Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 5

National Jamboree

If you see this section that I made please consider not reverting. I know it's already on the National Jamboree article but it's an important and notable subject to BSA so I think it needs to be introduced on this article none way or another. --12george1 (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Membership controversies

Why isn't the homosexuality controversy mentioned anywhere on this page? That is, the Scouts' official policy is to dismiss any Scoutmasters who come out as gay. This is well-known and should at least be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.19.97 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Under "Membership" is a sub-section titled "Membership controversies" that links to a larger article that covers a range of issues. Is there a reason this was not readily visible? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus the controversies article is a featured article, it's discussed at length there. It's standard practice when there is an article on a topic to summarize it and link to it, which is done here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

MIA Scouts

Not only was this picture of MIA Scouts inserted at 350 px, way too big, plus it was spammed in other articles, here I think it should be removed and worked into History of the Boy Scouts of America. I cut it's size here in the meantime. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES says it's okay to have larger images for "images with aspect ratios that are extreme or that otherwise distort or obscure the image." I think this pic has a lot of detail and looks better larger. Regarding it's place in this article, I think it's quite beneficial since the LDS Church represents the most church-sponsored BSA Scouts, but it could be moved to Boy_Scouts_of_America#Units_and_chartered_organizations instead of its current location in the article if you think it more appropriate. --Eustress (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Any picture that size overpowers the layout. You've placed this in at least three articles in an apparent attempt to advertise that organization. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the three articles you're referencing are (1) Church Administration Building, (2) Young Men (organization), and (3) Boy Scouts of America—the first two are already affiliated with the LDS Church (so I'd think that would actually be advertising the BSA). My inclusion here was merely to further explicate BSA historicity, especially considering the strong religious emphasis in the BSA. Please assume good faith. --Eustress (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Scouting, which I rm'd it from. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The MIA Scouts are already mentioned in Scouting in the United States; this photo appears to be after the merge. The issue here is relevance— the Woodcraft Indians and the Sons of Daniel Boone are prominently noted as the precursors of the BSA, but every history I have relegates the MIA Scouts to a bare mention. I have done some searching in the past and have found little on the subject. If this interests and if you can find sources, then an article would be appropriate (I suggest you sandbox this while you develop it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of National Scouting Museum

This old article was merged here and redirected here in 2006. The redirect has just been reverted and the merge tag is still there. Merge seems a good idea to me, but I welcome views from the BSA folks. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jllm06#Scouting_museum, that's you, me, and Gadget supporting merge and one not for merge. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I support not merging & maintaining separate article for National Scouting Museum. That makes two for not merge. Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. That means when we look at this again in a year it will be ready for GA. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Timber harvesting

I have been looking at the series of articles since it appeared. I was hoping that we could let this settle for a bit before stuffing it in, so we could get more sources from both sides, but we have to have it now. Not only does it suffer from recentism, but is does not include the BSA response.[1] I have not yet found that Hearst has responded back to the BSA. Chief Seattle Council has also made some direct responses. I don't have time to work on this for the next few days. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The significance of this bit in an overview article on BSA is highly questionable. It's historical context and importance is not not established. It's hardly up there with the homosexual and atheist issues, which are covered in the FA Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to keep the wording as neutral as possible, and not to list a lot of details, since this shouldn't be given disproportional space. For example, I didn't include things like this: Councils have authorized at least 60 clear-cutting operations and 35 salvage harvests, logging practices that some experts say harm the environment but maximize profits. Or this: Clashes over camp sales have grown so intense that two councils have ousted longtime volunteers who opposed them.

As for the importance of this - the two news articles cited (and there are more, in other Hearst papers, I believe) discuss a large number of cases where there was a lot of public controversy (and thus other newspaper articles, in many different communities) about converting forest lands into developments. None of those local controversies was in the Wikipedia article. And the articles discuss the financial pressures on Boy Scout councils, something else that is relevant to understanding scouting today, but which is not covered anywhere in the Wikipedia article.

Finally, I looked at the BSA response (both the web page and the linked pdf); as best as I can tell, it boils down to "Councils make these decisions; councils have to make difficult choices; we're a good organization." Thus (to me) it looks like BSA isn't disputing any of the facts. Which isn't to argue that BSA's current response should not be added to the article, but rather that I'm going to leave that addition to someone else who may be able to find something more compelling in the response. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The other problem is that the BSA is a primary source, and we already have too many of these. I've been hoping for come critical response in the press, but I'm not holding my breath. I would also like to see the BSA's operations in the context of similar operations by others. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still don't see why this one topic is so important. BSA has lots of articles/topics in the news. What makes this so important and why does it need to be in the lead? Maybe a brief mention in the body is all I can see. It's not like it's homosexuality or athesits and affects core membership. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this topic certainly doesn't belong in the lead section. As for BSA as a primary source, perhaps this newspaper opinion piece would be an alternative? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty, it'd be easier to convince me, as active as I am to this day in Scouts, that this was important to mention at all if I'd heard of it just once. As much as BSA is in the news and as involved as I am, and as much as I follow the news, this here is the first I have ever heard of this issue. Has anyone else watching this page heard of this prior to JB bringing this up? Not trying to be silly here, just trying to see how big a news item this really is. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've heard lots of comments and talk about this, usually from those who misunderstand issues of conservation ("How can it be conservation if you are cutting down trees?"). I have never heard of it as a major controversy, though. It is usually only talked about on the local (Council or specific camp) level. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Chief Seattle Council response:[2] And here is one from the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:[3] --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Following the last link lead to this newspaper web page, which lists all the stories published by various Hearst newspapers. The stories actually cover a lot more ground than what is mentioned in the three sentences in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Category

How is it that the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article is classified under "Homophobia," but the main article on the BSA is not? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

National Scout jamboree section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Membership controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joining

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

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

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

Scout Oath and Law

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

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

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

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

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

The above change inserted the following untrue and unsupported statements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adult homosexuals are clearly excluded:

• Volunteer Adult Leadership

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

• Employment

With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people. [4]

Youth homosexuals are not so clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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