![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So, I did a massive rewrite that I hope will answer both the POV concerns and the cleanup/stylistic concerns. I want to state off two things:
Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, why did you remove all of the numerical facts that kept everything in perspective, such as 50 out of x number United way chapters, etc., the number of lawsuits versus total members over time, the exact reasons for UUA badge removal (that were found in the letters on their own website) etc?
Some of us on both sides of the argument have been working hard for a number of months to keep it factual and not POV. Feel free to create your own website if you want a sopabox. Look through the old article and put the deleted facts back in or gets reverted tomorrow.-- GCW50 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alecmconroy 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm, despite it's different structure, almost everything's still there, more or less, just summarized a tad and moved around. As Jagz speculated it could, the page did, in fact, fit within the recommended maximum article size. Part of the way this brevity was accomplished was:
I included a gazillion references inline-- I don't feel most of the links are "needed", as in, someone should really go and visit them, but they are there as references. If we feel that some things are "sufficiently-commonly-known" that we can remove the cites. We also could use a formal reference section, instead of just using the inline style.
I generally used the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"-- Harvard and APA style manuals make me. If you didn't know that, then you probably haven't had to attend a very liberal liberal arts college in the last decade, and if so, I envy you.
What else... PLEASE don't hate me, I went ahead and removed the definitions section since it was so stylistically odd to just have page from the BSA glossary stuck in the article like that. I tried to explicitly make the prose un-ambiguous. So, for example, since "leader" can refer to either adult or youths, I've tried to explicitly use the terms "adult leader" and "youth leader", rather than just lumping them together as "leaders". I think that should help the confusing around that term. I _think_ normal people know what packs and troops are.
I may have gone overboard in giving the background in the "Boy Scouts of America's Position": Baden-Powell, how long and how essential religion has been to the program, and then quoting verbatim the official statements on "Morally Straight" and "Duty to God". Maybe this was overkill, but I wanted it to be crystal clear that scouts didn't just wake up one day in 1981 and decide "We hate gays and atheists, let's kick 'em out". Rather, this was a continuation of the core values of the organization going back to 1910 and the only reason it never came up before 1981 was that there weren't test cases where people sued. At the same time, I realize that that entire section could have been summarized in one paragraph that says "BSA regards homosexuality as immoral, and feels a "duty to god" is essential". But like I said, better to go overboard on explaining the position than having people come away from the article thinking it was some random or arbitrary decision.
Umm... I said that there aren't any pending lawsuits in which people are still trying to actually get a court to directly order BSA to admit them. In all the research i've done, I didn't come across any, but at the same time, I couldn't find any source that explicitly said this is so. But it is true right that since BSA v. Dale, this is a matter of settled law, and since then, the opponents of Scouting have pretty much given up on this, right (well, on that TACTIC I should say-- they're still doing the other stuff obvious). Does anyone know of any cases?
Does anyone know of any openly gay scouts who have been allowed to stay in scouting? My own interpretation of BSA legal policy is that "Morally Straight" doesn't include homosexuality, and if a scout doesn't obey the Scout Law, then he's not a scout, period. But the current wording is ambiguous, and it leaves the minute possiblity that there might be some lone openly-gay scout out there who is so low-ranked and un-ambitious that he in no way whatsoever qualifies as a leader and therefore has been allowed to serve. I'm skeptical, but it's still a possiblity, so I wrote it into the article.
Lastly, I worked really hard to give it that "neutral encyclopedia tone"-- the one that never just says X, but always says "BSA has said X, Critics have said Y. So-and-so alleges X, etc." So, please, everyone, genuinely let's try our hardest to actually BE neutral, and not use this article as a soapbox for an issue we all care about so dearly.
(and I should say-- I'm absolutely not accusing anyone of having done that, I'm not secretly pointing at some one or some side and wagging my finger-- I'm just saying, let's us and try really hard to genuinely keep it 'neutralish' and "encyclopedia-sounding.)
Anyway, I really hope everyone likes it a lot and I hope everyone thinks it's at least an improvement on the old version. -- Alecmconroy 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. The article seems, once again, to have had all traces of the ban on gay members removed. The only argument even close to a rationale I've seen for this is that the newer policy only mentions leaders but not members. However, despite this:
Many of these points were once in the article in various forms but have been gradually edited out, and I'm tired of editing them back in. How can this get fixed for good? Ken Arromdee 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How about if the main article was changed to just a couple of introductory paragraphs with a link to the old article and a link to the new (rewritten) article? The old article could be modified to make it pro-BSA and the new article modified to make it anti-BSA. By presenting both points of view, we should be able to achieve NPOV.-- Jagz 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Nahallac Silverwinds, incredible job on all those inline citations! you're my hero.
Jagz, I think the table of contents onlys show up after there's several different headings. Maybe this post will bring in back. - Alecmconroy 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For consistency, please use the following definitions when editing the article. These definitions are based on The Language of Scouting:
Note: Venturing is a BSA program for young men and women who are 14 through 21 years of age. Some of the definitions above do not apply to the Venturing program.
-- Jagz 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and put the page up on RFC to get more eyeballs on the page.
So for anyone just joining our program already in progress: There was an old version of the page, here. Some people felt it was POV, too Pro-Boy Scouts of America. Some feel the current version is POV, too anti-Boy Scouts of America.
So, the questions we're looking at are:
-- Alecmconroy 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OLD: I'm not an editor of this article but visiting from the RFC. The old article appeared to me to be neutral and should have been the starting point to make incremental changes to reach a consenus around neutrality in the usual way. The replacement article is irredeemably biased against the Boy Scouts. patsw 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
GCW50,
I tried very hard to make a neutral article. I tried very hard to explain in detail why I made some of the choices I have, and see other people's opinons on the specific cases you've raised. I put up a request for comments to get more opinions on it. If we need to, we can go to mediation for this, but after all the time I put into trying to improve the old article, I feel very strongly that the improvements should not be reverted in the absence of a strong consensus.
Please, reply the above discussion regarding the United Way statistics. Please, don't revert wholesale again. Let people come to the site via the RFC and be able to weigh in the new versions.
I'll only make this one revert to make my objection, but i won't revert-war. If you rever again, we can go forward in the dispute resolution process. Right now, you're the only person who's suggested that the new version is so attrocious that it should be deleted in its entirety.
-22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alecmconroy 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
GCW50,
The job done re-vamping this article was (in my opinion, of course) superb. I feel that it is extremly neutral. Wording in a few places could, perhaps, be tweaked but a complete revert is very far from anything remotely related to "necessary."
Assuming good faith, as pointed out above, is very important here and on all obviously well-intentioned edits. I don't know User:Alecmconroy from Adam, but I looked around really hard after reading comments on this talk page and I couldn't find any soapboxes!
Wikipedians try to work together to create the best articles possible. When disagreements arise, instead of telling someone they "failed miserably" in their editing, and that you will "revert again tomorrow" if x and y are not changed to your liking is not acceptable behavior. Please provide here, in detail, changes that you think should be made to the article and allow time for response and discussion before reverting the entire article. These comments should include, if possible, citations to your own sources if applicable.
Trust me, if someone provides incorrect or non-factual information in an article, they DO want to know about it so it can be fixed - but letting them know by flaming them is not the best way to get them to work with you. Constructive criticisim is the way to go.
Wikipedia is really easy to "do" if everyone works together and assumes good faith! I promise! -- Naha| (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If we feel there are other controversies worth mentioning, they should probably be in a separate section at the end of the article, so that it's clear that they're totally unrelated to the "big" gay/atheist controversy.
As for the violence controversy, I ommitted it during the re-write because i'm skeptical that it's really notable-- one report of some bullying and a few lone scoutmasters condoning it that happened at some scout camp twenty years ago. Is it part of a larger on-going problem throughout scouting, or really was it just an isolated event that almost no one remembers. I don't know. I mean-- if it was a big enough incident that it was being talked about on CNN at the time, and "No history of the controversy of the boy scouts would be complete without mentioning this incident", then i guess it would be notable.
In any case, if we include it, we should source it. I did a few googles but couldn't come up with anything (other than the wikipedia mirrors and forks of course). - Alecmconroy 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to concur with Jagz and the anonymous user. There's a couple of problems with the violence section. For one-- does an isolated incident that happened twenty years ago qualify as notable? Secondly, does that act of violence have any relevance to this article-- there are many many isolate acts of violence among youth each year-- what does this one have to do with the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America. Just because it happened at scout camp doesn't mean it's "about" the Boy Scouts. Lastly, it's not really a "controversy" so much as it's just a very regrettable thing that happened-- for example, six people were accidently killed at the 2005 Jamboree-- a horrible thing, but it's not a "controversy" and so it probably doesn't belong on this article. For all these reasons, I think that even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the events you describe actually happened, I still don't think the event qualifies for inclusion on this page.
But, there's a whole second problem with the paragraph. At the moment, the events you describe don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability-- there aren't any published sources that I can find that describe the material, and using your own personal recollections of the material would violate Wikipedia:No original research prohibition of using unpublished editor-provided eyewitness accounts.
Now, that second objection it's as important to me as the first arguments-- I don't doubt the events you describe happen, and I'm not trying to say you fabricated the whole thing-- on the contrary, such behavior problems are endemic to high-schools across the country. But, it's just that if we started letting everyone include their own personal recollections directly into the articles and didn't require verifiability, we'd wind up with a lot of problems. Now, if the violence section was really important and essential to the article, I'm sure we could find a way to verify it-- there's gotta be court documents, for example, and probably a press mention somewhere or other from back when in happened. But, as of this moment, the section doesn't isn't verifiable.
But setting aside the verifiability issue for the moment-- Do you really feel this inicident is an actual controvery about the scouts? It seems to me, it's not a controvery, just a problem they had one day twenty years ago. They punished the offenders, they reprimanded the scouts, and they instituted new policies to help prevent it. No controversy-- just a thing that happened once.
To use a different example, I saw a really bad fight once when I was college. Two guys in the dorms got drunk and fought each other, police got called. Bad scene. But if you go to the article on my university you won't find any discussion of this incident, because-- people fight all the time. What does that incident have to do with my university? Yeah, they were both students, and yeah, it took place on university property, and yes, the university expelled the students and increased funding for campus police-- but what does it really have to do with my univesity?
- Alecmconroy 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Scout, Scouting, Scout master, Scout troop ..and basically all instances of the word "Scout" as they pertains to the context of this project are CAPATALIZED. While this is a talk page, and grammar isn't quite as important as it is in article space, some of the people who have commented on this page using the word "Scout" spelled "scout" are the same ones who have consistantly not capitalized the word correctly in article space. I know this because I've corrected dozens of instances of the word in various articles, hehe. Please check your capitalization of the word before you click "save page" when editing articles. Thanks! -- Naha| (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Naha,
I'm really new here so I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere, but the source of the capitalization rules is the BSA itself, and it has an interest (mainly because of trademark law) in making terms like "scout" and "scouting" into proper nouns rather than generic terms. In the context of this project, this rule above is probably pretty safe, since we're only referring to members and programs of the BSA. However, the terms should probably not be capitalized if they are referring to the scouting movement or scouting programs in general, rather than BSA members or programs. I know it's nitpicky, but there are legal cases being fought about this issue even as we speak. -- packanimal 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up the footnotes: the works and titles did not match in most instances. I am updating the access dates as I update the titles.
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, all references to enrollment scandals, abuse scandals, and other issues including removal of volunteers criticizing or questioning paid staff on finances, enrollment claims and property sales are regularly removed from this site. BSA's Chief Scout Executive has one of the highest compensation packages of all non-profit CEO's - $915,000 in 2004 (from Guidestar.org) despite continuing drops in membership. The head of Youth Protection efforts was assested and pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in 2005. A CDC report was highly critical of BSA's National Jamboree during the summer of 2005 where hundreds fell ill from heat exhaustion. Questions have been raised concerning the unusually high number of Scouts killed in accidents in 2005 as well.
This was added to article by 69.124.137.249 on 17:01, 11 March 2006 and moved here where it belongs by -- Bduke 07:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The page looks pretty well-organized, but I find the headings verbose. The TOC is a little overwhelming - it should give an overview at a glance, but with the headings the way they are, you have to actually read the whole thing to understand what's going on. -- Smack ( talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Like it less. Let it be done automatically. Why do you think it should be done manually? -- Bduke 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, it feels like fingernails on a chalkboard when I read "governmental entities" and "governmental support". Isn't "government entities" and "government support" more common usage? While the "als" are technically correct, they just don't sound like American English. -- Habap 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a concern about a few bits in this section. I've put in a bit about the Cubs and the Boy Scouts often (always?) having separate awards and also that the BSA withdrew recognition for both UU awards. I wasn't sure whether to add that the Girl Scouts also participate in the Religious Emblem programs. I did add 'Boy' in one place so as not to imply that Girl Scouts cannot wear the UU award on their uniform (they can)
1. There is the statement that
"The UUSO had no official connection with the UUA and in fact was created through the BSA's Religious Relationships Committee as a means of circumventing the UUA."
The first part is true; however, is the second? My own gut feeling is it was initiated by some UU scouters not by the Religious Emblem program committee, but, that is only a feeling and could be changed by some evidence. If there is no evidence, the second part of the statement should be chopped.
2. Also the statement "Curiously, the BSA does not mention this program on its official website" should probably also be dropped. It is possible that no one has bothered to update the page.
I will note that the UUSO did participate in the 2005 Jamboree UU 2005 Jamboree service and information for the award was handed out there and formally unveiled then (I have a couple of cites for that). The BSA list of religious emblems web page was last updated in June 2005 before the Jamboree.
3. And "while Boy Scouts could not wear the Religious Emblem Square Knot on their uniform, many wore their UU Religious Emblem as a "temporary badge," in compliance with the BSA's Insignia Guide."
Evidence? I've heard of Boy Scouts not being able to wear the medal but are wearing the knot (which only apparently indicates that that an emblem has been earned not which religion)
4. Do we want to include external links to both UU programs?
5. Given the size this section has gotten, perhaps a separate article on the Religious Emblem program should be written. Said article won't mention the controversies in depth but would refer back to this article and this article refers to the religious emblem article for details on the program.
6. Are there reasons why info about the refusal to recognize the Wiccan award should not be included in this article?-- Erp 23:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that they cannot legally ban employees based on sexual orientation, so that, at the very least, they do not officially ban them. I have not changed the top section which speaks about what has happened and does not state the official position. I could, of course, be wrong about the official position.... -- Habap 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
BSA records show that the number of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts had dropped by about 14% (as of end of 2007) since the Dale Decision in 2000.[108][112] It is unclear why membership had dropped and whether the membership policy controversy has had an effect on membership levels.
During the same time period, membership increased in other youth organizations, such as the Girl Scouts of the USA and the BSA's Learning for Life program
The table shows Scouting membership through 2008. According to the Learning for Life Annual Participation Summary, LfL participants dropped by 24.9% for youth and 32.7% for adults from 2007 to 2008. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia on their news page considers this a "smear article". Apparently giving BOTH sides of the controversy is, in their eyes, a smear. Alloco1 ( talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia NPOV criteria don't apply to the selection of article titles. This article would surely fail that test. The most common form of bias in journalism is the spin or implied messages of the title, and a lopsided choice of which angles to cover/emphasize. Just as writing a "Lives Ruined by Overtaxation" article instead of a "Taxation" article would exhibit bias, even if the former article was accurately written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I should have clarified that I meant subject selection, not how the subject is worded. I checked your link and it looks like the Wiki NPOV standard only applies to the choice of words. I think that my biased hypothetical example would still meet the Wikipedis standards and your criteria that you described. A loophole they exploited to get this political piece put in as an "article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a suggestion to rename the article? Or soem relevant improvement? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is fine for an article to cover controversies where the controversial viewpoints are identified as such. This article does not do that. This badly flawed article is gaming the system to try to fool casual readers into believing that the view of those on one side of the controversy are "fact". In addition to that fundamental issue, it cites unreliable "references" throughout which are such things as self-statements by anti-scout web-sites, and continually attaches references to statements which do not support the statements. Many of the statments are not only unsupported, they are false. Except by massive deletions, it would take hundreds of hours to fix this article by the normal Wikipedia methods, which nobody is going to do, and thus also a part of their "gaming the system"
I submit that this article should be deleted and moved to the editorial section of some political publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.246.121 ( talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"In 2004, the BSA removed restrictions on certain volunteer positions previously restricted to citizens, although it never required proof of residency or citizenship when the restrictions were in place."
The BSA requires a social security number, valid drivers liscence (or state id card), and a background check prior to letting any adult work with children. Unless someone can confirm this from a reliable source, of which it should documented, this is not justifible to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.213.27 ( talk • contribs)
From the cited Chicago Tribune article:
To avoid questions about Immigration status, Colón and other recruiters emphasize that a Social Security number or other government ID isn't required when they carry out mandatory screening of volunteers that is designed to protect children from potential predators. Neither do they ask the Scouts about their Immigration papers. [5]
I don't understand this either, but I think the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, but it is the only source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course by "Legal English" "illegal aliens is correct. Terms are also defined by their common usage. In that context, it is the more traditional and more negative sounding terms to refr to person who are in this country illegally. Depending on the speaker / writer's view point on the matter, they choose from a full spectrum of more or less negative sounding terms, the other end of the spectrum being "undocumented immigrants" causing other to quip that drug dealers would then become "undocumented pharmacists"
So there are no restrictions in this area on youth or adults. The adult leader application (for youth protection purposes) asks the common identification questions. As a by-product of such, persons here illegally would have a hard time answering those quesitons, thus making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) for someone here illegally to become an adult leader. Is there a "Membership Controversy" here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Chopped the intro sentence "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members though they are forbidden from holding youth leadership positions."
I don't think we actually know this, do we? Excluding, of course, the trivial case where the scouts don't reveal their orientation. Are there any openly gay boy scouts? There are now many openly gay high school students-- are any of them in the boy scouts?
I genuinely ask--I don't know what the answer is, and a reliable source on the answer would be great for the article too.
I know there are a lot of "Former Openly-Gay Scouts",but I don't think I've ever read or heard of one who was actual scout for any major period of time after being openly gay.
Short of that, I think we have to leave the question of openly-gay scouts open. The 2004 wording is ambiguous and while it could be interpreted as reopening the door to "non-leadership openly-gay scouts", ultimately that's just us speculating that the wording indicates a policy shift. What's needed is:
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good standard, but by that standard, about 2/3 of this entire article would be erased, including the entire homosexual and atheist sections. So you applied it in a biased manner; you used that standard to remove one of the few correct statements in that section, but not to remove all of the incorrect and misleading statements in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.93.38 ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This articles fails to provide any references for it's main (and false) assertion that Scouting bans homosexual YOUTH from membership. (vs. homosexual activist adults from leadership positions) If you follow the "references" given to support that statement, you will find that they don't! The obvious choice would be to cite any National Scout policy, rule etc. to that effect, and the article has not done so, mostly because such does not exist.
This needs major surgery to even remain as an article, much less be a featured article. This is just politics disguised as an article.
I have been active in scouting for > 45 years and can tell you that this article is absolutely deceptive, and, on the subject of homosexuality in Scouts blatantly wrong. And it continuously uses reference "bluffs" after statements, relying on the fact that few will investigate enough to see that the cited references do not support the statements as claimed. Even the 16:49 post above is factually wrong. Banning from leadership positions is only from Adult and near-adult leadership positions, not from the ones that the 16:49 poster described.
[outdent]Pure and simple if a scout can agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law as he understands it at the time, he can become a scout. If he is old enough to know and understand that BSA has said that a person that is openly homosexual cannot live by the Scout Oath and Law and he still says yes, that is between him and whatever he believes in. If he says no he cannot abide by it, he can't be a member. That still doesn't change the fact that youth that are currently members and realize they are homosexual can still be members, thus homosexuals can be members of scouting, the statement is true. Marauder40 ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You can be sure that if there were even one obscure example of such, this article would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Factual information about BSA policies and about actual BSA practices related to those policies would be useful content for an encyclopedia (e.g. Wikipedia) article. Practically everything that Cwgmpls has said in this exchange is personal hypothetical derivations with a spin/slant in a particular direction. So are many of the statements is that section of the article. Such personal derivations are not suitable content for a wikipedia article, particularly when such derivations are disputed / controversial. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This article (and the tidbits of factual, informative content scattered through it) holds promise for covering and informing in an area where misconception is the norm. Unfortunately, the article as a whole does more reinforcement of misconceptions than dispelling of them. And it is a total mess regarding being loaded with violations of 5 or 6 major Wikipedia standards. In addition to that, the title is vague enough to seem to include/non Wikipedia areas. Every viewpoint, opinion, etc. could be called a "membership controversy", but Wikipedia is not about being a soapbox for arguments opinions via. inclusion of those arguments and opinions as "material" either directly or through spin on the article.
Setting aside the possibility of deleting it and starting it over, a starting point for fixing it would be a new first section defining it's scope, limiting it to factual areas which I think would be:
1. Membership related policies and actions by the BSA where such have caused significant disputes and controversies. 2. BRIEF NPOV summary of the opinions of each "side" (where such is clear) where a significant dispute or controversy exists 3. In addition to #1, as accurate and NPOV as possible description of the De Facto "MO" of the BSA in the above areas.
With a strong focus on what is current. Coverage of anything older than about 15 years would be limited to brief, succinct factual summaries of significant events or mileposts.
If there is a consensus at each stage the steps would be:
1. Consensus on the above concept 2. In the discussion section, I'd draft an opening paragraph that implements the above. 3. Move it to the article 4. The rest of the article evolve (by everybody) to comply with the above scope and Wikipedia standards.
I barely have time to do the above, and certainly not to fight a battle on it. This would lift the cloud that is over the article vs. it remaining and getting more marginalized and eventually being replaced by more useful and factual coverage of the topic elsewhere. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not think you have shown clearly what the problems of this article actually are. You need to be much more explicit. I also disagree that there should be a strong focus on what is current. An encyclopedia should cover the history of an organization and not just the current situation. When there was controversy in the past, the criticism and the defense should be outlined and if the controversy has gone away the reasons for this should be stated. I am an outsider who has followed the controversy on atheists and homosexuals for a long time. People get heated about it. Nevertheless, I think this article does a pretty good job. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What could be more explicit than the huge list of defects listed in this discussion section?
I think I agree with you on the "history" part. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Then the article should dispel the misconceptions rather than repeat them. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably true for noteworthy misconceptions (i.e. those held by many) but they should identified as such or, more NPOV speaking, identified as assertions. This article presents the misconceptions as being facts.
There are so many people cleverly and not-so-cleverly manipulating this article to be an innacurate tool for their resentment for BSA (most deriving from BSA's having won homosexual and atheist court cases, rather than it's actual practices in these areas ) that I don't think that it will ever be fixed. It is probably doomed to being marginalized as being merely such, replaced by more informative, objective coverage of this topic elsewhere in Wikipedia. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the discussed general scope flaws, here's a few examples (of many) Unlike the "homosexual" section, you provided an accurate summary of the situation when you said "The BSA does not allow homosexual leaders." And, in fact, the only actions of any type (rejections, expulsions, or otherwise) taken by BSA were against avowed homosexuals in adult and paid leader positions. The last 2 paragraphs of that section are chock full of false innuendo & personal derivations by the writers. For example, the last paragraph implies prohibition of MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. Even if it were corrected to AVOWED homosexuals, it would still be false innuendo because there is no exclusion from MEMBERSHIP either in policy or in practice. And, in the second to the last paragraph one of those false derivations gives reference #19 to support itself when in fact that reference #19 refutes that derivation. So, somebody who reads the article without actually checking the reference (a common practice) will be misled by the false derivation. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]If he knows that he is gay and he feels he cannot live by the Scout Oath then he can remove himself from the program. But BSA does not require it. BSA realizes that at times everyone will have problems living up to the Scout Oath and Law. If a youth scout is caught shoplifting (no I am not saying that homosexuality = shoplifting just using an example) the troop and/or BSA could ask the scout to step down from leadership positions and continue in the troop. If the same scout is caught again, they may start procedures from removing him from scouting or continue the previous sanction. No matter what it is a known violation of the Scout Oath and Law. The scout can still be a member, just might not be in the same role as before. BSA (and the troops) has policies for people that flagrantly violate those policies. BSA has only said that an avowed homosexual youth needs to be removed from a leadership position it hasn't said they need to be removed from the program. What you keep trying to says isn't what BSA or the policies say. Marauder40 ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]You have only sourced the first part of the statement, you still have nothing to source the second part of the statement "effectively barring homosexuals from membership." You are trying to draw parallels where they don't exist. There is nothing stating that anywhere in the documentation and BSA itself even states differently that current members only need to be removed from leadership positions. Instead of sticking with a statement that is incorrect, why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that reflects the facts. Not interpretation of the facts. Marauder40 ( talk) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Two terms in the policy ("leadership" and "avowed") are open to interpretation. The de-facto situation (via interpretation of those over millions of memberships) is that BSA has only barred homosexual activists, and only from adult and near-adult leadership roles. Of course, this article obscures this reality and implies otherwise. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You lumped two very different situations (homosexual and atheist)together; such would make a mess out of any discussion of either. While nobody can claim to know the intent of the the millions of people that make up BSA, or claim that all of their intents are the same, I think that the facts in my previous paragraph indicate that the experience in Scouting as a whole (regarding homosexuality) is the same as you describe in your Scouting body.
If one understands that the main battle in the USA regarding homosexuality is really that of being for or against societal normalization of homosexuality. (and not for or against hatred or or persecution of people simply for practicing it) then I think one can understand the Scout position. If they failed to bar adult homosexual activists from leadership positions, they would be weighing in on the side of "for". Sort of like if you had club to promote vegetarianism. They probably would not bar a meat-eater from membership, but a person who says "I'm a meat eater and proud of it" would certainly not end up in a leadership role. This shows the distinction between actions intending to say "homosexuality is not OK" and actions intended to punish people for merely practicing it. I think that BSA's actions are similar to this and show the intent to do the former, and not intent to do the latter, and, in fact, the intent to minimize the latter as much as possible without violating the former. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on extensive experience in Scouting, one thing that I learned and can tell you is that your Scouting Unit (and all of the others like it ) IS Scouting. Responding to both ERP's and HiLo48's recent posts,you make several valid points, but my point is that actual practice is also significant. For example here is a derivation which is opposite the actual practice. It's against the law to go 1 mph over the speed limit, it is the position of goernmental agencies that speeder should be caught, it's a reality that 99% of people oven go 1 mph over the speed limit. It's the law that 3 times = no license. Therefore it is the position of the government that 99% of all drivers should be banned from driving, a "defensible" but incorrect derivation that is contrary to actual practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article would be better if it were what you said it is....limited to policies, but it is "....membership controversies" which is much broader and vaguer, which is what allowed the problems of this article to occur. Knowing that it's near-impossible to rename an Wikipedia article, I had suggested a scope definition paragraph which would, in essence, do that, making it "BSA Membership Policies and Practices in areas where such have garnered significant controversy." So, for different reasons than you suggested, maybe a new article is the only way to cover such objectively, which, I think, is what most readers of this article are seeking. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're going in circles......y'all wore me down. I think I'm signing off. Wish y'all the best, despite the disagreement on this article. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
So, I did a massive rewrite that I hope will answer both the POV concerns and the cleanup/stylistic concerns. I want to state off two things:
Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, why did you remove all of the numerical facts that kept everything in perspective, such as 50 out of x number United way chapters, etc., the number of lawsuits versus total members over time, the exact reasons for UUA badge removal (that were found in the letters on their own website) etc?
Some of us on both sides of the argument have been working hard for a number of months to keep it factual and not POV. Feel free to create your own website if you want a sopabox. Look through the old article and put the deleted facts back in or gets reverted tomorrow.-- GCW50 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alecmconroy 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Umm, despite it's different structure, almost everything's still there, more or less, just summarized a tad and moved around. As Jagz speculated it could, the page did, in fact, fit within the recommended maximum article size. Part of the way this brevity was accomplished was:
I included a gazillion references inline-- I don't feel most of the links are "needed", as in, someone should really go and visit them, but they are there as references. If we feel that some things are "sufficiently-commonly-known" that we can remove the cites. We also could use a formal reference section, instead of just using the inline style.
I generally used the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"-- Harvard and APA style manuals make me. If you didn't know that, then you probably haven't had to attend a very liberal liberal arts college in the last decade, and if so, I envy you.
What else... PLEASE don't hate me, I went ahead and removed the definitions section since it was so stylistically odd to just have page from the BSA glossary stuck in the article like that. I tried to explicitly make the prose un-ambiguous. So, for example, since "leader" can refer to either adult or youths, I've tried to explicitly use the terms "adult leader" and "youth leader", rather than just lumping them together as "leaders". I think that should help the confusing around that term. I _think_ normal people know what packs and troops are.
I may have gone overboard in giving the background in the "Boy Scouts of America's Position": Baden-Powell, how long and how essential religion has been to the program, and then quoting verbatim the official statements on "Morally Straight" and "Duty to God". Maybe this was overkill, but I wanted it to be crystal clear that scouts didn't just wake up one day in 1981 and decide "We hate gays and atheists, let's kick 'em out". Rather, this was a continuation of the core values of the organization going back to 1910 and the only reason it never came up before 1981 was that there weren't test cases where people sued. At the same time, I realize that that entire section could have been summarized in one paragraph that says "BSA regards homosexuality as immoral, and feels a "duty to god" is essential". But like I said, better to go overboard on explaining the position than having people come away from the article thinking it was some random or arbitrary decision.
Umm... I said that there aren't any pending lawsuits in which people are still trying to actually get a court to directly order BSA to admit them. In all the research i've done, I didn't come across any, but at the same time, I couldn't find any source that explicitly said this is so. But it is true right that since BSA v. Dale, this is a matter of settled law, and since then, the opponents of Scouting have pretty much given up on this, right (well, on that TACTIC I should say-- they're still doing the other stuff obvious). Does anyone know of any cases?
Does anyone know of any openly gay scouts who have been allowed to stay in scouting? My own interpretation of BSA legal policy is that "Morally Straight" doesn't include homosexuality, and if a scout doesn't obey the Scout Law, then he's not a scout, period. But the current wording is ambiguous, and it leaves the minute possiblity that there might be some lone openly-gay scout out there who is so low-ranked and un-ambitious that he in no way whatsoever qualifies as a leader and therefore has been allowed to serve. I'm skeptical, but it's still a possiblity, so I wrote it into the article.
Lastly, I worked really hard to give it that "neutral encyclopedia tone"-- the one that never just says X, but always says "BSA has said X, Critics have said Y. So-and-so alleges X, etc." So, please, everyone, genuinely let's try our hardest to actually BE neutral, and not use this article as a soapbox for an issue we all care about so dearly.
(and I should say-- I'm absolutely not accusing anyone of having done that, I'm not secretly pointing at some one or some side and wagging my finger-- I'm just saying, let's us and try really hard to genuinely keep it 'neutralish' and "encyclopedia-sounding.)
Anyway, I really hope everyone likes it a lot and I hope everyone thinks it's at least an improvement on the old version. -- Alecmconroy 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
This is utterly ridiculous. The article seems, once again, to have had all traces of the ban on gay members removed. The only argument even close to a rationale I've seen for this is that the newer policy only mentions leaders but not members. However, despite this:
Many of these points were once in the article in various forms but have been gradually edited out, and I'm tired of editing them back in. How can this get fixed for good? Ken Arromdee 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
How about if the main article was changed to just a couple of introductory paragraphs with a link to the old article and a link to the new (rewritten) article? The old article could be modified to make it pro-BSA and the new article modified to make it anti-BSA. By presenting both points of view, we should be able to achieve NPOV.-- Jagz 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Nahallac Silverwinds, incredible job on all those inline citations! you're my hero.
Jagz, I think the table of contents onlys show up after there's several different headings. Maybe this post will bring in back. - Alecmconroy 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
For consistency, please use the following definitions when editing the article. These definitions are based on The Language of Scouting:
Note: Venturing is a BSA program for young men and women who are 14 through 21 years of age. Some of the definitions above do not apply to the Venturing program.
-- Jagz 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and put the page up on RFC to get more eyeballs on the page.
So for anyone just joining our program already in progress: There was an old version of the page, here. Some people felt it was POV, too Pro-Boy Scouts of America. Some feel the current version is POV, too anti-Boy Scouts of America.
So, the questions we're looking at are:
-- Alecmconroy 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
OLD: I'm not an editor of this article but visiting from the RFC. The old article appeared to me to be neutral and should have been the starting point to make incremental changes to reach a consenus around neutrality in the usual way. The replacement article is irredeemably biased against the Boy Scouts. patsw 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
GCW50,
I tried very hard to make a neutral article. I tried very hard to explain in detail why I made some of the choices I have, and see other people's opinons on the specific cases you've raised. I put up a request for comments to get more opinions on it. If we need to, we can go to mediation for this, but after all the time I put into trying to improve the old article, I feel very strongly that the improvements should not be reverted in the absence of a strong consensus.
Please, reply the above discussion regarding the United Way statistics. Please, don't revert wholesale again. Let people come to the site via the RFC and be able to weigh in the new versions.
I'll only make this one revert to make my objection, but i won't revert-war. If you rever again, we can go forward in the dispute resolution process. Right now, you're the only person who's suggested that the new version is so attrocious that it should be deleted in its entirety.
-22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- Alecmconroy 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
GCW50,
The job done re-vamping this article was (in my opinion, of course) superb. I feel that it is extremly neutral. Wording in a few places could, perhaps, be tweaked but a complete revert is very far from anything remotely related to "necessary."
Assuming good faith, as pointed out above, is very important here and on all obviously well-intentioned edits. I don't know User:Alecmconroy from Adam, but I looked around really hard after reading comments on this talk page and I couldn't find any soapboxes!
Wikipedians try to work together to create the best articles possible. When disagreements arise, instead of telling someone they "failed miserably" in their editing, and that you will "revert again tomorrow" if x and y are not changed to your liking is not acceptable behavior. Please provide here, in detail, changes that you think should be made to the article and allow time for response and discussion before reverting the entire article. These comments should include, if possible, citations to your own sources if applicable.
Trust me, if someone provides incorrect or non-factual information in an article, they DO want to know about it so it can be fixed - but letting them know by flaming them is not the best way to get them to work with you. Constructive criticisim is the way to go.
Wikipedia is really easy to "do" if everyone works together and assumes good faith! I promise! -- Naha| (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If we feel there are other controversies worth mentioning, they should probably be in a separate section at the end of the article, so that it's clear that they're totally unrelated to the "big" gay/atheist controversy.
As for the violence controversy, I ommitted it during the re-write because i'm skeptical that it's really notable-- one report of some bullying and a few lone scoutmasters condoning it that happened at some scout camp twenty years ago. Is it part of a larger on-going problem throughout scouting, or really was it just an isolated event that almost no one remembers. I don't know. I mean-- if it was a big enough incident that it was being talked about on CNN at the time, and "No history of the controversy of the boy scouts would be complete without mentioning this incident", then i guess it would be notable.
In any case, if we include it, we should source it. I did a few googles but couldn't come up with anything (other than the wikipedia mirrors and forks of course). - Alecmconroy 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to concur with Jagz and the anonymous user. There's a couple of problems with the violence section. For one-- does an isolated incident that happened twenty years ago qualify as notable? Secondly, does that act of violence have any relevance to this article-- there are many many isolate acts of violence among youth each year-- what does this one have to do with the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America. Just because it happened at scout camp doesn't mean it's "about" the Boy Scouts. Lastly, it's not really a "controversy" so much as it's just a very regrettable thing that happened-- for example, six people were accidently killed at the 2005 Jamboree-- a horrible thing, but it's not a "controversy" and so it probably doesn't belong on this article. For all these reasons, I think that even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the events you describe actually happened, I still don't think the event qualifies for inclusion on this page.
But, there's a whole second problem with the paragraph. At the moment, the events you describe don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability-- there aren't any published sources that I can find that describe the material, and using your own personal recollections of the material would violate Wikipedia:No original research prohibition of using unpublished editor-provided eyewitness accounts.
Now, that second objection it's as important to me as the first arguments-- I don't doubt the events you describe happen, and I'm not trying to say you fabricated the whole thing-- on the contrary, such behavior problems are endemic to high-schools across the country. But, it's just that if we started letting everyone include their own personal recollections directly into the articles and didn't require verifiability, we'd wind up with a lot of problems. Now, if the violence section was really important and essential to the article, I'm sure we could find a way to verify it-- there's gotta be court documents, for example, and probably a press mention somewhere or other from back when in happened. But, as of this moment, the section doesn't isn't verifiable.
But setting aside the verifiability issue for the moment-- Do you really feel this inicident is an actual controvery about the scouts? It seems to me, it's not a controvery, just a problem they had one day twenty years ago. They punished the offenders, they reprimanded the scouts, and they instituted new policies to help prevent it. No controversy-- just a thing that happened once.
To use a different example, I saw a really bad fight once when I was college. Two guys in the dorms got drunk and fought each other, police got called. Bad scene. But if you go to the article on my university you won't find any discussion of this incident, because-- people fight all the time. What does that incident have to do with my university? Yeah, they were both students, and yeah, it took place on university property, and yes, the university expelled the students and increased funding for campus police-- but what does it really have to do with my univesity?
- Alecmconroy 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Scout, Scouting, Scout master, Scout troop ..and basically all instances of the word "Scout" as they pertains to the context of this project are CAPATALIZED. While this is a talk page, and grammar isn't quite as important as it is in article space, some of the people who have commented on this page using the word "Scout" spelled "scout" are the same ones who have consistantly not capitalized the word correctly in article space. I know this because I've corrected dozens of instances of the word in various articles, hehe. Please check your capitalization of the word before you click "save page" when editing articles. Thanks! -- Naha| (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Naha,
I'm really new here so I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere, but the source of the capitalization rules is the BSA itself, and it has an interest (mainly because of trademark law) in making terms like "scout" and "scouting" into proper nouns rather than generic terms. In the context of this project, this rule above is probably pretty safe, since we're only referring to members and programs of the BSA. However, the terms should probably not be capitalized if they are referring to the scouting movement or scouting programs in general, rather than BSA members or programs. I know it's nitpicky, but there are legal cases being fought about this issue even as we speak. -- packanimal 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up the footnotes: the works and titles did not match in most instances. I am updating the access dates as I update the titles.
-- Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Not surprisingly, all references to enrollment scandals, abuse scandals, and other issues including removal of volunteers criticizing or questioning paid staff on finances, enrollment claims and property sales are regularly removed from this site. BSA's Chief Scout Executive has one of the highest compensation packages of all non-profit CEO's - $915,000 in 2004 (from Guidestar.org) despite continuing drops in membership. The head of Youth Protection efforts was assested and pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in 2005. A CDC report was highly critical of BSA's National Jamboree during the summer of 2005 where hundreds fell ill from heat exhaustion. Questions have been raised concerning the unusually high number of Scouts killed in accidents in 2005 as well.
This was added to article by 69.124.137.249 on 17:01, 11 March 2006 and moved here where it belongs by -- Bduke 07:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
The page looks pretty well-organized, but I find the headings verbose. The TOC is a little overwhelming - it should give an overview at a glance, but with the headings the way they are, you have to actually read the whole thing to understand what's going on. -- Smack ( talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Like it less. Let it be done automatically. Why do you think it should be done manually? -- Bduke 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, it feels like fingernails on a chalkboard when I read "governmental entities" and "governmental support". Isn't "government entities" and "government support" more common usage? While the "als" are technically correct, they just don't sound like American English. -- Habap 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have a concern about a few bits in this section. I've put in a bit about the Cubs and the Boy Scouts often (always?) having separate awards and also that the BSA withdrew recognition for both UU awards. I wasn't sure whether to add that the Girl Scouts also participate in the Religious Emblem programs. I did add 'Boy' in one place so as not to imply that Girl Scouts cannot wear the UU award on their uniform (they can)
1. There is the statement that
"The UUSO had no official connection with the UUA and in fact was created through the BSA's Religious Relationships Committee as a means of circumventing the UUA."
The first part is true; however, is the second? My own gut feeling is it was initiated by some UU scouters not by the Religious Emblem program committee, but, that is only a feeling and could be changed by some evidence. If there is no evidence, the second part of the statement should be chopped.
2. Also the statement "Curiously, the BSA does not mention this program on its official website" should probably also be dropped. It is possible that no one has bothered to update the page.
I will note that the UUSO did participate in the 2005 Jamboree UU 2005 Jamboree service and information for the award was handed out there and formally unveiled then (I have a couple of cites for that). The BSA list of religious emblems web page was last updated in June 2005 before the Jamboree.
3. And "while Boy Scouts could not wear the Religious Emblem Square Knot on their uniform, many wore their UU Religious Emblem as a "temporary badge," in compliance with the BSA's Insignia Guide."
Evidence? I've heard of Boy Scouts not being able to wear the medal but are wearing the knot (which only apparently indicates that that an emblem has been earned not which religion)
4. Do we want to include external links to both UU programs?
5. Given the size this section has gotten, perhaps a separate article on the Religious Emblem program should be written. Said article won't mention the controversies in depth but would refer back to this article and this article refers to the religious emblem article for details on the program.
6. Are there reasons why info about the refusal to recognize the Wiccan award should not be included in this article?-- Erp 23:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
My understanding is that they cannot legally ban employees based on sexual orientation, so that, at the very least, they do not officially ban them. I have not changed the top section which speaks about what has happened and does not state the official position. I could, of course, be wrong about the official position.... -- Habap 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
BSA records show that the number of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts had dropped by about 14% (as of end of 2007) since the Dale Decision in 2000.[108][112] It is unclear why membership had dropped and whether the membership policy controversy has had an effect on membership levels.
During the same time period, membership increased in other youth organizations, such as the Girl Scouts of the USA and the BSA's Learning for Life program
The table shows Scouting membership through 2008. According to the Learning for Life Annual Participation Summary, LfL participants dropped by 24.9% for youth and 32.7% for adults from 2007 to 2008. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Conservapedia on their news page considers this a "smear article". Apparently giving BOTH sides of the controversy is, in their eyes, a smear. Alloco1 ( talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia NPOV criteria don't apply to the selection of article titles. This article would surely fail that test. The most common form of bias in journalism is the spin or implied messages of the title, and a lopsided choice of which angles to cover/emphasize. Just as writing a "Lives Ruined by Overtaxation" article instead of a "Taxation" article would exhibit bias, even if the former article was accurately written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I should have clarified that I meant subject selection, not how the subject is worded. I checked your link and it looks like the Wiki NPOV standard only applies to the choice of words. I think that my biased hypothetical example would still meet the Wikipedis standards and your criteria that you described. A loophole they exploited to get this political piece put in as an "article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there a suggestion to rename the article? Or soem relevant improvement? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
It is fine for an article to cover controversies where the controversial viewpoints are identified as such. This article does not do that. This badly flawed article is gaming the system to try to fool casual readers into believing that the view of those on one side of the controversy are "fact". In addition to that fundamental issue, it cites unreliable "references" throughout which are such things as self-statements by anti-scout web-sites, and continually attaches references to statements which do not support the statements. Many of the statments are not only unsupported, they are false. Except by massive deletions, it would take hundreds of hours to fix this article by the normal Wikipedia methods, which nobody is going to do, and thus also a part of their "gaming the system"
I submit that this article should be deleted and moved to the editorial section of some political publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.246.121 ( talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
"In 2004, the BSA removed restrictions on certain volunteer positions previously restricted to citizens, although it never required proof of residency or citizenship when the restrictions were in place."
The BSA requires a social security number, valid drivers liscence (or state id card), and a background check prior to letting any adult work with children. Unless someone can confirm this from a reliable source, of which it should documented, this is not justifible to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.213.27 ( talk • contribs)
From the cited Chicago Tribune article:
To avoid questions about Immigration status, Colón and other recruiters emphasize that a Social Security number or other government ID isn't required when they carry out mandatory screening of volunteers that is designed to protect children from potential predators. Neither do they ask the Scouts about their Immigration papers. [5]
I don't understand this either, but I think the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, but it is the only source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course by "Legal English" "illegal aliens is correct. Terms are also defined by their common usage. In that context, it is the more traditional and more negative sounding terms to refr to person who are in this country illegally. Depending on the speaker / writer's view point on the matter, they choose from a full spectrum of more or less negative sounding terms, the other end of the spectrum being "undocumented immigrants" causing other to quip that drug dealers would then become "undocumented pharmacists"
So there are no restrictions in this area on youth or adults. The adult leader application (for youth protection purposes) asks the common identification questions. As a by-product of such, persons here illegally would have a hard time answering those quesitons, thus making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) for someone here illegally to become an adult leader. Is there a "Membership Controversy" here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Chopped the intro sentence "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members though they are forbidden from holding youth leadership positions."
I don't think we actually know this, do we? Excluding, of course, the trivial case where the scouts don't reveal their orientation. Are there any openly gay boy scouts? There are now many openly gay high school students-- are any of them in the boy scouts?
I genuinely ask--I don't know what the answer is, and a reliable source on the answer would be great for the article too.
I know there are a lot of "Former Openly-Gay Scouts",but I don't think I've ever read or heard of one who was actual scout for any major period of time after being openly gay.
Short of that, I think we have to leave the question of openly-gay scouts open. The 2004 wording is ambiguous and while it could be interpreted as reopening the door to "non-leadership openly-gay scouts", ultimately that's just us speculating that the wording indicates a policy shift. What's needed is:
-- Alecmconroy ( talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That's a good standard, but by that standard, about 2/3 of this entire article would be erased, including the entire homosexual and atheist sections. So you applied it in a biased manner; you used that standard to remove one of the few correct statements in that section, but not to remove all of the incorrect and misleading statements in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.93.38 ( talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
This articles fails to provide any references for it's main (and false) assertion that Scouting bans homosexual YOUTH from membership. (vs. homosexual activist adults from leadership positions) If you follow the "references" given to support that statement, you will find that they don't! The obvious choice would be to cite any National Scout policy, rule etc. to that effect, and the article has not done so, mostly because such does not exist.
This needs major surgery to even remain as an article, much less be a featured article. This is just politics disguised as an article.
I have been active in scouting for > 45 years and can tell you that this article is absolutely deceptive, and, on the subject of homosexuality in Scouts blatantly wrong. And it continuously uses reference "bluffs" after statements, relying on the fact that few will investigate enough to see that the cited references do not support the statements as claimed. Even the 16:49 post above is factually wrong. Banning from leadership positions is only from Adult and near-adult leadership positions, not from the ones that the 16:49 poster described.
[outdent]Pure and simple if a scout can agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law as he understands it at the time, he can become a scout. If he is old enough to know and understand that BSA has said that a person that is openly homosexual cannot live by the Scout Oath and Law and he still says yes, that is between him and whatever he believes in. If he says no he cannot abide by it, he can't be a member. That still doesn't change the fact that youth that are currently members and realize they are homosexual can still be members, thus homosexuals can be members of scouting, the statement is true. Marauder40 ( talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You can be sure that if there were even one obscure example of such, this article would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Factual information about BSA policies and about actual BSA practices related to those policies would be useful content for an encyclopedia (e.g. Wikipedia) article. Practically everything that Cwgmpls has said in this exchange is personal hypothetical derivations with a spin/slant in a particular direction. So are many of the statements is that section of the article. Such personal derivations are not suitable content for a wikipedia article, particularly when such derivations are disputed / controversial. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
This article (and the tidbits of factual, informative content scattered through it) holds promise for covering and informing in an area where misconception is the norm. Unfortunately, the article as a whole does more reinforcement of misconceptions than dispelling of them. And it is a total mess regarding being loaded with violations of 5 or 6 major Wikipedia standards. In addition to that, the title is vague enough to seem to include/non Wikipedia areas. Every viewpoint, opinion, etc. could be called a "membership controversy", but Wikipedia is not about being a soapbox for arguments opinions via. inclusion of those arguments and opinions as "material" either directly or through spin on the article.
Setting aside the possibility of deleting it and starting it over, a starting point for fixing it would be a new first section defining it's scope, limiting it to factual areas which I think would be:
1. Membership related policies and actions by the BSA where such have caused significant disputes and controversies. 2. BRIEF NPOV summary of the opinions of each "side" (where such is clear) where a significant dispute or controversy exists 3. In addition to #1, as accurate and NPOV as possible description of the De Facto "MO" of the BSA in the above areas.
With a strong focus on what is current. Coverage of anything older than about 15 years would be limited to brief, succinct factual summaries of significant events or mileposts.
If there is a consensus at each stage the steps would be:
1. Consensus on the above concept 2. In the discussion section, I'd draft an opening paragraph that implements the above. 3. Move it to the article 4. The rest of the article evolve (by everybody) to comply with the above scope and Wikipedia standards.
I barely have time to do the above, and certainly not to fight a battle on it. This would lift the cloud that is over the article vs. it remaining and getting more marginalized and eventually being replaced by more useful and factual coverage of the topic elsewhere. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not think you have shown clearly what the problems of this article actually are. You need to be much more explicit. I also disagree that there should be a strong focus on what is current. An encyclopedia should cover the history of an organization and not just the current situation. When there was controversy in the past, the criticism and the defense should be outlined and if the controversy has gone away the reasons for this should be stated. I am an outsider who has followed the controversy on atheists and homosexuals for a long time. People get heated about it. Nevertheless, I think this article does a pretty good job. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
What could be more explicit than the huge list of defects listed in this discussion section?
I think I agree with you on the "history" part. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Then the article should dispel the misconceptions rather than repeat them. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably true for noteworthy misconceptions (i.e. those held by many) but they should identified as such or, more NPOV speaking, identified as assertions. This article presents the misconceptions as being facts.
There are so many people cleverly and not-so-cleverly manipulating this article to be an innacurate tool for their resentment for BSA (most deriving from BSA's having won homosexual and atheist court cases, rather than it's actual practices in these areas ) that I don't think that it will ever be fixed. It is probably doomed to being marginalized as being merely such, replaced by more informative, objective coverage of this topic elsewhere in Wikipedia. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Aside from the discussed general scope flaws, here's a few examples (of many) Unlike the "homosexual" section, you provided an accurate summary of the situation when you said "The BSA does not allow homosexual leaders." And, in fact, the only actions of any type (rejections, expulsions, or otherwise) taken by BSA were against avowed homosexuals in adult and paid leader positions. The last 2 paragraphs of that section are chock full of false innuendo & personal derivations by the writers. For example, the last paragraph implies prohibition of MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. Even if it were corrected to AVOWED homosexuals, it would still be false innuendo because there is no exclusion from MEMBERSHIP either in policy or in practice. And, in the second to the last paragraph one of those false derivations gives reference #19 to support itself when in fact that reference #19 refutes that derivation. So, somebody who reads the article without actually checking the reference (a common practice) will be misled by the false derivation. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]If he knows that he is gay and he feels he cannot live by the Scout Oath then he can remove himself from the program. But BSA does not require it. BSA realizes that at times everyone will have problems living up to the Scout Oath and Law. If a youth scout is caught shoplifting (no I am not saying that homosexuality = shoplifting just using an example) the troop and/or BSA could ask the scout to step down from leadership positions and continue in the troop. If the same scout is caught again, they may start procedures from removing him from scouting or continue the previous sanction. No matter what it is a known violation of the Scout Oath and Law. The scout can still be a member, just might not be in the same role as before. BSA (and the troops) has policies for people that flagrantly violate those policies. BSA has only said that an avowed homosexual youth needs to be removed from a leadership position it hasn't said they need to be removed from the program. What you keep trying to says isn't what BSA or the policies say. Marauder40 ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
[outdent]You have only sourced the first part of the statement, you still have nothing to source the second part of the statement "effectively barring homosexuals from membership." You are trying to draw parallels where they don't exist. There is nothing stating that anywhere in the documentation and BSA itself even states differently that current members only need to be removed from leadership positions. Instead of sticking with a statement that is incorrect, why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that reflects the facts. Not interpretation of the facts. Marauder40 ( talk) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Two terms in the policy ("leadership" and "avowed") are open to interpretation. The de-facto situation (via interpretation of those over millions of memberships) is that BSA has only barred homosexual activists, and only from adult and near-adult leadership roles. Of course, this article obscures this reality and implies otherwise. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
You lumped two very different situations (homosexual and atheist)together; such would make a mess out of any discussion of either. While nobody can claim to know the intent of the the millions of people that make up BSA, or claim that all of their intents are the same, I think that the facts in my previous paragraph indicate that the experience in Scouting as a whole (regarding homosexuality) is the same as you describe in your Scouting body.
If one understands that the main battle in the USA regarding homosexuality is really that of being for or against societal normalization of homosexuality. (and not for or against hatred or or persecution of people simply for practicing it) then I think one can understand the Scout position. If they failed to bar adult homosexual activists from leadership positions, they would be weighing in on the side of "for". Sort of like if you had club to promote vegetarianism. They probably would not bar a meat-eater from membership, but a person who says "I'm a meat eater and proud of it" would certainly not end up in a leadership role. This shows the distinction between actions intending to say "homosexuality is not OK" and actions intended to punish people for merely practicing it. I think that BSA's actions are similar to this and show the intent to do the former, and not intent to do the latter, and, in fact, the intent to minimize the latter as much as possible without violating the former. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Based on extensive experience in Scouting, one thing that I learned and can tell you is that your Scouting Unit (and all of the others like it ) IS Scouting. Responding to both ERP's and HiLo48's recent posts,you make several valid points, but my point is that actual practice is also significant. For example here is a derivation which is opposite the actual practice. It's against the law to go 1 mph over the speed limit, it is the position of goernmental agencies that speeder should be caught, it's a reality that 99% of people oven go 1 mph over the speed limit. It's the law that 3 times = no license. Therefore it is the position of the government that 99% of all drivers should be banned from driving, a "defensible" but incorrect derivation that is contrary to actual practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The article would be better if it were what you said it is....limited to policies, but it is "....membership controversies" which is much broader and vaguer, which is what allowed the problems of this article to occur. Knowing that it's near-impossible to rename an Wikipedia article, I had suggested a scope definition paragraph which would, in essence, do that, making it "BSA Membership Policies and Practices in areas where such have garnered significant controversy." So, for different reasons than you suggested, maybe a new article is the only way to cover such objectively, which, I think, is what most readers of this article are seeking. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, we're going in circles......y'all wore me down. I think I'm signing off. Wish y'all the best, despite the disagreement on this article. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)