Talk:Boy Scouts of America

National Scout jamboree section

Why is the list of jamborees so important to be included in the main article? Since they duplicate the list in national Scout jamboree (Boy Scouts of America), should we delete that list? --Gadget850 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it appears that the jamboree is important enough to have it's own section, then it should properly summarize the main article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since this section was tagged "bad summary" on May 5, 2009, there's been no further discussion at all. Is it still a concern? What needs to be done, if anything? Is there a consensus to delete the list from this parent article (personally, I don't think it should be duplicated here) or delete the separate section entirely?  JGHowes  ^talk 04:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

After I reverted the list twice, I started this discussion with little interest. We don;t need the list. If we need a section on the jamboree, then it should be a summary of the main article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed this down and updated it with the new site. So— keep as a separate section or fold in somewhere else? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks about right to me now. A separate section is a good idea, if only to hang a hatnote. Plus, with the jamboree expected to be in the news in 2010, undoubtedly many readers will look up "Boy Scouts of America" and expect to find it mentioned prominently.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Membership controversies

my impression of the bsa membership controversies section in this article is that the section leans more to being a sounding board for those against the scouting orginization rather than a fact based unit for wikipedia.

the summary should meerly contain the statement that there are controveries over who can and cannot join and offer a link to the membership controveries page. the process of summerization creates a onesided and uncontested view point.

and while the it is true that the boy scouts consider themselves as a faith based organization, they recognize buddhism as an acceptable form of faith even though a growing number of buddhists considder themselves as atheist and that buddhism is a philosophy of life rather than a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckylaserbeam (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The membership prohibitions that are currently controversial are very clear-cut. BSA bans atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals. BSA states these prohibitions clearly on their own website, and has stated these prohibitions publicly in sworn court testimony. If there are membership controversies, certainly no-one can object to clearly stating what they are. If BSA states them, they should be stated here too. (Cwgmpls (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC))

This section should be a summary of Boy Scouts of America membership controversies per WP:SS, but it includes a paragraph on colored troops that is only marginally touched on in the main article.

This statement is rather disingenuous, considering Boyce's later actions in this regard.:

"When W.D. Boyce departed the organization, he turned the Boy Scout corporation over to the members of the Executive Board with the stipulation that the Boy Scouts would not discriminate on the basis of race or creed."

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This section is really biased. At the very least the statement "The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts." given that a very important US Supreme Court decision overruled the NJ Supreme Court when it said the BSA was not a "private institution." Likewise, the wording of of it suggest that the policies were somehow approved, rather than that any private association can make any rules it wishes and the BSA is a private institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.204.35 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The section in question is a summary of Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. I don't see where it states that the court approved the policies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To include three statements defending the policies, without ever stating what the actual policies are, is hardly objective. If the well-defined policies that are controversial cannot be stated here, then this section should only consist of a link to the membership controversies page, where everything can be spelled out. Defending the policies without stating what the policies are is not objective.(Cwgmpls (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

While this section (and a similarly named separate article)touches on areas where some good coverage would be very useful, both are doomed from the start by their titles which, essentially define the "subject matter" to include all anti-BSA opinions, all opinions that non-existent or mis-stated policies or practices exist, and all opinions against real or imagined BSA practices and policies, and material and references designed to argue in favor of those opinions. So we end up with non-coverage in this article, and reference to a separate article which is a complete mess, albeit with some gems of useful information in it. What needs to emerge is a section or article with a clearer scope, one covering BSA policies and practices in areas where there has been significant controversy. Specifically, homosexuality & atheism and possibly gender. And then hold this new article or section to the highest Wikipedia standards. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

PS The titles also suffer from the flaw limiting it to "membership". For example, the policy that causes the most opposition is one involving leadership positions, not membership.

And so here's my proposal. A new section or new article entitled: BSA Policies and Practices in Controversial Areas 99.151.168.32 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

joining

Could someone answer the question on how to join?--Louis 12:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisSS13 (talk • contribs)

If you're a kid, you just "join". That's what I did. All I had to do was talk to the Scout Master (and I had friends who were already in it).99.103.229.76 (talk) 15:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"The question" implies that this was asked somewhere. Which program is this related to? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Scout Oath and Law

This section is redundant with Aims, methods, and ideals. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of my Changes to "Membership Controversies" Section added wrong and unsupported statements

Rvlese reverted / changed to my sentence under "Membership Controversies" Section

from: The BSA has membership policies that prohibit the membership of girls in two of it's programs, prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in most of it's programs, and prohibit "avowed homosexuals" from leadership positions in most of it's programs.

to: "The BSA has membership policies that restricts the membership of girls and prohibits atheists, agnostics, and known or avowed homosexuals."

The above change inserted the following untrue and unsupported statements:

That BSA has policies restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. Can you cite such a current policy? (The only policy restricts avowed homosexuals from leadership positions in most of its programs. [all except Exploring and Learning for Life] There is NO policy restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals in any program.)

That BSA has policies forbidding Atheists membership in ALL of it's programs ( = including Learning for Life and exploring) Can you cite the policy on this?

Unless you can cite references for such policies, I plan to remove the unsupported / incorrect statements. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded it for greater specificity (and better sentence structure). This section is merely a summary of the main article, where further details /references are cited, hence the section hatnote.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That is much much better. I think that you might be wrong a bit; I think that avowed atheists can't be members (except in Learning for Life) and one sentence seems to need a grammar tweak. But either way it is much more accurate than the grossly inaccurate sentence which it replaces and thus a vast improvement. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I split Learning for Life into a separate sentence for clarity.

Adult homosexuals are clearly excluded:

• Volunteer Adult Leadership

Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.

• Employment

With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [1]

Youth homosexuals are not so clear:

Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.

There is an implication that gay youth would be allowed as long as they were not in a leadership position. There is some current discussion on this at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Gadget 850 your recent change knocked this section back to the stone age. It took out the detailed, supported and correct information which someone had just put in, and put in the same unsupported statements which I discussed at the start of this section. And again, unless you can cite references for such claimed policies, I plan to remove the unsupported / incorrect statements. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've modified. Leaving LfL completely separate makes sense and their membership policies were described in the previous section so I put them first to get them out of the way. As far as gay/lesbian youth membership, the BSA seems to have left it somewhat vague but does now seem to allow it as long as they don't hold youth leadership positions (a bit like Blacks in Mormon troops before the LDS changed its policy though more severe). I would say leave the particulars about the vagueness to the main article on the controversies unless we can find a definite post-2004 statement or action showing otherwise. --Erp (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By jumping around it is disorganized and confusing. I will look at it in another week. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Gadget, your first of the 12:16 post was better. Agree with Gadget, bunk like this is why this article will NEVER be an FA. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I did not understand what you meant, could you clarify? While the surface conversation is about LFL, the underlying changes seem to be between mixing 3 topics into one inaccurate mish-mash / inuendo sentence to one which handles the topics separately enough to be specific and accurate, or, more generically speaking, gets the statements out into the clear daylight for review instead of letting them hide in the mish-mash / inuendo sentence. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've realized that Gadget850 does a lot of good work. His/her change which I complained about above seems different than Gadget's other work, possibly unintentionally. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section wording

Current wording:

Though the non-traditional program, Learning for Life, does not restrict participation other than by age, membership in the traditional BSA programs is more restricted and controversial. Girls can only join Venturing though women can be adult volunteers in all programs. BSA membership policy also excludes known or avowed atheists or agnostics from all traditional programs. "Known or avowed homosexuals" are not employed or allowed to be adult volunteers; no current, formal policy forbids them from being youth members but they cannot hold youth leadership positions.[25] The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission in the traditional programs to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law. These policies have been called unjust by critics and legally challenged at the state and federal level. The Supreme Court has affirmed that, as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards under the Constitutional right to freedom of association. However non-discrimination laws may prohibit certain types of government support and other lawsuits have been filed to determine what is and is not permitted or required.

I think this fairly summarizes what we know. I used adult volunteers because it is my understanding that all adult volunteers are considered role models and leaders for the youth. I used 'formal' because there may be informal policies. --Erp (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Article

I put up the article "Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas". Following are my origination notes from the discussion section of that article:

Review of related articles and their discussion sections indicated that the subject material needed to be covered, is noteworthy, and is widely sought after. Actual practice has borne out that articles or sections which define their subject as the controversies themselves inevitably will not cover the subject of this article, such being either occluded or absent, and not the subject of the articles. So, despite having many of the same words in their titles, the subjects (as defined by the titles) are absolutely different. However, this article was substantially guided by the discussion sections of that article and article section. The originator also felt that this subject would be too disproportionately large (especially given it's coverage of "hot topics") to put into the main "Boy Scouts of America" article.

This article was launched January 5th, 2010. The originator believes that it meets fundamental Wikipedia criteria, but, of course, this is just the starting point of contributions and improvements which are welcomed. The originator intends that it remain unreferenced by other articles for a short period (1-2 weeks?) during which time such improvements by many are anticipated.

Since the limited scope of the title (detailed by the scope statement in the first two sentences of the article, as originate) the first two sentences in the article) is important for both effective coverage of this topic and avoiding substantial overlap with related articles, the originator asks for consensus and support from all to keep the article within the scope of the title, to keep those first two scope sentences as originated, and intends to do their best to support this focus in order to achieve coverage of the subject.

Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion on New Article Described Above

For those interested in reviewing the discussion and / or making comments, there is a deletion discussion for the above described new article occuring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas North8000 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It got deleted. That important topic is now homeless. Let's hope it works out somehow. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

Does anyone think this is ready for Featured Article Class. My goal is to have it featured on the main page on February 8, 2010, which is the official 100th anniversary. If not, can I have a to-do list like thing on this talk page? --12george1 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The opposes voiced at this article's last FAC need to be fully addressed. For example, lack of secondary sources and scope, etc. The TFA for Feb. 8 has not yet been selected and a centennial is worth 6 points for selection, but there may not be enought time left to get this article promoted to FA, I'm afraid.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try for this go for it, but as JG says, btwn writing and FAC time, you need to start NOW. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to do something with the sex abuse section. The main article is badly written and has been ignored for quite a while, so a proper summary is going to be difficult. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In the meantime, the article is listed on today's Main Page as an "On this day" milestone: "1910 – Newspaper man and magazine publisher William D. Boyce (pictured) established the Boy Scouts of America, expanding the Scout Movement into the United States."  JGHowes  ^talk 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2009 membership

Partial numbers are now available.[2] Learning for Life numbers are not included, so we can't update the total membership. Final numbers will probably be out after the National meeting 26–28 May, 2010. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd where did the "Explorers 121,407" come from. I thought Exploring was part of Learning for Life? Preliminary check shows 1,634715 cubs, webelos, tigers (a 1.9% decline from 2008). Total traditional scouting (not including the Explorers from this list) is 2,790,632 a 1.5% decline. I think we should wait till the official numbers come out before updating.--Erp (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the national commissioner, the LFL numbers are no longer tracked or reported. I am trying to clarify the Exploring numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Exploring participants must register, so the numbers are tracked. The in-school programs do not require individual registrations; councils have licenses for a range of youth (i.e. 500–1000). The BSA cannot validate exact numbers for the in-school programs, so they no longer report those participants. Total numbers are going to appear to drop dramatically, but more youth will be served than actually reported. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

What do you think?

This article covers a multi-million person organization with a 100 year history. Due to such scope, and, presumably, not wanting this article to get too huge, huge topics within BSA don't even have a section in this "top level" article (i.e. are only covered in more specialized articles elsewhere) Yet, of the mere 20 section/subsections of this article, 3 (and about 1/8 of this whole article) are devoted to sex abuse, including one whole subsection dedicated to a particular newspaper's coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that's skewed. Sex abuse should be one section with a link to a sub article if needed. This article is often a target for people on various bandwagons. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe create a condensed summary as Gadget850 hinted at above. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that when you condense crap you still end up with a turd ball. The main article has been a problem since the start. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that one part would be a place to start?

I think that the overall article has a lot of good content & good writing. But the overall structure and choice of topics (or lack thereof) looks like it was designed by a committee. Oh wait, it was :-). North8000 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and it is a general one for Scouting articles, is our policy of notability being "noted by others". When Scouting is going well it is not noticed by others except for the local press saying little Johnny from the 1st XXX has won an award. Scouting is noticed when it goes wrong or when it is strongly criticized for its policies. So there is undue weight in our sources to cases of sex abuse, boys being killed on a Scout activity, members being thrown out of the movement, or court cases on any of these. We have to live with it in one sense, but I agree with Rlevse, that we should continue to use, and expand the use, of sub-articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Through my lens) in essence you are saying that high profile stories on the Scouts tend to be more about "problems". I would argue that this is the case on most topics. And that the difference with Scouts is that there are millions of cases of positive small media coverages of small topics. And, that, in actual Wikipedia practice (vs. it's more ethereal principles) the former makes it much easier to put a negative section into a Scout article than a positive one. Of course, you are right on all counts. But I think that such just makes it harder but not impossible to make a good article, and I would think that this one is too important to "write off". North8000 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The section here is just a big chunk copied from the main article. It is not a proper summary. The problem is trying to summarize a main article that is so disjointed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're right, those three sections are a total mess. And any real useful overview / perspective of this would inherently be synthesis, and so would require finding some solid objective sources which did that type of work. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to summarize a bad article, let's just get the salient items into one section, solving the undue weight problem. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Workspace for work on these three sections

Age of cases covered

Of the 4 references given in this section, 2 cover the same 27 year old (1983) case, one is is a dead link, and the other is a 19 year old article covering 21-39 year old cases. (1971 - 1989) North8000 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the age of references. I do not understand why. The BSA is 100 years old. We need to cover all 100 of them. The undue weight is towards recent activities and recent sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just starting an analysis/worksheet. For coverage about an organization I think that I think that both history and "current state" are important and interesting. As long as one covers both and does not make one sound like the other. The "gorilla in the living room" on this topic is that BSA made huge changes 15-20 years ago and became very strict in this area, with large effects. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it will take additional sources to summarize this section. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read all 70 pages of the referenced 1991 Washington Times article. This is a very thorough article with a lot of useful material in it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Salient points supported by identified references

Please consider this section and the next section a "work in progress", to be a brief summary of salient points, and feel free to edit it. Put anything that you don't want edited outside of it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• In 1991 "Scouts Honor" a major series of articles was produced.
• Said article said that there were 1,151 identified cases, and listed 416 of them.
• Beginning in the late 80's but hitting it's stride in the early 90's BSA's Youth Protection program started, and it is considered to be a good one.
• A large (~$20 million) court award was recently made on a 1983 case.
• Circa 1991 Scout spokesperson said that the rate of cases in the BSA is not higher than elsewhere, considering the size of the organization. (3 million+ youth, 1 million+ leaders)

Salient points not (yet) supported by identified references

See note in previous section.

• Everything in the current lead paragraph for this section
• Pre-Youth-Protection-Program cases were probably at a rate to be expected (sans a strong program to reduce it) for an organization with millions of people whose program inherently provided many opportunities for such.
• Post-Youth-Protection-Program cases are at a vastly reduced and very low rate. I recently Googled "Boy Scouts" "Sex Abuse" and 98 of the first 100 hits were about cases over 20 years old.

End of sections North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Workspace notes

This is going to take some real work and time to do well. I plan to try. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless y'all feel otherwise, I plan to wait a few days and then take out the "main article at" phrase in the sex abuse caqses section. Aside from the fact that others (above) have noted that the linked article has severe problems, this is structurally mixed up. Most to the point, there isn't a "main article at". The specific link is to a section which is just a list of 8 USA sex abuse cases, no other content. And the overall article that that section is in Scouting sex abuse cases worldwide, but then it has some BSA-specific material interspersed in the non-USA specific sections. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall this has been about "undue weight" as discussed above. And the main remedy will be by shortening it. Looking at the three sections / subsections, the first two sections contain mostly major stuff, albeit needing cleanup. I think that the best candidate for reduction is the third (legal actions)section , with (for the top level BSA article) too much detail on that one case, and too much / too lengthy supposition material with the "probably higher" statement, and redundancy of telling us that 180 per year is one every two days. I plan to shorten it by reducing these three items, and then folding this section into the main "sex abuse cases" section. This is probably as far as it should be condensed right now. If the separate article got fixed, maybe someday this could get further reduced with a pointer to the other article for more info, but I don't that is workable today. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally leave BSA stuff to BSA people, but I am prompted to comment here. I disagree about removing "Main article: Scouting sex abuse cases#United States". That article is about sex abuse cases and the link should remain unless the article forks off a "sex abuse cases in the USA" article. The point is that that Scouting sex abuse cases#United States needs to be improved. The US section is currently a list, but I note that the following sections, with sub-sections, is all about the BSA. That section should be rewritten and folded into the US section. Then back to the BSA article, the section needs to be drastically reduced with the content that is there at present moved to Scouting sex abuse cases#United States - a lot is already there. However, you can not reduce it if you do not have the "Main article" pointer. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The section here should summarize the main article in a paragraph or two, and usually is a variant of the main article lead. [[Scouting sex abuse cases#United States]] is a mess, and the editor who added the section here just copied a huge chunk and dumped it here. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine by me. I had also thought the same thing as you regarding the way it should be, except that it is dependent on fixing that other article, and until if and when it's fixed the pointer will be to a wreck. But I'm cool with it either way and will leave the "main article" pointer there. I think that in the long run that other "Sex abuse cases" article will just need to ignore "too US centric" comments allow the USA the dubious honor of a larger section as BDuke described. And BDuke, don't hesitate to comment despite being a few miles away. :-) Even though local knowledge is helpful on this, so is wisdom such as yours. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the material that is essentially replicated in the "main article". I have also reorganized the "main article" to bring the US material under the US heading. That article does give undue weight to the US, but I think that can be handled by making the other country sections more detailed and the US section more concise. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A good move, especially with your improvements on the main article on this topic. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New sections / material reverted/deleted

A few folks added sections / material (merit badges and good turns) which got removed / reverted essentially because they had too much detail for a topic considering that this is the overall BSA article. We already have one glaring example of that already in the article (sex abuse cases) but I think that the reverters didn't want to allow more such new such situations get added.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for those folks to add shorter, more condensed material on those topics. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Format

This says that it uses "list defined" reference format in lieu of the more common type. In reality it appears to use a mixture of the two. So I guess it "works" either way. Plus, in the "list defined" section it says that there are 20 unused references.

Does anybody know if there is bot or something that can fix this up? My vote would be for the common format. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent addition of former Maine high adventure base material

There are several issues with this insertion but I didn't want to simply revert it without providing an opportunity for discussion. First, there is the question of whether or not putting former high adventure bases in the main BSA article, and, if so, why just this particular one of the several. (There IS a high adventure base article available, which, full disclosure, I started) Second, "ousted" doesn't look right/sourceable. Third, the term "triangle" of bases is used with no explanation. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with all three points. I think it should be removed. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg has resigned from an advisory board of the Boy Scouts of America because he no longer wants to be associated with the group's "discriminatory" practices

• Spielberg quits scouts 'over gay ban', BBC. --87.178.116.88 (talk) 12:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

That story is over 10 years old and is covered in the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"In addition to nostalgic memories of campfires kindling friendships..."

Please. That is complete and total puffery. This is an encyclopedia, not a recruiting guide. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The first half (the only part which you quoted) could be called puffery, the second half is easily sourcable and relevant. So I started by putting it back in, saying that I was going to remove the first half in a minute, and so rather than wait for that one minute, you deleted the whole thing seconds later. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gang Shows

I am working on removing the long list of Gang Shows from the article, Gang Show. Please see the discussion at Talk:Gang Show#List of Gangshows. I am ensuring that mention is made at a more appropriate local or national level, so I have added the US Gang Shows here. This may not be appropriate and perhaps they should be mentioned at Council or State level. Please feel free to move them, but do not just delete the material. I only have the rather long list of UK Gang Shows to check before I delete the list on the Gang Show article. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of a gang show in 50+ years in BSA. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have now, mate/buddy. You can always learn something new. Clearly they are nothing like as important as in the UK and Australia, but this material needs to go somewhere. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I learn something new every day. Thanks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that some have encountered the gang show and brought it back to the US from time to time, but it isn't one of our traditions. We do have snipe hunts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Now there's one that I do know. And I have a wall full of imaginary trophies to prove it. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with North8000. I never heard of gang shows in BSA and I have been involved in BSA since I was 6 in the MD/DC region. This probably should be relegated to local council pages.Marauder40 (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed somebody took it out. Any ideas on which article where we could put it in? North8000 (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The only one of the three that is notable is the Chicago Gang Show due to the involvement of Ralph Reader who started Gang Shows. The first one is probably one of many troops who put on a show and they may or may not call it a Gang Show. Clearly this troop has not always called it a Gang Show as the first show was before the term was invented. The third one has no source. Could someone find a home for the information on the Chicago Gang Show on a more local article for the Chicago area? I will keep a comment on it on Gang Show when I clean it up as it shows that Ralph Reader tried to kick them off in the US but it did not take. I will comment finally that Gang Shows are massively popular in the UK and here in Australia and clearly they keep a lot of kids in Scouting. I have to say however that I have never in my whole life attended one, although Gang Show songs are very popular at camp fires, particularly "On the crest of a wave". -Bduke (Discussion) 22:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Area Council would be appropriate. Probably time to upmerge this with Owasippe Scout Reservation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Owasippe is pretty huge with a lot of potential material. North8000 (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Homsexuality policy text in membership controversies

We had a quandary regarding this at the main coverage at the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article because we no longer have a source that says that BSA currently has such a policy. A full discussion of this is at Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#How often do BSA Membership Policies Change, and How Are Changes Communicated?. The solution I chose was saying what we DO know/ is sourced, which is what policy was created in 2004, that it was up on the BSA site circa 2010, and is now gone, with no further comment or attempt to interpret. The current text in this article has the same challenge, in essence an unsourced statement of currency of that policy. I plan to put that same material in here to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have added a misleading implication that BSA eliminated a policy, giving a misleading impression of non-currency. It matters that BSALegal did not alter its policy statements, but rather stopped publishing what its policies are. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to avoid stating or even implying anything that is unsourced. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But policies ARE published there, e.g. the one on atheists. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Should we centralize this discussion at the membership controversies article? North8000 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Instead of basing the paragraph on the 2004 policy statement, why not base it on the 2000 Supreme Court case, where the majority opinion stated:

The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight,"... and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior," [The Boy Scouts] do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate.

That is about as clear as any statement I have seen regarding the BSA's position on homosexuality. Since the current Wikipedia paragraph, from the phrase "In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy..." to the end, is based on a policy that BSA no longer publishes or promotes, perhaps that entire section of the paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the Supreme Court findings instead. Since the Supreme Court findings are established public records, they can't be changed and deleted at the whim of the BSA's PR department. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgmpls (talk • contribs) 14:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is on what statement is being made. A statement of current BSA policies, if any? A time-based history of BSA policies? A statement of court findings? A court summary of BSA's policies or practices circa 2000? All of the above? North8000 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

In my mind, the goal is to find a factual, objective statement of BSA policies regarding homosexuality. Given the BSA's history of being vague about policies, and posting and then deleting public statements without notice (which they have every right to do as a private organization), a summary of court findings is probably the best, most objective, most permanent source available. Especially when BSA has agreed with the court's decision. What objection could here possibly be to posting court-authored summaries of BSA policy when BSA has been in full agreement with the court's decision? Has the BSA ever renounced or disagreed with the Supreme Court's 2000 decision? I would hold that court's findings as the most factual, objective, permanent summary of BSA policies currently available, at least until BSA officially renounces those findings. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First, in the main article for this topic (the membership controversies one) I'm all for including any or all of the above, placed in the context and explanation of what each is. So, include a court authored summary of BSA policies circa 2000 of BSA policies, stated as being such. And the same for all of the others. In the top level / most general BSA article, then it comes down to a question of what is due / undue weight for the article. Certainly a summary of current policy where there is one would be appropriate. But we don't know that a policy exists; after all a policy would be an operative "rule" published so that the millions of people in BSA would follow it. So for the main article on this (the controversies article), I say we include all RS'd material, stating what it is. As for this article, I'm not sure what we should do, except that we can't derive/synthesize. Whatever we put should say exactly what the sources say it is, not what we think it is. PS I'll be gone and off-wiki for 13 of the next 15 days. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is fair to put the court-authored findings of BSA policy in the "membership controversies" article and label it as such. As for actual BSA policy "published so that the millions of people in BSA would follow it", I think it is safe to say there is none. At least I am not aware of one. BSA seems to leave it to individuals to figure out what the policy is, then kick you out if they feel you've crossed a line. And if you take them to court about it they'll probably win, as they've done dozens of times already. So maybe we should delete the entire reference to the "new" 2004 policy and leave it at that. BSA does not state the 2004 policy anywhere, and this should be a statement of current known policy, not a list of policy history.

Given these facts I think the best we can do is state that no clear policy exists, then give a list of the history of how BSA has handled homosexuality in the past. That is really all we have to go on; there is no BSA policy regarding homosexuality "published so that the millions of people in BSA would follow it". There is not any hurry to make these changes, but I think the discussion is important.

Cwgmpls (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Again, anything that is not slow motion I will not be able to participate in. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New table with chartering numbers

What excellent work and interesting material that is! But the table is pretty huge, and doubly so for the for the top level BSA article. What do you think about doing the top 15 (instead of the top 25) or something like that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is large because there are 48 groups listed. I did not know that homeowner's associations were faith-based organizations. And Boy Scouts of America religious distribution includes fire departments. I would also like the source of these new numbers. The table style no longer matches the one in Finance. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, there are 48. I just went by the heading which said 25, I didn't count them. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If we did through the archives, we will find a discussion on adding the table. We decided to go with the top 25 and format the table in a compact manner. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There is discussion which includes this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Sponsorship_of_BSA_units North8000 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Page Is More Informative

I would like to also comment on the article in that the discussion page tends to be more informative than the actual article page insofar as the contemporary Boy Scouts of America. There is a great deal of information missing in the article which makes the article fairly irrelevant. The Boy Scouts of America of 20 years ago is nothing like the Boy Scouts of America today. The Mormon Christianic organization has pretty much taken over the BSofA at the National Level to the point where hatred and bigotry has swamped the otherwise good and beneficial BSofA that used to exist.

Scout Leaders across the country lament this problem, in fact, and discussions held on Scout forums such as on LinkedIn routinely have Scout Leaders asking members of the forums what can be done to try to wrest the organization from the brink of extinction caused by religious extremism "hijacking" the organization. Membership is dropping even as world-wide condemnation of the organization increases -- which is unfair to the boys who wish to learn and camp and hike without the baggage of the oppressive bigotries and hatreds that their parents' religious leaders wish to impose.

Has there been a problem with updating the article to be more informative and inclusive of contemporary information about the national organization? It seems highly likely that cult followers will oppose any updates which cover and reference what the organization has become. The article will have to remain a description of what the organization used to be since it seems likely that any informative update that brings the article up-to-date will be challenged, reversed, and vandalized.

On the other hand the problems with the organization tend to exist at the National Level, not the Troop Level so much. At the Troop Level things are quite a bit different depending upon the specific cult that charters a Troop. The core ideologies of hatred, bigotry, and division that we see advocated at the National Level is seen mirrored at the Troop Level perhaps half of the time, with half of the Troops and their leaders obeying the hate-centric dictates and policies of their National leaders, but the other half clinging to the core beneficial, love-inspired aspects of the BSofA as they used to exist prior to the organization's take-over by right wing religious zealots.

I should note that I don't wish to offend anyone, discussion about religious-motivated hatred, bigotry, and division can be done in an adult fashion with calm reason. To be sure the article here does not need to be complete yet if it's to be an historic examination in to what the organization used to be, it might be reasonable to note the fact that the article here is very much historic rather than contemporary. Damotclese (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This sounds more like an implausible personal opinion rant rather than any potential source material to be added. Do you have any wp:reliably sourced material that you are proposing to add? North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line: reliable sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)