Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Boy Scouts of America. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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
- 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)
- Chicago Area Council would be appropriate. Probably time to upmerge this with Owasippe Scout Reservation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:56, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)