Talk:Scouts BSA

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080527102319/http://www.scouting.org:80/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528182132/http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf to http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527102319/http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Scouts BSA over Boy Scouts

The Middle Tennessee Council Boy Scouts of America website specifically uses the term Scouts BSA over the term Boy Scouts. You can see this here: "Camp and Outdoor Programs". - Mrwoogi010 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you willing to update all the language throughout? Seems to require changes across many related pages. Geodude86 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I am in the process of changing language on many of the related pages. _Mrwoogi010^✉ 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on the naming/location of the page? I think Scouts BSA is appropriate with a mention near the top of 'formerly Boy Scouts' and a redirect also Geodude86 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest filing a move request per the instructions at WP:RM. I personally doubt that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The article was renamed to Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) and then renamed to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Where was this discussed. The article however still starts with "Scouts BSA is ..". The section name is "Scouts BSA" so the former should be the name of the article. Can we have an explanation and consistency. --Bduke (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that a consensus should be reached at the wikiproject page before we make mass edits. --evrik ^(talk) 15:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Can this be discussed here? It is a fact that the program name changed on Feb 1 to reflect the membership requirement change. Scouts BSA seems the best name to me, not sure why it was changed back to Boy Scouting Geodude86 (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In general, BSA is transitioning into allow girls into all of it's programs. (previously they were not allowed in its largest programs.) Another big factor is that the Girl Scouts organization is not happy about it. And BSA is being hyper-cautious to avoid people using terminology that poaches from the Girl Scouts. So, for example, you can never say that the girls in BSA are girl scouts.

The two biggest BSA programs are the two that previously didn't allow girls. One was Cub Scouts, the other was Boy Scouts. This was the second meaning of "Boy Scouts" so one is the overall organization (Boy Scouts of America) and the other was the specific program for boys roughly in the 10 1/2 - 16 year old age range. The latter is being renamed to "Scouts (BSA)" The Cub Scouts program started taking girls last year and the Scouts (BSA) (formerly "Boy Scouts") program is starting to take girls sometime around now. There is still partial separation by sexes within the programs. I forgot the details....whether packs or dens or troops or patrols are sex-specific. Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) looks right. The title that it is redirected to (Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)) the article that I'm writing this talk page post into looks wrong. This is a condensed duplication from my posts at WP Project Scouting. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a major error, we need to fix it soon. I'd fix it but I don't want to repeat the error (renaming a major article without discussion) that caused the error in the first place. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest filing a move request per the instructions at WP:RM. I personally doubt that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved back to long-standing title per WP:RMUM. Participants are free to make a new RM request with the long-standing title as the status quo. (non-admin closure) --Netoholic @ 19:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Netoholic @ 19:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Scouts BSA → Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) – to get dispute sorted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• @Bduke and BarrelProof: Or move it to Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note that this article has had a longstanding stable title of "Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)" (prior to 24 January 2019). In the absence of a consensus, it should revert to that title. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Name

Somebody closed the discussion hours after it was opened and moved the article again. So the title is not the name of the program, not descriptive of the program, and in direct conflict with the (correct) body of the article.

The official name of the overall organization is "Boy Scouts of America" (abbreviated "BSA") and it has not changed. The article for that organization is [[Boy Scouts of America". This article is about one of the programs of that organization.

The official name of the BSA program which this article is about has changed to "Scouts BSA". And now it allows girls. So "Boy Scouting" or "Boy Scouts" is no longer the name of that program , nor is it descriptive of the program. So the proposed move is wrong on both counts. So, the current "Scouts BSA" is accurate. I think that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" would also be correct, even clearer, and in line with the previous format of including then name of the organization after the name of the program. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to submit an RM following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. But per WP:RMUM, such discussions should be done with the understanding that the long-standing title is the status quo and that any change from that must demonstrate consensus. -- Netoholic @ 20:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I personally doubt that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and I suggest that interested parties should review WP:OFFICIALNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

No, Netoholic, you just closed the discussion hours after it was opened and unilaterally made a controversial move. North8000 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I am outraged. You do realize that this was proposed and then closed with the move occurring entirely during the time when some of us, including me, were asleep? --Bduke (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's decide the article name

Let's move past the wild crap that has been happening and have a non-rushed careful discussion on the article name.

My thoughts: The official name of the overall organization is "Boy Scouts of America" (abbreviated "BSA") and it has not changed. The article for that organization is Boy Scouts of America. This article is about one of the programs of that organization. The official name of the BSA program which this article is about has changed to "Scouts BSA". And now it allows girls. So "Boy Scouting" or "Boy Scouts" is no longer the name of that program, nor is it descriptive of the program, and, on both of these points, would be in direct conflict with the (correct) content of the article. So, "Scouts BSA" is accurate. I think that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" would also be correct, even clearer, and in line with the previous format of including the name of the organization after the name of the program.North8000 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I also agree that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" is the best name. We should have a proper debate that is not shut down quickly. As noted in the paragraph above I have only just woken up here in Australia and I am going to be busy for the rest of the day. Can you go through the formal process? --Bduke (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you mean a RFC?North8000 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The way to have a "proper debate" on a page name move is to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. This creates a listing which will attract the participation of editors outside your WikiProject and who don't follow this page already. -- Netoholic @ 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

We're having a discussion to decide, we're not at the point of making a move, nor identifying it as a requested move, much less a controversial one. What IS controversial is you closing a discussion only hours after opening and unilaterally making the page move that was under discussion. But lets move past all of that and have a pleasant discussion on the best name for the article. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not the correct chain of events. Bduke appealed for a move directly on the talk page of a page mover. That page mover moved the page and then created a move discussion proposing to move it back to the old, long-standing title. This is incorrect and out-of-process, per WP:TITLECHANGES and as per WP:RMUM, such undiscussed page moves can be immediately reverted, which I did, making his out-of-process RM proposal above moot. Short version: the guideline is to preserve pages at their long-standing titles until consensus is shown via a properly handled move request. -- Netoholic @ 21:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not appeal for a move directly on the talk page of a page mover. I merely asked him why he moved it and asked him to explain it in places where it was being discussed. I was as surprised as you when he reverted his move. We need a proper discussion that lasts at least a week. --Bduke (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2019 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Scouts BSA at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) → ? – Let's discuss this dispute formally here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the article should be moved to Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) for the following reasons. Scouts BSA is the new and correct name of the program that the article discusses. The program has fundamentally changed and the name should change with it - if the age group had changed and along with it the program name then this would not be a discussion (IMHO). The name Boy Scouting should no longer be commonly in use, and even if it is still used by some now will fall out of use in the near future, in the same way as other Scouting organizations around the world have dropped Boy from their titles (for example Scouts (The Scout Association)), and boy is now only used erroneously. This is different to the examples in WP:COMMONNAME where widely used shortenings, acronyms, or aliases are in common use - this is a fundamental name change and if anything it is the BSA part that might be commonly dropped, and the program become referred to as simply Scouts. Andymmu^talk 23:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with this suggestion and explanation. Geodude86 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• My thoughts: The official name of the overall organization is "Boy Scouts of America" (abbreviated "BSA") and it has not changed. The article for that organization is Boy Scouts of America. This article is about one of the programs of that organization. The official name of the BSA program which this article is about has changed to "Scouts BSA". And now it allows girls. So "Boy Scouting" or "Boy Scouts" is no longer the name of that program, nor is it descriptive of the program, and, on both of these points, would be in direct conflict with the (correct) content of the article. So, "Scouts BSA" is accurate. I think that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" would be best. .....it has the correct name of the program (Scouts BSA) and further clarifies the distinction between the program name and the organization name by listing both.North8000 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with both User:Andymmu and User:North8000, and think they have covered the essential points. --Bduke (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Move over Scouts BSA, which redirects here anyway. "(Boy Scouts of America)" is an unnecessary, and unnatural, disambiguating phrase. Whether "BSA" stands for anything is discussed on this Quora thread. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• 94.21.238.64 makes a good point. A quick search seems to tell me that the only other articles that addss "(Boy Scouts of America)" to the title are Cub Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) and Sea Scouting (Boy Scouts of America), There it is essential as many countries have a section called "Cub Scouting" or "Sea Scouting". This is not the case with the article we are discussing here. The article on Venturing is just Venturing. Like that, "Scouts BSA" is unique. I therefore change my opinion and prefer to rename this article simply to Scouts BSA, but either would be better than the current situation. Finally can we please leave this discussion open for a week to allow many others to contribute. --Bduke (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) or Scouts (BSA) or leave this where it is: It seems highly unlikely that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME or will persist as such. The WP:OFFICIALNAME doesn't matter. No one will say "I'm in the Scouts BSA." 99% of the people in this program will continue to say "I'm in the Boy Scouts" or "I'm a Boy Scout" (e.g., as contrasted with a "Cub Scout" or "Sea Scout"), or they might possibly be persuaded to shorten that to "I'm a Scout", but none will say "I'm in the Scouts BSA." I strongly suspect that the percentage of female participants in this program is miniscule. (Are any statistics available?) As noted by Andymmu above, "BSA" seems likely not to be part of the WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that it just started a few days ago. (girls allowed in this particular program) So current numbers are not meaningful. North8000 (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to suppose that the number of girls will be miniscule. In other countries, such as the UK and Australia where the Scout movement introduced girls into this age group section some years ago the numbers are very large. See the gender section of The Scout Association. --Bduke (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Move The name of the article ought to reflect what the BSA is calling the program, not what it's referred to by the public. On their programs page, they name it "Scouts BSA". Any redirect can handle what names the public use. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that notion is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the common name used by the public, not the official name. Please see also WP:OFFICIALNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you are reading too much into that policy. It also says "inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and that is exactly the case here. The term "Boy Scouting" is the common name, but it is now no longer accurate as girls are admitted to that section. That has only just happened. Usage will change. We should just proceed to decide on a new name by consensus. --Bduke (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair point (but it is not what the other editor was saying, and "BSA" still harkens back to "Boy Scouts of America" one way or another). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a problem in the US. In most other countries, the movement for girls is called Girl Guides, so the Boy Scouts have just become Scouts. That is not possible in the USA. I think the Girl Scouts have made that quite clear. So there will be girls in an organisation called the Boy Scouts. We have to live with that, but we should follow what that organisation calls this section. --Bduke (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

What would be the trip point for girl membership before the article gets renamed? Numbers would probably not be available until next year. --Eagleinflight (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The number of girls in the program is irrelevant to the article title. The title should reflect the name (official or common seems to still be a debate at this point) of the program. We are not suggesting to rename to 'Boy and Girl Scouting' at some arbitrary membership ratio. Geodude86 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Use Scouts BSA, or merge it. "Scouts BSA" is the actual name of the program, and precise enough. The "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" idea is redundant over-disambiguation and bears not resemblance to how we do article titles. "Scouts (BSA)" doesn't either, being a made-up construction, and pseudo-disambiguation (a parenthetical with an obscure acronym in it doesn't disambiguate anything for anyone but insiders to the topic). The current title is absurdly redundant. "Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)" is another made-up construction. However, looking at the content of this and of Boy Scouts of America, this article is clearly superfluous and can safely merge back into the main article, as its content is pretty much what the bulk of the material in the BSA article is; the BSA article just also has summary coverage of some other branches like the Cub Scouts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Scouts BSA. It avoids having to use any parenthetical disambiguation in addition to being the official name. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• Move to Scouts BSA. This is the new name of the Boy Scouting division of the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA is not changing their name, only the Boy Scout program.[1] As I understand it, the disambiguation of (Boy Scouts of America) was only needed because the terms Boy Scout or Boy Scouting is used by many other Scout organizations, but it is no longer needed; for example Venturing and Varsity Scouting are unique to the BSA so they did not need the title disambiguation of (Boy Scouts of America). --Eagleinflight (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This is sound reasoning also that the parenthetical disambiguation is not needed. Geodude86 (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updating links and primary sources

Now that the naming discussion seems to be resolved(?) it seems that the majority of the references on the page are 10 years old or more. Some more recent images would be beneficial also. Geodude86 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Venture patrol

Venture patrol is gone. If anyone is using it, it's not official and only anecdotal. --Eagleinflight (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No comments? --Eagleinflight (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Venture patrol is optional, not all Troops have one. A Venture patrol in a troop is for Scouts 13 to 17 years old. These troop members have the maturity and experience to take part in more challenging high-adventure outings. As it is optional, it is not on the page, as there are many optional BSA Programs. Telecine Guy (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Venturing. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Venture patrol is gone. It is no longer in the Scouts BSA Handbook nor the Scoutmaster's Handbook. The insignia is no longer in the Insignia Guide nor available in the shops. --Eagleinflight (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

How could the Scout rule "always leave the campground better than you found it" be worked into the article?

Even other areas (e.g. Scrum refer to the Boy Scout rule - see Technical debt). However, under the Scouts BSA page I don't find this. Thanks to anyone trying to weave this in. ----Bernburgerin (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Somewhere I reverted this addition, but I think there is probably a way to appropriately put it in. Any wording that implies that it is on the official 2-item official short list (the scout slogan and scout law) is wrong / unsourcable. This is merely one of dozens of slogans, statements/re-statemets of scout principles & training etc promulated in Scouts BSA. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

History

This article is missing a history section. There are scattered historical comments, but that is inadequate. Kdammers (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO for their early years, this program and Boy Scouts of America (the organization which it is a program of) were in essence one and the same and so the Boy Scouts of America's history is Scouts BSA. Not sure where that leaves us on the question. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll put something in to that effect. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep scope in mind

This isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Plans and expectations should keep that in mind.

Regarding history, since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA. The "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they are creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Scouts BSA

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist Uncited text and concerns on broadness Aircorn (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There is very little detail about how girls became a part of what used to be called "Boy Scouts". There is a history section with one unsourced sentence. If one or more editors could improve the article, that would be great. I just want to see what others say.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that there are serious issues with this article. Large swathes lack verifiable sources so it's impossible to know if they're accurate. (t · c) buidhe 18:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Most of the editors involved with the creation of this article no longer edit. @North8000: thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 03:02, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do some work on it. IMO it hasn't slipped below GA level. I'm not sure that there is a lot of sourced material available about adding girls to this specific program. Speaking from experience, it got decided without a lot of fanfare and implemented and quickly became the norm. Since the change involved multiple programs (e.g. including Cub Scouts) most of the news etc. about the transition is not unique to this program and so coverage in sources is more at the BSA level and so the BSA article is where more sourcing/coverage would be available regarding the transition. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I see significant issues here. There's large quantities of uncited material, as well as an incredibly lacking history section. One section for the history of this organization is not enough. Membership figures are extremely outdated (2013). What makes ScoutXing a reliable source? A lot of this content is sourced to sources with 2007-2009 accessdates; there's no guarantee that some of the various procedures haven't changed in the last 10+ years. What makes Boy Scout Trail an RS? Ref 12 is dead. Most of the sourcing is either primary or to sites of dubious reliability. Needs significant work, so delist unless significant work is done soon. GAR is not a holding cell. Hog Farm _Bacon 01:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not overly concerned about GA status of this article and so am just giving my opinion on that. I've done I think about a hundred GA reviews. My general opinion is that it hasn't slipped below the bar of GA. This isn't FA and doesn't demand that level of flawlessness. On another note, just to be clear, this isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA. And the "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they were creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Of course membership numbers need updating, but I think that generally the article has been kept updated in the important areas. The very recent addition of girls to this program and the structures related to that have been covered. Again, regarding plans of what to put in and expectations on what to see here, remember that this isn't an article about the Boy Scouts of America, it is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

• North8000 makes a valid point. There are separate articles for Boy Scouts of America and History of the Boy Scouts of America, as indicted by the History section hatnote. This article is about the one specific program and the History section just needs to be beefed up to cover the inclusion of girls in this previously boys-only program. There are numerous independent RS available on this wide-publicized change, such as NPR, CNN, CBS, etc. —  JGHowes  ^talk 19:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Delist, no comment on broadness (3) either way, but per Buidhe there remain swathes of unsourced text, months after this nomination. CMD (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Don't de-list (above I just made comments) This isn't FA, it's GA and IMO it meets that threshold.North8000 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - Laying aside the broadness issue entirely, there is a very significant amount of uncited text. Multiple sources (Scout Xing, The Scouting Pages) do not appear to be RS. Fails WP:GACR 2b. This seems to have met the 2008 GA criteria, but more is expected, and has been expected for years. Hog Farm _Talk 14:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delist - a lot of sources that are just...not reliable at all, not to mention the broadness issue. versacespaceleave a message! 15:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delist far too much unsourced information. Link20XX (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
• Delist: I had to read the Lead of the Boy Scouts of America to grasp that there are programs for age groups in Scouting. Saying flagship membership level does not get the drift of an age-limited program group in Scouting.

• I wonder if the Other sections part of this article is relevant to Scouts BSA? Is it?
• Youth Leadership Section is a bit WP:PROSELINE with he does this, this scout calls the roll, that scout collects money, like this.
• The first paragraph of Development reads like it has been lifted from some other document.
• Development (n the main) seems to rely on a single reference and there is no reference to Girls in this nor the previous leadership sections, Youth Leadership and Adult Leadership. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)