Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

FAC time?

Jagz, Gadg, Habap,Rlevse, everbody.. Whatcha think? Should we FAC and see what happens? or is there still work to do?--Alecmconroy 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else. The good article review seems to be taking a long time. The nominated long articles are not even in chronological order anymore.--Jagz 03:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. it's been nominated here. If ya like this page, go say so, if ya don't like it, go say that too :). --Alecmconroy 05:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you should have waited for the GA as they often find things those involved with the article don't notice, but we'll see how things go. BTW, if an article is already a GA or GA nomination and makes FA, it gets removed from the GA list. Rlevse 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article merge

Yesterday, we were discussing the other articles in Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America. The category contains eight lawsuits and two bills in, all stubs. I recommend merging all those into this article- there is probably a lot of it here already. I also recommend merging United States National Scout Jamboree#Funding controversy, as there is a lot of duplication. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So we don't make this article too long, maybe all the lawsuits can be merged into one article and the bills either into that article or their own article. We could change our links to a bill's section in the article. The Jamboree Funding controversy was in an earlier version of this article but dropped off when the article was overhauled by Alecmconroy. I put the section in the Jamboree article because I thought it had some good information. --Jagz 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya took the words right out of my mouth. I agree that Litigation involving the BSA or Legislation involving the BSA or some other such article would be okay, but I definitely don't think we should try to cover everything in just this article. It's long enough as is, and the more we try to cover, the harder it is to cover everything well. The one thing we got out of the feedback from the first time we went to FAC was a need to focus a little more tightly, rather than making this article "Everything controversial or legal about the BSA". I also don't think it's the end of the word if court cases are a little stubby-- consider them an online version of law books. Sometimes you don't need to have a huge article on a case, but you do want to have short entry on it. --Alecmconroy 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that bills that became part of law, like the Support Our Scouts Act should maintain their own articles, and in fact should be categorized under the legislation categories. --evrik 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that we've got FA status, I think it's even more important than ever that we don't do a massive merge. There's just a lot of information in the sub-articles that should be preserved but doesn't need to be in THIS article. Take Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. That article tells us a lot of details about the case: that the plantiffs are Lori and Lynn Barnes-Wallace, a lesbian couple, together with Michael and Valerie Breen, an atheist couple; or that "Since 1957, the City of San Diego has leased part of the city's Balboa Park to the Boy Scouts of America for the price of $1 per year.". That's useful information, information that should be preserved in the encyclopedia, but certainly it's a level of detail we don't need in THIS article. --Alecmconroy 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure who put the merge tags on then. Have to check the history. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The merge tags were put on by Kintetsubuffalo. --Jagz 17:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like there isn't enough support for merging those articles into this article. --Jagz 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the merge tags. There is insufficient support to merge the articles. --Jagz 18:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Support from government

I removed the lead sentence, "Congress has on several occasions passed resolutions and bills in support of the Boy Scouts of America and its access to governmental resources-- actions which can be interpreted as indirect support for the BSA's stance on gays and atheists." I removed it because some in Congress may be showing support for the BSA despite their membership policies. Granted that support for BSA indirectly supports their policies but that may not have been their intention. --Jagz 08:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Constitutionally speaking the statement was correct, no matter what intention was - and with the current crop of religious fanatics and bigots in washington I would bet it was their intention as well 65.125.133.211 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

FAC comment

What about the comment by smurrayinchester to shorten the list of references by removing duplicates? --Jagz 21:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Girls article

After this FAC is over, I suggest those interested make an article on the girls controversey and get it to FA. Rlevse 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• PS: I'd call it Boy Scouts of America female membership controversy and put a link at the top of each to the other. Let me know if this one takes off.Rlevse 22:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We changed the current article a bit on the coverage of the girls issue. --Jagz 22:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the girl controversy deserves its own article, as the association is explicitly called "boy" scouts and it seems to be known for its wide discriminatory practices anyway. What content (and how much of it would there be) would you expect to add to such an article? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 23:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article

Cheers!

The article is now a "featured article"!!! It started out as a section of the main BSA article. Here's what this article looked like in September 2005.[1] --Jagz 07:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox

Do we want to keep the Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/Sandbox or have it deleted? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you should do. --Jagz 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I had it deleted. Good eye Gadget. --Alecmconroy 14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Noticed it after doing some jmboree merges and cleaning up redirects. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouts Canada

This may be of interest [2]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You should take a look at this.[3] --Jagz 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Missed that one. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Berkeley Sea Scouts

Berkeley Sea Scout Decision Appealed to United States Supreme Court[4] --Jagz 22:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Berkeley was formerly giving the Sea Scouts special access to berthing in its marina (at no cost) like it does to other nonprofit groups. I guess the court ruling essentially said that Berkeley did not have to keep giving them special access because the BSA's exclusionary membership policies conflicted with the local anti-discrimination ordinance. This appeal to the Supreme Court seems to say that the Scouts should not be deprived of special access to the marina because the Scouts are only exercising their right to freedom of association. I guess it could be said that the Sea Scouts want equal special access (special access that is equal to that given by Berkeley to other nonprofit groups). --Jagz 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The Berkeley Marina only gives a very few non-profits privileged status (probably between 5 and 10); remember the marina must remain solvent so it can't hand out space to every or even many non-profits. Each group has to re-apply year by year for the privilege and has to show that it is providing a substantial benefit to the community. For instance one group has specially outfitted sailboats for people with disabilities. Anyone can rent these boats but it does enable a segment of the community to sail that otherwise could not. Another group is a sailing co-op that provides low cost rentals to the general public (and classes for adults). A third has classes aimed at children. And so on. The anti-discrimination policy is just one hurdle and is there to ensure that the group will benefit the entire community. --Erp 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case, and without a legal background to base my opinion on, I predict that the Sea Scouts will lose the appeal. --Jagz 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Berkeley has a system of special "preferential access" or preferential "special access", something not covered in the Support our Scouts Act. --Jagz 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While Berkeley is entitled to decide whom they give free access to, deciding based upon what the national organization does rather than any act by the local group (keeping in mind the Sea Scouts is co-ed) seems harder to justify. The argument is that the Sea Scout group is being punished for its politics and affiliations rather than anything it has done. The only ones who suffer are the young men and women of the community who can no longer benefit from the program. --Habap 04:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The California Supreme Court covers this in its opinion. Note the local Sea Scouts had the option of signing a non-discrimination agreement (the City was not asking the BSA to sign only the local unit) and would then have been over that hurdle and been free to compete with the other groups for the limited space (still no guarantee that they would have gotten it though the chances would have been fairly good). They could not because the BSA said the unit would be kicked out of the BSA if they did and therefore lose their low cost insurance. We are getting into politics here and away from the article text.--Erp 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a new political Wiki website, Campaigns Wikia. --Jagz 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Erp, you're right, I am swaying away from the article. Sorry about that. I forgot about BSA's instructions to units against signing NDAs (I don't remember if there is anything citation on this, but have read that such exists), but that does mean the unit did something rather than just the national office. So, nevermind. --Habap 21:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the case being used to help support the appeal.[5] --Jagz 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bisexuals

The word bisexual is not mentioned in the article. What is the BSA policy towards bisexuals? Should we add the word to the article? --Jagz 17:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we're safe in assuming that bisexuals would be considered homosexuals for the purpose of the policy-- but finding a source that explicitly say so would be nice. Also, something we don't cover-- many religious groups differential between homosexual CONDUCT and homosexual ORIENTATION. The theory being that the former is immmoral, but the latter might not be. I don't know which BSA's policy applies to. Just conduct? or both. --Alecmconroy 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the BSA would kick someone out for known or avowed homosexual conduct or orientation although their policies tend to be vague, cryptic, and unsophisticated. Some individual Scouting units may be more lenient. The Scout Association of the UK seems to be able to articulate their policies a lot better.[6] --Jagz 21:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that conduct by a boy is ground for dismissal. I also think that 'open' orientation is grounds. I am not sure whether boys who are struggling with their identity would be expelled, especially if they are private about it. Should be easy to find a policy on this though. --NThurston 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Camp Fire Boys and Girls

Camp Fire Boys and Girls is mentioned in the article. Hasn't this organization changed its name to Camp Fire USA? --Jagz 19:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See Camp Fire USA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

US Constitution

someone should note that these policies (definantly the atheist/agnostics ban, and possibly the homosexuality ban) technically make it a violation of the 1st ammendment to the US Constitution for the government to support this organization - as it is engaged in religious bigotry. 65.125.133.211 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Characterization as a paramilitary organization

I deleted the subject section of the article because it doesn't belong in this article. This article is about BSA membership controversies and not other types of controversies or criticisms. --Jagz 21:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Youth organization membership policies

The biggest weakness in this article is the section "Youth organization membership policies." The statements about WOSM and its members are true and verifiable, but it breaks down into original research when it attempts to contrast the policies of the BSA with other NSOs.

For example: the "Duty to God" paragraph contrasts the BSA policies on religion with those of Scouts Canada and The Scout Association. An opposing view could easily be constructed by a comparison to Deutsche Pfadfinderschaft Sankt Georg or the Greek Orthodox Scout Association, but the issue is a lack of reliable sources that compares these policies.

The term "Mainstream Scouting" is used, but is neither defined nor sourced; its use implies that the BSA is not mainstream.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Who knows what whoever titled that section "Mainstream Scouting" had in mind for that term. There is certainly no widely used or widely accepted definition for that term. Possibly they were trying to create a noun for subset of programs within BSA where the salient / most-discussed rules apply. Without that much needed clarification (which is obscure or absent in this article) the main statements of the article become invalid and, since they refer to the BSA as a whole, the main statements are inaccurate. Good luck to anyone who wants to tackle that huge re-write / restructuring. For example, in some of BSA's programs, (e.g. "Learning for Life") I believe, atheists are allowed as members and leaders, avowed homosexuals can be leaders, and girls can be members.

To make it even more confusing, the specific program of the Boy Scouts of America that is centered on 11-14 year old boys is ALSO called "Boy Scouts", and is one of the two BSA programs (the other being Cub Scouts, and it's subset, Tiger Cubs) where all of their discussed restriction apply.

75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The BSA formally uses active terms for membership divisions: Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting, Venturing and Sea Scouting. Boy Scouting is for ages from 10 to 18. Atheists and homosexuals are not specifically "allowed" as Learning for Life participants— they are not excluded, a subtle difference. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gadget850. Thanks for poining out that "active term" distinction. On your final point, I think that the definition of "allow" is anything that isn't dis-allowed. Otherwise every book of rules or laws would need to be a million times bigger, stating all of the things that are allowed. In Scouting's case, it would need to make statements that Olympic athletes, one-legged people, caucasians, blacks, hispanics, people of German ancestry, jaywalkers, blind people, chess players, and millions of others are allowed to be members. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How to Fix or Replace this Article 3

FYI Here is my post in the "Membership Controversies" discussion section (referring to the so-named article section) of the main BSA article:

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.

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) 13:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Leadership is a subset of membership since one must be a member either youth or adult to be a leader. We also aren't as far as I know covering controversies over selling campgrounds and I don't think we want to get into that (that is more relevant to individual council or state scouting articles). Also this isn't just about the BSA's actions which your suggested title implies but also the actions of other entities in reaction to perceived or actual BSA policies and practices or even independently that clash with BSA policies or practices. You might want to outline your ideas for what you want in a sandbox where we would have something concrete to look at. --Erp (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, leaders are just one type of member. Is this new section or article going to be allowed to address broader issues such as the effective ownership and control of BSA's moral and ethical policies by conservative churches? HiLo48 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Erp & HiLo48 What I had in mind was quite narrow. It would be to cover BSA policies and practices regarding exclusion of persons from leadership positions and membership, where such (or the perception of such) have caused significant controversy.

To Erp, I think that if you include "actions by other entities" you have broadened the scope to what THIS article intended to be.

To: HiLo48 I think that topics such as the major influences on BSA policies would be excellent to cover. The challenge is that this area (and even my BSA "practices" area) are ones where people most want to know the forest (objective, impartial, knowlegable generalizations) even more than the trees. And such are very hard to come by / agree upon, and would probably not pass Wikipedia citing standards. People who want to make BSA look as bad or as good as possible can flood the article with selected "trees" to forward their agendas. But the real "info" would be an objective / knowlegable generalized statement on the degree of influences by conservative churches. And such are very hard to come by / agree upon, and would probably not pass Wikipedia citing standards. So, good idea, but I'm not not sure to actually accomplish it, especially in my 'lil ole proposed article. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How would this differ from the "position on..." sections of this article? --Erp (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the two main differences would be: 1. The clearer cut "policies" and "practices" wording would make it much easier to keep it confined to relevant facts vs all of the other stuff that this article is fraught with. 2. Not that THIS article doesn't have gems of facts (with established relevancy) in it, but they would no longer be lost in a sea of other stuff, as the title of this article doomed it to be.99.151.168.32 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That this ever became an FA is amazing. That it is still an FA is even more amazing because ever since it's been highly unstable and a constant target of people bickering over its format, content, and people pushing their POV--and that includes users on both sides of the fence. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The FA standards were looser then— and this article will not survive a FAR. Recent discussions have not generated any concrete problems or fixes. I have fixed a few references, but there are a number that are now dubious or just don't support the referenced content. I have been tagging those with inline comments. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To: Erp (and all) I could host the sandbox as referred to in your 20:00 29 December post. Will put a skeleton in and advise. Start with the discussed narrow scope. Maybe cautiously open it up to the items that you and HiLo48 discussed in a way that doesn't open the pandora's box to make it a hopeless focus-less soapbox like this article. Maybe get a consensus from high-caliber folks on both sides of the underlying issues to keep it on a high plane if/when it goes out of the soapbox into the cold cruel world.  :-) Will create a skeleton and advise. North8000 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can sandbox at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/sandbox. You can also address specific problems by fixing them directly. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since we are doing an overhaul the first thing to decide is whether the overall layout of the article is good. If it is good then concentrate on each section and fixing in situ works; if not then we have to sandbox. I'll start a new section on whether the overall layout is good. --Erp (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR listing

Pursuant to the comments in the section above, I've listed this for Featured Article Review, reasons in section above and FAR listing. Hopefully both sides can come together and get this to current FA standards. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would not pass a new FAC for appropriate use of images: File:Scouting For All.png obviously has an invalid FUR and does not meet NFCC for non-free logo use in this article – I've tagged it {{Dfu}} accordingly. To be an FA, WP:SYNTHESIS of primary source information and personal experience must be eschewed and only reliable secondary sources should be cited. If no reliable secondary source can be found for a particular statement or claim, then it simply doesn't belong.  JGHowes  ^talk 04:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Overall layout?

Since we are doing a review we should decide whether the overall layout of the article is good. Current table of contents is:

    * 1 Boy Scouts of America's values affect membership criteria
          o 1.1 Position on atheists and agnostics
          o 1.2 Position on homosexuals
          o 1.3 Position on gender
          o 1.4 Position on illegal aliens
          o 1.5 Reaction to nondiscrimination policies
    * 2 Youth organization membership policies
          o 2.1 Mainstream Scouting
          o 2.2 Other American youth organizations
    * 3 Litigation over the membership policies
          o 3.1 Governmental sponsorship of Scouting units
          o 3.2 Access to governmental resources
          o 3.3 Recent litigation
                + 3.3.1 Active
                + 3.3.2 Inactive
    * 4 Reaction to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies
          o 4.1 Loss of support
          o 4.2 Efforts to change the membership and leadership policies
    * 5 Support for the Boy Scouts of America
          o 5.1 Support from federal government
          o 5.2 Support from others
    * 6 Related issues
          o 6.1 Scouting membership in the United States
          o 6.2 BSA membership size
          o 6.3 Historical membership controversies
    * 7 See also
    * 8 References
    * 9 External links

I personally would drop 1.4 "illegal aliens" as it doesn't seem major. Other thoughts on the layout?--Erp (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what one wants THIS article to be about. Unless there a new scope statement, I think that it's title dooms it. For example if I have a beef wwith BSA, then the article, per it's title, my POV is a "controversy" and the article should "cover" (provide coverage of and a show case for) my complaints, i.e. via. NPOV "coverage" of my POV material. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be a short overview of the BSA organization so that readers understand:

• The traditional membership divisions are Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing and the differences
• Learning for Life is a non-Scouting subsidiary with different participation policies
• That BSA National and local councils are separate legal entities

"Youth organization membership policies" is a comparison of the BSA to WOSM and other organizations. There is no source in the section that makes such comparisons, it is a synthesis.

"Scouting membership in the United States" mainly covers the protection of BSA trademarks. The American Boy Scouts lawsuit was 90 years ago and has no relevance. Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America was a trademark issue and the YouthScouts never had any members outside the Wrenn family.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Illegal aliens" is currently based on one reported incident and one source and may not reflect a national view. I suggest this be placed on the talk page in a todo list for monitoring. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the trademark part also. I would perhaps suggest replacing "Mainstream Scouting" with "Other World Organization of Scouting Movement programs" or something less clunky but conveying the same meaning and also include info on programs with more restrictive policies. In the intro to "Youth organization membership policies" give some reasoning for why this section is included. I would also make it "Other youth..." and change "Other American youth organizations" to "American youth organizations". --Erp (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How about organizing it by issue?

• Religion
  • BSA position
  • Societal norms in the US
  • WOSM norms
  • Reactions
  • Litigation
• Homosexuals
  • BSA position
  • Societal norms in the US
  • WOSM norms
  • Reactions
  • Litigation
• Girls
  • BSA position
  • Societal norms in the US
  • WOSM norms
  • Reactions
  • Litigation
• Membership reporting

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A major problem is that in the litigation part the restrictions on atheists and gays/lesbians are often combined (e.g., Oakland Sea Scouts case); however, we should be clear which part is where. I'm also not sure how you plan to do societal norms in the US given the wide range from San Francisco to Tulsa. I suspect it is best covered by what other US youth organizations do. Articles like [7] which compares several major youth organizations on gays/lesbians in 2000. --Erp (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope Statement/Title

Some seem to be dissatisfied with the title and/or scope statement of the article. I'm setting this section up to discuss this. I'm not sure what the scope statement is but the intro is probably as good as any. --Erp (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, and prohibit "avowed" homosexuals from leadership roles in its Scouting program. BSA has denied or revoked the membership of youths and adults for violating these prohibitions. These policies are considered by some to be unjust.[1][2] The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.[3][4]

The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards. In recent years, the policy disputes have led to litigation over the terms under which the BSA can access governmental resources including public lands.[5]

Personally I think the title and intro are reasonable though some of the article itself wanders away from them. --Erp (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I should note that the notability requirements of wikipedia would cut down on minor controversies. We also want to keep the title reasonably open in case another membership controversy arises that is major. --Erp (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The scope seems well focused on membership issues and I see no compelling reason to expand it. I do question the relevance of content such as the BSA protection of trademarks. Looking at the discussions, it is difficult to pick out any specific issues not covered in the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Avowed" is a bad word to use. I know it's a word used in the organisation but it's a clichéd word without a precise definition. (Apologies if I'm wrong on that, and please share the formal definition with us all.) It means what the user wants it to mean and avoids the fact that BSA has a broader image of not wanting gay people involved at all. Certainly some adult members feel that way. Note that I said "image", because that is unarguable. That image is controversial, and controversies is our topic.

Avowed when and if used should probably be quoted and referenced to indicate it is the terminology used by the BSA. In the general text we may want to be careful to use language that is neutral (perhaps check with the Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies). --Erp (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider to the USA I also feel the need to discuss the fact that BSA is part of WOSM. This gives BSA the right to claim to be the official Scouting body in the USA. However, when compared with other WOSM nations with similar socio-economic backgrounds, it is at the extreme of conservatism in the policy areas we are looking at. Wikipedia is a global entity. Does the lead and scope allow for this more global level discussion?

BTW, I think this is an excellent place to start this discussion. It sets the boundaries. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that definitively compares the BSA to other WOSM organizations? The article currently compares the BSA to Scouts Canada, The Scout Association, Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände and the Svenska Scoutrådet. Yet Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände is a federation of three distinct organizations, of which one is Catholic and one is Protestant. The Catholic DSGP has a statement of faith in its Scout Law and I have no idea on its attitude towards homosexuals. The Svenska Scoutrådet is another federation of which one organization is from the Salvation Army and another from the Mission Covenant Church of Sweden.

The BSA is the second largest WOSM organization (3.9 M), so why not compare it to the largest— Gerakan Pramuka of Indonesia (8.1 M)? And why limit it to WOSM— there are five international associations. The article has content related to the GSUSA which is WAGGS affiliated and to the AHG which has no affiliation (but does have a relationship with the BSA).

And therein lies the heart of the problem— the editors are choosing the comparisons and creating a synthesis of content. See Wikipedia:No original research. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Some valid points there. I'm not familiar with five international associations. Can you point me to where I can learn more on that?

World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) and World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGS) are the largest and have a lot of geopolitical overlap; both recognize only one national organization or federation per country. Then there is Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme (CES), Order of World Scouts (OWS), Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d′Europe (UIGSE) and World Federation of Independent Scouts (WFIS) and a handful of non-aligned organizations. Hmmm... that's six. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia would be an interesting comparison, but I thought comparing with nations with similar socio-economic backgrounds (and cultural backgrounds) would be of greater value. HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One reason to restrict comparisons to other WOSM Scouting organizations or US youth organizations is that the BSA is affiliated with WOSM not with the other international associations and is an US youth organization so in both cases there is some similarity beyond being a youth organization (and in the case of WOSM an overarching standard). Add in similarity in culture helps. As far Indonesia, definitely girls (though often separate), no open atheists (it is illegal to be an atheist in Indonesia). According to LGBT rights in Indonesia it is legal to be gay/lesbian in most of Indonesia though there were attempts to criminalize it in 2003, no idea what the status is within Scouting. --Erp (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you have North America, part of the Interamerican Scout Region with the BSA, Scouts Canada and Asociación de Scouts de México, Asociación Civil. The European Scout Region has about 40 national groups or federations, where a federation might represent any number of organizations. See Scouting and Guiding in Germany for an example of the number of organizations within a country.

But we return to the problem: it is not up to us to pick the organization to make a comparison. We need some source that does that. Otherwise, all we can do is make a table of all of the organizations noting the issues. See List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if you're trying to avoid comparisons. It's perfectly normal in world affairs to try to compare like with like. We often get comparisons of OECD nations. The school I teach at is compared with schools in similar soci-economic situations. Why can't we do the same with Scouting? WOSM IS the major world Scouting body. (Otherwise, why would BSA want to be a member?) My Scouting organisation in Australia is also a member, so I care about the other members. Many people see similarities between our two nations. Let's compare Scouting. It's perfectly valid. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Scout organization most similar to the BSA in geopolitical terms would be Scouts Canada. This article used to have a section about Scouts Canada's inclusive policies and membership numbers. It worked quite nicely until Scouts Canada's membership dropped drastically and it got deleted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that comparisons are a good way to analyze or discuss a topic for those who are sincerely trying to understand or learn it. On the other hand, biased selection of which comparisons to make, and how such are worded, is a a very effective way to present and further one's POV. Wikipedia standards don't provide the tools to control the latter other than to say that comparisons are inherently or inevitably POV. I don't think that a Wikipedia article is the place for either. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To ERP: I think that the two main structural problems with the title are:

"Membership" is too restrictive. For example, that would rule out any description of homosexuality issues(except possibly historical) as current BSA policies in that area relate to leadership rather than membership.

Something should restrict the topic to (significantly) controversial BSA policies and actions, and significant actions in response to them. Without that restriction, POV's themselves become the topic and content, which is one of the biggest things that went wrong with this article in the first place. One of the 2 most common "back door" mechanisms of biased journalism is stealth POV coverage via selective NPOV coverage of POV's. Well, there's a head scratcher.  :-) 99.151.168.32 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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. [8]

Youth homosexual membership is restricted:

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.[9]

I don't see that the homosexuality issue is historical— it is both current and controversial. You will have to list specific current controversial BSA policies and actions that you think belong here before I can make any further evaluation on your discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Gadget850: My own agenda / goal is simply 4 things:

1 Make sure that there are blatantly false statements about BSA

2 Make sure that there are no misleading statements about BSA

3 A clear summary of current BSA policies that place any restrictions based on homosexuality, atheism, and gender, with references to the actual policies.

4 Although it is impossible to say such / generalize about the millions of people in BSA, something that gives a picture about the actual overall practices of BSA in this area. There are a lot of questions and misimpressions. in this area.

Now:

1 is mostly fixed

2 would take hundreds of hours of work for this giant mess of an article, including wrestling with the folks who want it to remain a POV instrument. My life is too short for that.

3 Somebody finally masterfully and accurately summarized #3 in the main BSA article, and using only 3 sentences! (at least with respect to the "big three" - homosexuality, atheism and gender)

4 may be impossible to do within Wikipedia standards and in this charged environment. Which is a shame, given the amount of mis-impressions in this area, and the amount of people who really want to know this.

So I really don't have an agenda or proposal to fix this mess of an article, I was just trying to make a few helpful structure observations for those who are trying......that the current title dooms it to be the mess that it is, unless there were a clear locked in scope statement. And my suggestion for that scope statement would be:

- Current BSA policies and actions which place restrictions on membership or holding positions in cases where such restrictions (or perceptions of them) have caused significant controversy. But again, this has now mostly been done (at least in summary form), and in three sentences.

- Significant actions taken by others in relation to current or past versions of such. With an emphasis on recentness

- Significant events in relation to such. With an emphasis on recentness.

Once that is decided upon, that would more or less set the course, and it wouldn't matter what I personally think belongs. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the current article and Gadget's approach is probably best.

In terms of describing the actual policies, I don't think we're going to get any better than citing the BSA's own past and present language. At this point, I don't think we have the reliable sources to say whether that amounts to an outright ban on gay youth, a rank limit, "don't ask don't tell" or merely an "understanding" that gays just aren't welcome.

What we _can't_ do is make an assertion like "openly gay youth are allowed in BSA" or "in 2004, the BSA changed/ reversed it's earlier policy". Those things aren't supported by reliable sources. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alecmconroy I agree that the best thing is a statement of current policies, and secondarily, relevantly recent past ones.

Although I think that the structural, logical and legal definition of "permitted" is that which is not prohibited, and thus that "allowed" is a correct statement, absent some prohibition, it is much better to just describe or cite the current policies.

You left out the important possibility (and actuality) your list of possibilities. Albiet low on it's "teaching" priority list, BSA wants to say that homosexuality is wrong, it wants an many members as it can get in all of its programs, (including homosexuals) It doesn't want situations which undermine it's "teaching" on homosexuality or which chisel away it's right to do so. After over 45 years in Scouts, in multiple councils, in dozens of different positions, and having read everything that is available on the subject, and tryinig to be as accurate and objective as possible, I can tell you that that is the REAL picture, to the extent that anybody can try to characterize a multi-million person decentralized organization.

Particularly after BSA won the Dale case, it has become the lighting rod in the USA culture war between those for and against the societal normalization of homosexuality. A tactic of those on the "for" side is to always deliberately "miss" the obvious distinction that 99% of organizations on the "against" side (including BSA) make between the practice and and the individual who practices it. Churches on the "against" side put it most succinctly: "hate the sin, love the sinner" (and everyone is a sinner). (Not that this atheist wants to get religious) Again, it is a common tactic to deliberately "miss" the distinction that organizations make, and many of the comments in this talk section either deliberately or innocently miss the distinction. Such is the rosetta stone for those who want to really understand BSA's position, actions and INACTIONS on this topic. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are several confusions. "Homosexuality" can refer to either having sex with someone of the same sex or to being sexually attracted to people of the same sex. Which is the 'sin' or are both? People can identify as being gay or lesbian or just admit to being attracted to people of the same sex yet abstain from sex with other people (just as some straight people do). Does the BSA make the distinction? --Erp (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Erp: Can't speak for the religions definition of "sin", I just quoted that phrase because it so succinctly and clearly shows somebody treating the person differently than their actions. If you are asking about the BSA definition analogous to the "sin", I don't think that they have one. Your average Scout youth never hears or reads ANYTHING from BSA on the topic. In 45+ diverse years in Scouring, I have NEVER heard or read anything about homosexuality except peer-to-peer discussions about the political warfare news.

The one case (Dale) where the more centralized part of the BSA organization took action and went to the mat, they really didn't have to deal with the fine points of the definition. The person was both a stated homosexual and also a homosexual activist, and in a adult (or near adult) employee & paid leadership position. My belief is that the defacto-definition is is they will take action in high-profile cases involving leadership positions, where inaction itself would be an action contrary to their position. And that they (the centralized part of BSA) would otherwise prefer to make homosexuality a non-issue. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that's probably a pretty accurate description of the feelings at the top. Trouble is, the one big action will always be remembered and spoken about far more than the uncountable inactions. I guess that's why this article exists. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about obfuscation!

I've been searching the web for stuff on homosexuality and Scouting, particularly for Indonesia, since it was mentioned above. The only references I've found in the whole world so far are to BSA and homosexuality. It seems to be the only Scouting organisation that cares about the issue at all. (I promise to post back here if I find otherwise.)

What I found that horrified me was this, in the BSA'a FAQs (http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-195.asp):

---

Q. Don't Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists?

A. Boy Scouts of America is one of the most diverse youth groups in the country, serving boys of every ethnicity, religion, and economic circumstance and having programs for older teens of both sexes. That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, and it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.

---

I'm sorry, but if I was writing some FAQs for a website, I'd do a darned sight better than that. Can everyone else see that they didn't actually answer the question? The way I read it, it says "We don't want gays or atheists as Scouts, but we don't think it's nice to call that discrimination".

Now, I know we must be careful about POV material here, and there's no way I will state an opinion like I have above on the main page. I doubt if it's even helpful to the article, but quite frankly, when I found that I was stunned. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BSALegal.org is registered to Bork Communication Group, a company who "helps corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation. We help clients use the techniques of modern communication to avoid litigation, win litigation, and above all, protect reputation."[10] It is not directly run by the BSA, but I would think they have a lot of oversight.

For those who are not Americans: homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 and the American Psychological Association until 1975, and was essentially illegal in many states until 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). Gays cannot openly serve in the military and are still discharged even with don't ask, don't tell. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Finding Indonesian stuff will probably require being able to read Indonesian, that is also likely true of many other non-English speaking scouting organizations. The FAQ was almost certainly written by lawyers and the site is linked to in the article. I'll follow up on your talk page with some more info.--Erp (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As an Aussie I have an interest in things Indonesian. They are our nearest big neighbor, after all. And I did study the language a few years back. No expert though. The hard bit is "proving the negative", i.e. that an organization does not discriminate re homosexuality, etc. Scouts Australia doesn't, for example, but doesn't say so. It just doesn't mention it, because it's not an issue. See all the negatives in those sentences? It's hard to find proof that something isn't an issue.

I know that conservative Muslim parts of Indonesia such as Aceh have tried to bring in extreme anti-gay laws, but faced opposition from the more tolerant national government. Neighboring Malaysia is tougher on gays. It's used as a political tool there. I imagine their Scout association has to follow suit. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 your question (and the one the FAQ) is actually much more complex and ambiguous (and itself obfuscating) than you realize. If you are really trying to "find out" you might scan though the last few weeks of this talk page as, sprinkled through it is 90% of the answer to your question. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've already read most of what has been posted. Remember that I didn't frame the question. Someone from BSA did it as one of their own FAQs. It obviously reflects the kind of question that is asked, the same kind that leads to the existence of this article. To my mind, a more honest and simple answer would be to say "Yes, we do discriminate, but it's not illegal". But that sounds a bit negative. The wordy rubbish in the "official" answer is clearly trying to avoid stating the simple but embarrassing truth. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48. I was only trying to help in case you did not know and were seeking to learn the actual situation here on that topic. Not to comment on that vague, ambiguous question and answer in a FAQ that was probably written by lawyers. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Policies on homosexuals

The policies on religion and girls are clear and listed on the application. The policies on homosexuals are not clear and are not listed on the application. Here are the BSA policies on homosexuals from BSALegal.org:

• 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.[11]

This first statement seems clear that the BSA will not extend membership to adult volunteers known to be homosexual.

• 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.[12]

The BSA will not allow homosexual professionals (paid positions)— Scout executive, district executive and so forth. It is not clear about support staff with no contact with Scouts— office manager, bookkeeper, registrar, trading post manager and so forth.

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.[13]

• This seems to say that if a Scout outs himself, then he can't be a leader.
• There is no policy that a Boy Scout or Venturer must advance or hold a leadership position. Leadership positions for Boy Scouts are required only for the Star, Life and Eagle ranks; a leadership position in Venturing is required only for the Gold Award.
• "Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old." What if a 14 year old homosexual boy tried to join Boy Scouting?
• "In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual..." The Venturing program allows girls.

I feel like I'm reaching into a knapsack of weasels when I read this. The problem is that it is not up to us to try to interpret this, but I can't find any sources that discuss these policies. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess they haven't considered lesbians in Venturing. Also what is 'homosexual conduct'? If a scout (or adult) says he is gay but chaste can he be a leader or is just saying one is gay 'homosexual conduct'? Weasels is right. --Erp (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gadget850 one thing in your summary that may or may not be right is your line where you say "Leadership positions for Boy Scouts are required only for the Star, Life and Eagle ranks;". As I have mentioned before this is not totally clear in the policies. The ranks require a "position of responsability" not a leadership position. The question is whether they meant the terms they used in the policy. If the specifically meant leadership versus responsability then an openly homosexual youth could probably be a scribe, librarian, etc. all positions that are responsability positions but not leadership positions, but they are allowed for Star, Life, and Eagle. Baring issues with the "Live up to the Scout Oath and Law in your everyday life" and the board of reviews themselves, the problem isn't with the "position of responsability" requirement itself. Marauder40 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

However Eagle would presumably be barred reqardless as that requires youth leadership in the Eagle project if nothing else. Personally we have to leave the BSA's words to speak for themselves in the article and let the reader draw any interpretations unless we have some documented case where the BSA has come down one way or another (or waffled).--Erp (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Point, since the project is formally known as the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project. The problem is how to summarize the policies. "Excludes or restricts known or avowed homosexuals" might be better, but not by much.

We probably just need to present the policies and point out that the BSA does not define "known or avowed", "homosexual conduct" or "leadership positions" and that part of the policy is gender specific in reference to boys.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So, in that face of all of that vagueness in several areas, the question become: what things ARE clearly known (and directly verifiable) to the point that are suitable content for a Wikipedia article?

Or maybe we should just put in unsupported negative accusations in as "fact" and then they can stay in there a long time until somebody does the huge job of proving a negative in order to remove them. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

APA content

The new content from the APA is obviously not a policy of the BSA, but a reaction, thus it is misplaced. It is an amicus curiae brief on a legal case, but lacks the context of the case. The quote is too long and needs to be better summarized. And it misuses {{cquote}}; see the template documentation for the Manual of Style references. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it. I'll put a note on the author's talk page making a few suggestions. --Erp (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADestinero&action=historysubmit&diff=335498692&oldid=330732936 and agree that the quote could be shortened, placed in better chapter and introducted in better way. The scientific research here is relevant to oppose prejudice of the BSA and should be definitely presented in terms of NPOV. But I will wait and watch the overhaul of the article now. --Destinero (talk) 19:24, 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) 03:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be just a fork of this article. I do not see the difference from this article. Can you give us some reasons why it should not be deleted for that reason as the proposed deletion tag now on the article suggests? --Bduke (Discussion) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any content not already in this article. I do see original research based on discussions on this talk page that were specifically noted as not having any reliable source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the best response that I could give on your first sentence is in the "origination notes". You make good points in your second sentence. But are you saying that an article is supposed to be perfect and complete on day 1? At least there is now a "policies" article to cover and work on policies under, where no such article even article section existed before. Or, are you suggesting that there should be no "policies" article to cover policies under, and instead policies should be only covered under an article named "controversies". That would be very POV and unencyclopedic and has obviously not worked out in this article. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An unnecessary complication, clearly from an author who wants to defend BSA. He would do better working within the organization he is presumably a member of to get it to issue an explicit statement of its global policies on gays and atheists at all age levels so as to remove the uncertainty that will inevitably exist in its absence. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And, to HiLo48, the ad hominem part of your post aside, developing a policies article to Wikipedian standards would certainly help on your latter points. And, prior to this, no policies article or policies article section even existed to try to do that in. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also please see my comments in the article itself.North8000 (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion over at Talk:Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas so we can focus on the issues here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:05, 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) 18:56, 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) 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If it weren't for the policies, this topic would not exist. Your topic is not homeless. It exists wherever those policies have an impact. This topic is one of those places. Play the game. (Have you ever read Kim?) HiLo48 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to reopen the discussion, but I stand by my "homeless" comment.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you said "Kim" (is that a book? is that the full title?) Either way, I don't think that I have read it.

75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kim is a novel by Rudyard Kipling; the game is Kim's Game. The "new article" is gone, let's focus on improving this article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll see if the folks who want this "controversies" article "as is" will be successful in preventing that. About 1/2 if it is covering the controversies, the other 1/2 is an editorial by persons on one side of the controversy, disguised as coverage. I think that Wikipedia standards, if they are allowed to be applied, would sort it out. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Instead of complaining try to make your changes. Even better try setting up an actual account so your changes can be tracked easier. Happy editing. Just remember, just because you think something belongs in an article, that doesn't mean consensus thinks the same thing. Marauder40 (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Featured Article Review notice be in the article?

It seems that major notices about an article are generally put in the article. In this case this notice is only in the discussion section, which most people who read the article never see. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No. FAR is just a review. Issues such as OR that triggered the review are in the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody commented that the FAR wasn't receiving much comment. I'm going to have to tell them that such is not very indicative because FAR notices are only put in places (the discussion section) where most article readers never see them.

I'm going to copy this to the FAR page for this article and suggest that anything further on the thread be put there rather than here.

North8000 (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See the procedures at Wikipedia:Featured article review. If you disagree with these, then take it up on the talk page. This is a procedural issue not directly related to the content of this article, so I don't know why you feel the need to bring it up at the FAR. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It was an experienced editor that made that comment and it appears that even they did not understand which led me to misunderstand. Notably, that FAR procedures are such that a lack of a flurry of comments is normal rather than indicative of anything. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR talk goes in the far, with at notice of it at the top of the article talk page, which is precisely what was done. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"religious metals to over 38 faiths"

An IP has just added...

The BSA even awards religious metals to over 38 faiths including Baha'i, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism

I'm sure this is meant to be read as a positive about BSA, but as soon as I read it, I wondered about the hundreds of other religious groupings that exist, especially non-Christian ones. I'm not convinced it adds anything of value to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we mean "medals" -:). The reference to Wicca states "The former (i.e. Wicca) exists but has not been approved due to less than 25 chartered Wiccan units". This reads as if it is all matter of course, just a rule that is getting in the way and it will be OK when there are 25 troops. However that is a BSA POV, because there is controversy here. The story, if I recall it right, was that there were Wicca Scouts but no Wicca Troops, so a Wicca group asked for a religious medal. They were told they had to have a Wicca chartered Troop, although it is not clear that was a rule previously. So they formed a Troop and were then told they had to have 25. Rules were made up on the fly giving the Wiccans a strong impression that the BSA did not want them. This, in part, was a cause of the formation of an alternative Scouting organization, the SpiralScouts. This needs to be described, but of course with reliable sources. As it stands, it suggests there is no controversy regarding religious medals, but this is far from the case. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I followed the wikilink in the reference to Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America) I saw obvious issues. It is effectively prescriptive and restrictive in its portrayal of which religions (mostly Christian denominations really) are acceptable. There is a list. If you're not on the list, don't bother. That doesn't just discourage atheists, but anyone from outside the experience of those deciding who is OK. Heaven help an Australian Aboriginal person with traditional beliefs turning in the USA! HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• The new content duplicates content already in the paragraph.
• The BSA does not award the emblems, it recognizes emblems created and awarded by various faiths; see Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America)
• PRAY does not list the Over the Moon and the Hart and Crescent programs as recognized by any agency.[14] There are awards listed for other agencies that are not listed for the BSA.
• As I understand it, the awards were developed by the Aquarian Tabernacle Church and presented to the BSA for approval. About the same time, some other small groups presented awards for consideration. In response, the BSA created the "rule of 25"; awards would only be considered for faiths with a national program that chartered 25 or more BSA units. I have no reliable sources for this.
• Over the Moon and the Hart and Crescent programs are now awarded by the Covenant of the Goddess.[15] I have no idea how many BSA units are chartered to CoG covens. I cannot find any numbers on the CoG awards, nor any information that they have been presented to any Boy Scout, Girl Scout or Camp Fire member. My speculation is that the CoG is focused on SpiralScouts and no longer charters Scout units.

• I think that is exactly right. When this was extensively discussed on rec.scouting.issues usenet group years ago, there was a strong indication that the BSA was playing games to keep wiccans out. So there is now an alternative Scouting organization in the USA because the BSA gave the very strong impression, true or false, that it was not welcoming to minority religions. This should be covered. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it should be, if there is a reliable source. Please note that my last statement is speculation. Indeed, I'm not sure that Aquarian or CoG actually sponsored a BSA unit or just wanted to create the awards. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was reported on rec.scouting.issues that CoG started a troop when told they needed one for a medal. The original request was for wiccans in non-wicca Troops. After that they were told they needed 25, so they got really fed up. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO I would think the key item should be whether there were scouts who considered themselves followers of Wicca not Wiccan institutions sponsoring units. I can quite easily imagine a small religion whose members are widely dispersed sponsoring no units yet still having a sizable numbers of scouts (how many Hindu sponsored units are there in the US?). Admittedly the Boy Scouts did change the rules to require a minimum of religion sponsored units (and never required a minimum number of scouts of that religion). I note that apparently Wicca is now the second largest religion after Christianity in the US Air Force, ahead of Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism (though the non-religious outnumber them)[16] so the BSA may face the situation again. BTW the rumor I heard back when the Wiccan award was disputed is that the BSA would not allow Wiccan groups to sponsor units. Can't substantiate it though yet. --Erp (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my impression. The conservatives thought wicca was consorting with the devil and they wanted none of it - no medals, no troops and no members creating a fuss. Of course, they could not say this out clear, so they put difficulties in the way. The Wiccans clearly thought this. Some of them contributed to rec.scouting.issues and said so. Of course we will never source this.--Bduke (Discussion) 03:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Further information: Religion in the United States, History of religion in the United States, and Discrimination against atheists

The majority of adult Americans identify themselves as Christians (78%), while non-Christian religions including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and others collectively make up about 6% of the population. Another 15% of the adult population identified themselves as atheist, agnostic, Humanist, deist or with no theistic religious beliefs.

• I'm not aware that any Australian Aboriginal groups are chartered by the BSA.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And in that last statement sits a whole set of issues. In many other countries, if a single member of an as yet unknown faith turned up to Scouts, there would be no issue, but in the USA it seems one must find a Scouting group that already exists that fits what you are. Why the so heavily structured religious overlay in BSA? Just how open to new faith concepts is BSA? HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you stating that the BSA would not allow some minor religious group to charter a unit? I thought this discussion was about recognized religious emblems. As best I understand, only the US and Canada have this range of religious emblems programs. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Scouts Australia and the Scout Association do not think it is any of their business to be giving religious medals and there has never been, to my knowledge, any demand for them. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 you are mixing up three different topics:

- Sponsoring / Chartering a Unit Tha has nothing to do with religion. A chess club could sponsor/charter a unit - Religion/Belief-Set specific special medals. There's only like 35 of those, and probably thousands of religions that BSA members are members of. - "Acceptability" whatever that means. You seemed to be implying that in order to be a BSA member your religion / belief set has to come from one of the ~35 that have special medals or needed some official "acceptance" If so, where did you get that from?

BTW, I'm an atheist/ agnostic, (the ONE group that the BSA policies say is not allowed to be a BSA member) have been a BSA member for 49 years,Eagle Scout, in multiple councils, and in about 20 different unit, district and council level volunteer positions. . For me personally atheism/agnosticism it's not a belief or attitude, it's a merely a description of a situation of lack of a particular belief. I don't shout it from the rooftops in BSA or feel a need to tell people who didn't ask about it, but I don't keep it a secret. (I've never refused to sign an application or recite something due to having the word "God" in it.) And, in 49 years, it HAS NEVER NEVER EVER EVER COME UP. In all of that time nobody has ever even asked what church I'm a member of. This is of course, non-wikipedian "primary research", but I thought that telling you this might get you un-confused about what the situaiton is here, as your comments certainly indicate a massive mis-impression of the situation here. I was going to say that if your religion was worshiping your neighbor's tree, that would be fine to be in Scouts. But in reality, you wouldn't even need that because it never comes up.

I think it depends where you live. My guess is that reaction is common in New England, California and some other places, but could be very different in the South or mid West. As you have said before, Scouting differs in different places. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I live in the Midwest (Chicago area, Illinois) North8000 (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant rather further west than Chicago. I was thinking Wyoming and the States that border it. Yes, I expect Chicago is pretty tolerant. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On your note "Heaven help an Australian Aboriginal person with traditional beliefs turning in the USA!" You might find the article in the Navajo Hopi Observer article linked in reference #16 in this article interesting...it's about that exact situation, except not Australian. The article describes that the Dine' / Navajo (Native American) spiritual belief set is not only "acceptable" but BSA was supporting the development of a special medal for it. (BTW I had the privilege of an extended visit on that Dine' reservation......)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, at least in many places, BSA clearly has an obsession with knowing what religion someone follows. It also has an unusual (on a global scale) concept that Scouts can't exist until some non-scouting body wants to charter their local group, thereby making it somebody else's youth club with a Scouting flavour. Be aware that is not how it works elsewhere. And Scouting is a global organization.

And to even have an award available only to members of the 38 or so "endorsed" sects is discriminatory and can't possibly help build a unified organisation. Again, why the emphasis on church? HiLo48 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 Well, I think that this is more of an " exchange of understanding" than a Wikipedian discussion, but I can't think of a better use for a few bytes of Wikipedianb hard drive space than this. The following is a sincere effort to convey something, not a "debate" or an attempt to make points.

In a multi-million person organizaton that is decentralized in many respects, it's probable that somewhere somebody inquired about somebody's religion. But in 49 years of Scouting I'v never seen, , heard or read of that happening.

You asked a lot of good questions that I think would take pages or a book to answer. But here are a few thoughts....these are my sincere observations, not official policy statements:

A typical sponsoring institution is someone who got asked to sponsor a unit, and where the only thing they do is provide a meeting place and once a year sign put their signature on a a piece of paper somebody slides in front of them. Even though on paper it is much more, in reality that's about it for a typical situation.

BSA vaguely promotes the idea of belief in a God, and the things that it has youth in most programs recite (plus the application form) routinely mention God, and duty to God. As far as Scouting as a whole, that's about IT..that's about the extent of it's religiousness for a typical Scout who isn't particularly interested in religion (e.g. an atheist/agnostic Scout) (I'm sure that a few percent of individual units go a little further than that.) Except when someone gets "in their face" opposing these vague things, essentially pushing BSA "into a corner" on the issue by refusing to sign the application, or making a point of saying that they are not reciting the oath etc, then (and ONLY then) they will come out swinging. Court cases, removal from leadership or membership positions etc...

If there's one "big secret" in Scouting. it's that, contrary to to it's structure on paper, BSA is heavily dominated by a "fifth column" which it's professionals. Not a "big conspiracy" or secret network, just human nature combined with a "line authority" network inherent in an employee organization, combined with the fact that they are the ones that write the checks, unlock the camps etc.. Also, the top professional each council mostly picks who their bosses will be (ala the Enron board or the Scouting E-board) which usually is people (e.g. philanthropists) who don't have the backround or inclination,, sufficient meetings or small enough of a board size to actually manage them. Their main motivations are increasing income and membership numbers, bettering the financial position of BSA, minimizing risk and problems. Many of the genuine big fights and scandals in and Scouting (ghost units, phony membership numbers, always trying to get rid of Scout camps, reducing allowable activities) come from myopia of such tendencies running amok. But you would be happy to know that that "fifth column" is absolutely non-ideological. So they (and I) would love to have a million atheists and gays join as long as they don't make a point of doing high-profile head-butting with BSA on those issues. As a result, BSA is full of gays and atheists, but not gay activists, and not atheist-activists. If you want to know the REAL story, that is it.

I'm sure that Scouting's policies are influenced by Churches. And probably by the LDS Church more than others because it makes BSA a part of it's programs. So, unlike other churches, that's big membership numbers that can easily go away with the change of one policy.

I know that this is only a few little pieces of unwikipedian information (mostly very informative overgeneralizations) in response to some good big questions of yours, but I hope that it was at least a little bit helpful

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

North - It is good to know that from where you sit BSA can be seen as a diverse and welcoming organization. As I discussed elsewhere, those differences between official policy and actual practice make up one of the bigger issues as I see it. The practices seem OK. What are the chances that official policy will one day come to match the practices you describe? HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. But here are a few "context facts" and them my guesses.

There is a range war /culture war in the US between those for and against full societal normalization of homosexuality. That's the real issue and battle. All of the other stuff about persecution of individuals, "hate", "phobia", classifying / nounifying people by their sexual practices are tactics, not issues. And the fact that in the US "anti-discrimination" laws in practice all end up being reverse discrimination laws makes the folks on the "against" side fight even harder.

In the US legal system, any right that you do not assert and fight to protect you lose.

Many of the policies in this area are vague but mostly DO match the actual situation, albeit interpreting the vague areas towards minimal enforcement, that being selecting the people who "push" in those areas. The exception is the "Youth Leadership" policy which is both badly worded and doesn't match reality. I can't imagine that wording not getting fixed. It has an out of topic preamble (not the operative clause) that talks about membership rather than leadership. As far as I've been able to find there are no documented cases of denial or removal from youth leadership positions, unless you want to call 18 year old employee positions "youth leadership" positions. (Although I would guess that this has happened somewhere)

My guess is that the result of the US culture war here eventually head towards full societal normalization of homosexuality (hopefully without reverse discrimination which would make the war seethe forever) and that if / when that occurs homosexuality related rules will disappear from BSA policies.

BSA's "God" policies are so so benign (as I described above) that it's hard to imagine a general push to change them. Also, people like me (who have no belief in God) are common in the USA, but Atheist/Agnostic activists or "with attitude" are and very rare and generally disliked. And the latter are the only ones who would have trouble being in the BSA.

North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You write of "US anti-discrimination laws" being a problem to some conservative people, perhaps because they at times lean towards being positive discrimination laws. While this is no doubt true, it is also true that BSA has gone to the trouble of creating formal policies that are explicitly negatively discriminatory against gay people. BSA is not just an innocent victim of broader societal battles here. It is a player. It has taken explicit action to make gay people unwelcome. It has also allowed the words "morally straight" to be deliberately misused by some where straight is used as the opposite of gay. BSA policies are not neutral on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here is not of right or wrong, but of what reliable sources we have to back any of this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. And I would argue that the existence of formal anti-gay policies is pretty cut and dried, and already very well documented in the article. The issue we have is that editors such as North are, probably rightly, keen to tell us that practice is very different from policy in most cases.

My perspective on the use of the word straight is quite admittedly OR. I've not seen another reference discussing it. I've certainly seen writings from more conservative parts of BSA where the intention to have the word seen as meaning not gay was extremely obvious to me, but the writer wasn't going to spell it out. So yes, hard to source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Found a good explanation of the chartered organization concept. Here is an excerpt from On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth.[17] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I am now clearer about the difference between the BSA term "chartered" and the Scouts Australia and The Scout Association term "sponsored". The terms mean the same. Sponsoring authorities, like chartering authorities, take very different levels of involvement from high to essentially none. The real difference is that the BSA insists all Troops, Packs etc. are chartered. In Australia and UK, there is a choice between "Sponsored" and "Open", with "open" being the larger and growing group. The associations technically own scout huts and Group equipment in most cases of Open Groups. Open Groups take a broader view of involvement with the local community. The other difference is that the main proportion of sponsoring authorities in UK and Australia are Churches, and I would guess that 99% plus of the rest are Schools, particularly boarding schools. So the practice of chartered and sponsored units are very similar. It is just that the majority of Groups in Australia and UK are open. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)