't register with a username containing Ahoalton, 2. If you'd like to be unblocked under a new name, email unblock-en-l at lists dot wikimedia dot org. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"It spoils it for kids" was in response to your comment about "editors [being] duty bound to keep a secret", not a statement of Wikipedia policy. The reason that we don't shove the ceremonies in front of kids (in our off-Wikipedia lives) is so that we don't spoil it for them. The reason Wikipedia doesn't publish the contents of the ceremonies is that they are not verifiable. Those are two separate issues. --B (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[edit] New discussion

The reason I went and archived the old discussion was that now that the person driving it has been blocked, the discussion appears to be over. Now, maybe we can move forward. --evrik ^(talk) 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see that, but we should address the issue with calm otherwise it will probably come up again. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no reason to archive it yet. Yes, a large part of this was brought about by Ahoalton's actions. However, quite a few of the contributors expressed concerns over the broader issue, and that still has to be resolved. Beyond that, why the rush? This doesn't seem to be a high-traffic page, given that each archive covers a year's worth of discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already discussed this with Rlevse, and we both feel that we need to open this up and clear the air. I would like to wait until Monday just to get over the drama of this past week. I had planned to archive the discussion and try to start clean without all the baggage of this wildfire. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How about the above as a compromise? I've applied the "hidden" template to collapse the extended sockpuppet portion. (That way, it is there if anyone wants to see it, but doesn't disrupt the actual discussion.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's already on the archive ... so no need to archive it again. We can leave it here to see if we still need it. I'm going to block off that portion of the page so we can start a new discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 17:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have two issues: 1)If the information about the edit war is removed then information about the subject of the edit war will be removed and I think that is still relevant and important. I hope "clear the air" isn't a colloquial for "sweep it under the rug and ignore it". Which brings me to my secnd issue: 2) There was a very important point to the argument regardless of the editor posing the argument. Simply because he was sockpuppeting doesn't mean his argument was invalid. If there are editors here that have sworn to "safeguard" certain information their continued editing of this article is a blatant violation of WP:COI and they should excuse themselves. I also like some rephrasing of the infobox at the top since I don't believe "safeguarding" of information should be mentioned (since it's blatantly not policy) and there hasn't been a consensus yet either so that a little premature. Padillah (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, adult leaders in the Order of the Arrow are not sworn to keep secret information about its ceremonies. To the contrary, adult leaders are explicitly instructed to divulge such information to any parent, religious leader, etc., who inquires. This policy is to allay any possible concern that Order of the Arrow ceremonies are objectionable. The allegation to the contrary by the banned sockpuppet is a Straw man. JGHowes ^talk - 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By "clear the air", I mean discuss the issues at hand including the messagebox. We could just sweep it under the rug, but I know this issue is not just going to go away. The previous discussion got way off focus and I was hoping to restart this without some of the previous baggage. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did you have any particular approach in mind? Padillah (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: discuss the material in question, why it is safeguarded and what safeguarded means; the applicable WP policies and guidelines; how we can improve the article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I've removed it from the archive since it's still here.
2. Just because it can be included does not mean it should be. Ceremony details are excessive. Do the articles on Fraternities, sororities, the Freemasons, etc have their ceremony details included? No, they mostly only talk in general about the ceremonies and that is what should be done here
3. More later, I'll be gone most of the weekend. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

{----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[edit] Safeguarded material

I would like to discuss the issues about safeguarded material that were brought up last week. We in the Scouting project need to get this in the open and work within the greater Wikipedia community.

Here is the applicable policy of the Order of the Arrow:

The Order of the Arrow, recognizing the attractiveness of the unknown, utilizes the form of mystery. This shall not be interpreted, however, as justifying the withholding of any information regarding the Order from any person legitimately interested in investigating its nature, purpose, or method. Nothing in the Order shall be interpreted as interfering with any member's religious obligation. If anyone has questions about this policy, or about the Order of the Arrow, they should contact their local Boy Scout Council or Lodge Adviser.

There sometimes confusion on this, as Arrowmen were admonished to keep ceremonies a secret up until the introduction of the Youth Protection program in the mid-1980s that included a ban on secret societies within the BSA. Safeguarding primarily relates to ceremonies used in the OA. These are based on American Indian ceremonies that have been reviewed and approved by tribal elders. Safeguarded material describing the ceremonies is not generally available to the public, but much of it can be found on the web.

My opinion: Details on ceremonies should not be included. A section on ceremonies should be added, including a general overview, principals and purposes. Some of this already exists in the Ordeal section. Freemasonry seems to be a good model for this. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry is one of the articles I was referring to when I wrote item two in the section above. I agree it's a good model. Again, just because something can be included doesn't mean it should be. There is something known as excessive detail and WP:UNDUE. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference, though, between the OA and Freemasonry. Freemasonry rites have been the subject of books and news media stories. There used to be a political party called the Anti-Masonic Party. Numerous conspiracy theories exist about masonry. There's obvious external interest about the subject. Contrast all that with the OA - nobody outside of Scouting really cares about OA ceremonies. --B (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comparing the organizations, but the articles. Freemasonry does a good job of describing ceremonies in general without excessive detail. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

B makes a good point. It is because of that very reason that there are no reliable secondary sources discussing OA ceremonial details. The only sources are primary, such as OA ceremonial scripts, and personal experiences (ie., OR). Another point, for consistency within Wikipedia a better comparison might be college fraternities such as Sigma Chi: details such as initiation rituals, handshake, etc. are not discussed.JGHowes ^talk - 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction that needs to be made is that the details that are left out are not necessary to an understanding of the OA. I understand that some editors have been asked by the order to keep certain things safeguarded but that isn't the question here and should not enter into the discussion. That path has led to trouble before. Let's keep this simple: Do the details being discussed add significantly to a persons understanding of the institution? I understand the impulse to compare to other institutions but let's try a different approach - let's view this like we do fair use pics, is this needed to understand the institution? If it is then it needs to be included to create a complete picture. If the information is not needed, it's not needed - safeguarding be darned. This decision will be a lot more stable if it rests solely on WP guidelines, it's not really needed. Mention that there is a ceremony and any parent that wants can get any information they want from the scoutmaster and call it a day. Padillah (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Details of down to that level are most certainly not essential to understanding what the order is about. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. I think that you guys are starting from the wrong point of departure, though. Your comments seem to begin from the presupposition that “safeguarding” any information on Wikipedia is acceptable conceptually. I think the inquiry should follow this order:

• 1. Is a consensus establishing for the exclusion (“safeguarding”) of published information contrary to Wikipedia censorship policies?
• 2. Does the involvement of editors self-identifying as members of a group with a policy of restricted information access constitute a conflict of interest under Wikipedia policy?
• 3. And only then: Is the specific information in question important in the scope of the article from an editorial standpoint?

It seems to me that the answer to the first two questions is yes. It doesn’t seem appropriate that the rules and preferences of the Order of the Arrow carry any weight on Wikipedia or that its members be allowed to establish and enforce a consensus based on those rules. I don’t have an opinion either way on the third question, but I will note that there seems to be a lot of detail given to other aspects of the Order of the Arrow in this article. I don’t see the justification of excluding the details of the group’s ceremonies when you already have an eight paragraph long section on its organizational structure and an entirely separate article devoted to the honors and awards of the Order of the Arrow. Maybe those ceremonial details belong there. In any case, I always thought that the more detail you could include in an article the better. But that’s another discussion. --Smokytopaz (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other stuff and I for one will take steps to address that as soon as we settled this debate. Having said that there is a valid point here: Are we going to get into the kind of detail that needs eight paragraphs to describe the organization of the order? I don't think so. I think those types of sections should be the next to go under the same auspice that some of the information currently being discussed is going: basically notability. Some have admitted as much in their defense of the contentious information - it's not found outside of primary sources. That's a lack of notability if I ever heard one. Padillah (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on the organization section. I think I chopped it down at one point, but is has grown back. Those eight "paragraphs" are mostly one or two sentences, and that is another issue. I definitely agree with the primary sources problem— I had just raised the same point on the parent Boy Scouts of America article, and I highly suspect the whole series has this issue. We are working the BSA article towards FA and then I am pushing the rest— this would probably be the fourth on the list. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind I think we can end this. Let's ditch the notebox at the top of this talkpage mentioning "safeguarding" and just take this forward as a simple article that needs improvement. I see no reason to upset the process if it's already in motion. Let's keep notability and openness in mind as we improve these articles and we should be fine. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The messagebox is confusing and divisive and should be removed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than simply remove the box and allow this discussion to fade from memory, it may make sense to change its contents to reflect a new consensus. I would suggest that a new consensus acknowledge that the editors are aware that there is an Order of the Arrow policy of “safeguarding” certain materials and that since Wikipedia is not censored this material is not prohibited in the article but will still have to be justified for inclusion based on editorial merit. Something similar to this sort of notice appears on the talk page of Muhammad article in regard to images of the prophet.--Smokytopaz (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By the fact that primary materials exist (some online even), eventually there will be secondary sources documenting them. I'd say the infobox at the top should say something along the lines of "We know there are safeguarded materials, but until there are secondary sources documenting them, we cannot include them in an article." Some things like the term definition that guy brought here last week would seem novel and interesting. Other things like the number of candles or time of day probably wouldn't. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal, in light of the foregoing discussion, I'd like to propose this replacement messagebox, which omits any reference to "safeguarding" and instead points the editor to relevent Wikipedia policies: JGHowes ^talk - 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm supposed to edit the box or make a copy. Making a copy seems too redundant to me, but if I'm wrong I apologize in advance. I'm just getting rid of some redundant wording. Padillah (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m not really sold on the idea that these Order of the Arrow books are “unverifiable.” I mean, this is written material, right? If it can be legitimately obtained by anyone who asks, as someone said earlier, how exactly can they be considered unverifiable? And these caveats specifically prohibiting the lyrics to the official song and encouraging the use of information from a promotional video made by the organization…it all seems a little Orwellian. I think the box should say almost the opposite of what has been suggested--that this "safeguarded" material is permitted as long as it adds value to the article. --Smokytopaz (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you. The song issue is because editors have included the entire song in the past and the copyright does not expire until 2050. Let me take a stab at this in a bit. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core policies is Verifiability. Content about the OA that is not available to the public legitimately through reliable sources or is solely from primary sources (for example, ceremonies texts or personal experience) is not considered to be verifiable. As such, please observe the following guideline when editing this or other related articles: This is a guideline that has been accepted by consensus. A spoiler warning should not be posted here. Do not include the lyrics to the official song. Do not include material found only in ceremonial booklets. You may add information available in the nationally released videos (The Choice is Yours, Scouting's Brotherhood of Cheerful Service, etc) or information that is not password-protected on the national OA website, or that may be published by reliable secondary sources. As always, notability guidelines apply as well and only information that will advance the understanding of the Order of the Arrow is appropriate. Thank you.

Let's try this one --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What about combining two of the statements:

The Order of the Arrow maintains some information as "safeguarded" simply to create a mystery around certain ceremonies but this information should not be added simply to shock or disrupt. All content must add value to the article regardless of it's status.

That gives a better relation between the two statements and specifically points out the issue and it's resolution. ??? Padillah (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me- simple is better. BTW, thanks for using {{quote box2}} that I created, but {{notice}} is more appropriate for a talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I still don’t understand why the article should exclude primary sources. The Wikipedia policy on primary sources doesn’t say they can not be used, it simply says that if used the material obtained from primary sources can not be interpreted. So if someone wanted to include a description of the ceremony or mention these secret words and their meanings, as long as this information comes directly from a primary source I don’t see what the problem is? --Smokytopaz (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and re-read that guideline and I see your point. Let's get rid of that statement. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK- like the last tweak. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --Smokytopaz (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines developed from previous discussions include: A spoiler warning should not be used. The lyrics to "Firm Bound in Brotherhood" are copyrighted; the copyright will not expire until 2050, which is 70 years after the death of the author, E. Urner Goodman. See WP:LYRICS. Wikipedia is not censored. The Order of the Arrow maintains some information as "safeguarded" to create an air of mystery around certain ceremonies, but this information should not be added to the article simply to shock or disrupt. All content must add value to the article regardless of its status as well as meeting the standards of verifiability and notability.

With no further discussion for over 24 hours, I have updated the notice and consider this resolved. I would like to thank everyone for a very civil and rewarding discussion. As usual, this is always open for re-discussion as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now let's see how reality is ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

{----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.