Talk:Boy Scouts of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Boy Scouts of America has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Scouting (Rated A-Class, High-importance)
Scout logo3.svg
Scouting portal
Boy Scouts of America is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A-Class article A  This article has been rated as A-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Crystal 128 kuser.png
 This article was the project's Portal collaboration of the month (November 2006).
Notice Styles: This is an article about the Boy Scouts of America. In addition to standard style guides, the Language of Scouting is also used.

Contents

[edit] 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)
Pictogram reply.svg 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Scout Oath and Law

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America"