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. |
The people at Featured Article Candidates have recommend we change the title to make it clear that this page doesn't cover earlier controversies like Scout's history of racial segregation, their exclusion of women leaders, and membership controversies, and instead make it clear to the reader that this article centers on the gay/atheist exclusion issue and its aftermath. So, what are some good titles that do this?
Any other ideas? Any opinions? - Alecmconroy 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think we should go along entirely with the people at Featured Article Candidates and I think we should call it "Recent Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America". Thus while not talking about earlier controversies, it can deal with other recent controversies such as whether membership numbers are accurate. -- Bduke 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Several people have suggested a topically-based splittling. So, I propose:
Any strong objections to trying out this organization and seeing how we like it? -- Alecmconroy 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the most prominent Scouting organization in the United States (U.S.), has certain policies which prohibit gays and non-theists from participation in their organization. Because of these policies, there have been several cases in which both Scouters (adult volunteers) and Scouts (youth members) have been expelled from the BSA or people not employed for being atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters argue that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics contend that one or both of these policies amount to illegal and/or immoral discrimination. Not all critics oppose both policies. Challenges to the policies have taken three forms:
- Whether the organization has the legal right to have such policies. This has been upheld in the courts.
- Given these policies, whether the organization is legally entitled to all the traditional government support it has received. This is still in the courts but the BSA has lost in the lower courts in several cases.
- Attempts within the BSA to change the policies
Each of these challenges has met responses from the BSA and its supporters.
Whether the Boy Scouts of America should admit girls to to all its traditional programs is not a major current controversy. Women have been allowed into all adult leadership positions since (1988) and into the Venturing (a program for youth 14-21) since 1971 (when it was called Explorers).
I love it! I think it add as lot of clarity to put the two litigations together, and I think the breaking it up into three general kinds of issues helps the structure immensely.
A few criticisms-- 1) I wouldn't mention the exclusion of girls in the intro-- intros are more summary of what we do discuss, not talking about what we won't discuss. 2) 3) I might avoid oversimplifying the goverment support debate: Some people say the government CAN'T legally support the BSA at all, some say the governement CAN'T legally NOT support them, and some say it can choose whether ore not to suppport. 4) I wouldn't create seperate section just FOR internal support and criticism-- that sorta implies the internal debate is bigger than it is. This is a SOCIETAL debate more than it is a BSA debate. So I'd lump internal and external support together-- internal support included in support, intenal opposition included in opposition.
Lastly, I might slightly change the wording so that the focus remains on the policies themselves, rather than on the CHALLENGES to the policy. I might say:
I'm sleepy, the wording may not be the best, but the idea is that the three questions are: 1. Is it legal to exclude? 2. Is it legal for the goverment to support / not support. 3. Is it moral to exclude?
We might need to use the word moral for the 3rd question, but it's meant to be catch-all for all the people who strongly support the policies and those who oppose the policies.
Lastly, should we ditch (or fork) the issue on the Unitarian emblem and the people being expelled for opposing the polies the policies? getting into them in this article may make the page a little too anti-bsa.
- Alecmconroy 16:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article, I feel that there is bias present against the homosexual policy in terms of sheer weight of listing opposition to the policy as opposed to support. The article admits there is strong support, but barely offers a paragraph to state as such. I also feel that the introduction to the Unitarian Universalists is biased a little heavily towards them, seeming to summarize the religion but phrasing it in such a way as to hide the objections other religions and organizations have towards them. I feel that this colors the article towards pushing an agenda, which is against policy.
I don't have any contentions with any specific factual claim, but rather that this article isn't fully comprehenive, in that it only details arguments against the policy. Support is listed, but not explained or detailed, suggesting that the reader should dismiss any such support as nonsense in the weight of the opposition. Fieari 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I just read this and it does make the BSA sound like cold hearted elitest bastards. Whether they are or not, this article sort of makes the BSA sound like a relgious cult that is openly supported by the government and allowed access to government facilities like schools.
Oh, and this: "In light of the recent debate, there have been many questions about the future of this sort of governmental support for the BSA. Critics of the BSA have sued to prevent governmental entities from granting what they feel is "special" access to the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA, meanwhile, has sued governmental entities for what they see as "preventing equal access" to them." has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read.
H2P
14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall we? -- Alecmconroy 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I added the wording about the National Scout Jamboree controversy from the old article to the National Scout Jamboree article. [6] Maybe we can include a link to it.-- Jagz 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized the article sections. How does it look? I guess the links are messed up now?-- Jagz 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says: The Boy Scouts of America's position is that agnostics and atheists, and known or avowed homosexuals cannot participate as Scouters (BSA registered adult member volunteers and salaried employees), Scouts (youth members), or chartered organizations (Scouting unit hosts).
Where can I find the criteria for the participation of chartered organzations?-- Jagz 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"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." [7]
Is this BSA policy covered sufficiently in the article?-- Jagz 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not support the merge. The Scouting for All page can give more usefull detail than is needed here. -- Bduke 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Bduke. LARS 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was reviewing the article and read the section in regards to membership decline and am seeking consensus to add the following points somewhere in that section.
Please feel free to leave your comments. KC9CQJ 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. A mix of footnote types (in-line and ref) means that there are two each of notes 1 through 8. I just don't have time to fix it right now. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the notes here use the older Wikipedia:Footnote3 system. I cleaned these up some time back. Recent additions aren't footnotes per se- just a link inserted into the text. The problem with mixing this is that in-line links get a number like [1] just like the footnotes, but the systems get auto-numbered separately. Thus you get two [1] links, but only one of these has a reference in the footnote section. Eventually, all of the footnotes should be converted to the new Cite.php method per Wikipedia:Footnotes. The footnote reference should use a citation template such as {{ Cite web}}. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite all the controversy over this page, I am really impressed by all the great information and references! Thank you! - MarkBuckles 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this article going to be nominated as a featured article candidate again?-- Jagz 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The Good article nomination for Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 4 has failed, for the following reason:
If you have any recommendations for improving this article, including specific sections that may need further work, please write your comments and suggestions below.-- Jagz 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, are there any other problems now other than the in-line citations?-- Jagz 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In responce to the mark metioned in the header:
I hope you understand my points and I displayed them with out much grammaticall or spelling errors.
I can't find a good citation but examples like "Livestock grazing is permitted under a lease agreement between the Forest Service and the non-profit Hector Cooperative Grazing Association " at Green Mountain National Forest web page indicates that non-profits can lease Federal land. A discussion on camps on Federal land is at a American Camp Association website.
"In 2002, H.R. 5316 - The National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act - passed in the House of Representatives.
This important legislation affects 320 nonprofit camps in 25 states. These non-profit camps that lease Forest Service land are facing hefty fee increases as land is reappraised after many years. This bill would redefine the category of appraised land that the Forest Service fees are based on from developable land to rural land. It would also redefine the formula for fees to 5% of the appraised value bringing that formula in line with private cabin permits on Forest Service land.
There are many camps and youth groups affected by this bill including Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Easter Seals, diabetes and cancer camps, church camps, municipal camps, YMCA, and 4H.
Unfortunately, it did not pass in Senate. With the commencement of the 108th Congress in 2003, we hope to resurrect the legislation."
Note that this is apparently a case of all groups having equal access to lease land for camps and not preferential treatment for one group. This is in contrast to the Jamboree.-- Erp 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How can I find the comments from the peer review? Supposedly they are archived somewhere.-- Jagz 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say how glad I am that Jagz, Erp, and others are still working hard to polish this article further. If we ever get to good or featured articles, it will be 100% because of these great new edits.
Regarding the sentence "Some local governments have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances and have subsequently moved to discontinue special or equal access to the BSA because of its exclusionary membership policies."-- the problem is this wording gives the meaning that there have in some cases been instances where local governments have denied equal access. I don't know that that's actually objectively true-- for example, to my knowledge, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act or the Support Our Scouts have ever actually resulted in a withdrawal of funds. I tried a different wording by making it more verbose.
-- Alecmconroy 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a good article that will never be recognized as such due to its controversial content.-- Jagz 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice the page has again gotten mixed link styles. This would definitely hurt us becoming a featured or good article. most use the ref style, but some are just inline links. When we add a link, lets try to at least put the ref tages around it, like this <ref>[http://google.com]</ref>. If you can use the cite template, even better. -- Alecmconroy 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I had noted that in the improvements section above. I cleaned this up a few months ago- it took all day and gave me a headache -and someone else did some cleanup a while back. One of the problems I fixed was that many of the references were descriptions of the article and not the actual titles of the linked article. I believe that doing this is POV- if the title of the linked article doesn't stand by itself, then perhaps it isn't a good reference. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Originally, I had been pretty content to try to keep a balance between the BSA and its supporters on one side and the opponents on the other. But the more that I think about it, if we we're really gonna shoot for FAC-- maybe we should not count the BSA comments as part of the support, but should beef up the Support For section in order to make it roughly equitable to the Opposition section-- might help to make it more NPOV. So, I've added a few direct quotes from supports-- may add more. - Alecmconroy 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
mmk. I added Bush and Frist and a couple other supporters opinions, so the Support section now appears to take up as much or more space as the Opposition section. When I look back at our failed FAC the two main criticisms were about the title and about an Anti-BSA POV. We've changed the title, cut out some of the criticisms, and added more Support quotes-- so... hopefully it's better.
You're making great edits all the time. When you feel it's good, I'd say you could just go ahead and put it up for a peer review or a FAC and see what happens, rather than waiting for the good article people. Good article evaluation seems to take quite a bit of time, and doesn't seem to have the same level of scrutiny and feedback that peer and FAC do. -- Alecmconroy
I was asked to re-review the article for you. There are a couple of little points you might want to look at before resubmitting. I'd first like to mention that you guys have done a phenominal job of improving the NPOV of the article, as well as its comprehensiveness. Well done there!
Don't let these points nessesarily disuade you from reapplying for GA status. FA requirements are of course much higher than GA ones.
That said, here are some issues that would cause me to object if it were to be a FAC...
That about covers it. You might want to consider opportunities to find images to add, but those aren't required for FAs, just reccomended. This is a pretty good article... mostly now it just needs to back up all its facts.
Good luck! Fieari 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I agree with the removing the discussion of the "Youth Leadership" policy. Nowhere in the many court filings or major media reporting has there been any talk of a change in policy. Scouting For All wrote back and said categorically there hasn't been any shift in policy. BSA hasn't responded for comment. The only person I can find that believes non-leader gay youth ARE allowed in BSA was one poster on the archive of this talk page. So, I think we are okay with removing the speculation that gay non-leader youth are allowed until such time as a reliable source can back up that there's been a some major change in policy. In line with that, I reworded a few things: changed the 2004 text to a "statement" rather than a "policy", and shortened the quote from it. The article's looking really good, what else are we missing? -- Alecmconroy 11:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
...might be dead. Their website has not had any activity for almost a year. Any Google hits either lead back here or to some link page. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Their website is undergoing a major update and information from their prior web site is being moved from their prior site to the new one. They are alive and welcome those interested in their efforts to contact them directly for membership information or volunteer opportunities. Those participating in their forums by posting on line should realize posts might unfortunately be lost as the update process continues, thus the dates of posts might not appear recent.
So... what connection does a pedophillic scottish mass murderer who was expelled from the Scottish Scouts for poor leadership have to do with the BSA's gay/atheist policies? -- Alecmconroy 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a faction of society who would like to both see Homosexuals allowed to lead Scout troops and the age of consent laws in America lowered. 132.241.72.20 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly if you like apples it doesn't matter how big or small the apples are and the same goes for penis. 132.241.72.20 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If the anonymous editor from CSU can't explain the connection, then I say leave it out. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Jim West link for several reasons. One is because I didn't see that he was legally found guilty of an offense against a Scout. Even if he was found guilty, pedophilia isn't a controversy. If pedophilia was a controversy, his wrongful personal actions would have to help illustrate a general problem within BSA itself.-- Jagz 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if people are going to claim gays can molest kids this would be a good example. 132.241.72.20 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The first section was getting quite long so I suggest starting a new section to make it easier to find things. -- Erp ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is about controversial policies and controversial practices; however, both have to be documented. As far as the oath/law barring non-straight youth members, I'm not aware that the standard material given to youth members states that the "morally straight" bit forbids homosexuals (it is a bit more obvious that atheists are forbidden as they have to avow a duty to God with no rephrasing allowed [other than presumably into Spanish or American Sign Language if appropriate]); I must admit the thought of a scoutmaster explaining that homosexuals are immoral to a tenderfoot seems unlikely. This is not to say that some troops would make life hell for gay scouts or kick them out (and others are probably quite accepting and would stop any scout who tried harassing another scout because of his sexual orientation; they also probably ignore the bit about denying youth leadership positions to out homosexuals). However neither is documented in reliable sources so we have to make do with official statements by the BSA and by actions they've taken against people (mostly adult members). The situation for atheistic scouts and scouters is somewhat different. Now the article could probably be improved and we each might want to look over it to see if it is well written, up-to-date, and well sourced. -- Erp ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, briefly out of retirement. BSA policies that reference Homosexuality are written, short and concise. The can be listed and speak for themselves in the article. If anything is added, it would be material on actual practices and "incidents" in this area, if any. It does not need what CWmpls continues to try to inject which is personal derivations, interpretations, seletive comnining of BSA and non-BSA statements etc., misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject. It is even secondary that I believe that Cwgmpls comes to clearly wrong conclusions via his/her derivations etc, it matters just that they are personal derivations, interpretations which are both unnecessary and inappropriate, for the article. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject."
The reason why I said short and concise is because such makes it very practical to directly show Wikipedia readers what the policies say instead of your derivations and interpretations of them.
The biggest personal derivation is saying that BSA bans homos3exuals from membership. There is no such policy or practice. Your biggest faulty logical leap in your derivation is, in essence saying that those who violate the Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, etc.) are expelled from Scouting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be 'expressive association'." "the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational" and "beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to merit First Amendment protection" [21]
CWgmpls, using your same logic, one would say that Scout policy bans everyone from membership who is untrusworthy, unhelpful, unfriendly, unkind or unthrifty, etc. as those are points of the scout law, an obviously incorrect derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The truth is that gay scouts that are already members can only retain their membership as long as they keep lying -- every time they recite the Scout Oath, which is usually weekly, and every time they pass a Board of Review for the next rank, which is at least once per year. I've never said they can't be members. I've never said they are banned from membership. I've said they don't meet BSA qualifications for membership.
I've never said we can't re-word the sentence to more clearly state my point. How about "BSA does require applicants for membership to understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law"? The policy statement regarding avowed homosexuals and the Oath and Law is in the previous paragraph, so there is no need to repeat it.( Cwgmpls ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))
ERP: Well written. But I think that BSA National's actual agenda is to get as many Scouts as possible, including gays. And, as a much lower priority, to discourage homosexuality. And, as a part of the latter, to exclude people who go high profile with their homosexuality from senior leadership roles. Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership. This is just my own sincere, accurate as possible conclusion from thousands of hours of observation and evaluation of all of the information that is available. And as someone who has spent > 45 years in scouts (and Eagle Scout) with an attribute (atheism) which is much more heavily discouraged by BSA policies, and never had even the tiniest problem, Not secret, but not "in your face" or high profile (e.g refusing to sign applications) about it. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership."
So you are saying that BSA asserts, at risk of perjury, to the Supreme Court of the United States that it teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, but BSA rarely gets around to actually teaching that to any boys? That makes BSA a liar, doesn't it?( Cwgmpls ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
Cwgmpls, you are jumping all over the place. But the answer to your question is no, those two things do not conflict with each other. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the better link that Marauder40 was asking for: "Scouting... teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight" [22]. Go to PDF page 27, which is page 39 in the document. That same document was cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his majority opinion that allows BSA to legally exclude gays from membership. [23]
There are also these:
When in court, BSA clearly states that it teaches that homosexuality is immoral. If BSA did not make this assertion, it would have no legal basis to exclude homosexuals from membership.
Either 1) BSA teaches that homosexuality is immoral -or- 2) BSA has no legal right to exclude gays from membership.
Which of the two is correct?( Cwgmpls ( talk) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
I understand that BSA has been using the words "morally straight" as a requirement for its members since around 1910. I haven't been around quite that long but my impression is that the idea that straight means not gay has only been a linguistic concept since the 1960s. What did morally straight mean in 1910? Has BSA's requirement been confused by a change in the meaning of the word?
HiLo48 ( talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the subject section Bduke reverted my changes on a sentence, taking it back to "In 2005, a high-level employee of BSA was fired by the National Council after the organization received a copy of his bill from a gay resort at which he had vacationed." With the notes: "where is the source that says staying in a gay resort makes you an activist?"
I would start with two comments:
But, my edit confused two cases (i.e. with the Dale case where he WAS clearly a gay activist, and that that activism WAS given as the reason for the action.) And so, despite the above, my edit was in error and so it is good that it was reverted. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Under the sub-heading of Mainstream Scouting we have "In countries where homosexuality is legal, there is usually at least one Scouting association that allows even avowed homosexuals to be leaders." Similar comments exist elsewhere. While the statement is technically true, it doesn't really reflect the situation in those countries, certainly not in Australia where I come from.
Here we don't explicitly allow nor disallow homosexuals to be members. We don't place any emphasis on homosexuality in Scouting at all. The difference is not just that Australia allows homosexuals as members. We just don't care if a member is homosexual, and make no effort to find out. BSA does. That's the difference. BSA officials seem to want to know. We don't. If a person chooses to make their homosexuality public, it might be the equivalent of an American saying they voted for Ralph Nader. It would publicly make them a bit unusual and place them in a minority, but wouldn't require them to to banned from anything.
So it's not a matter of different regulations. It's a matter of different attitudes. To me, the controversy is the apparent need among BSA officials to even know.
HiLo48 ( talk) 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48 & BDuke. I think that all would accept your description of the situation in Australia and the UK as accurate. And also the main point of HiLo48 which, as I see it, is saying "Since homosexuality is a non-issue in Australia, so one should see no need to make such statements about a non-issue. However, I can tell you that what you both have said about BSA and homosexuality is about 80% wrong. As a starting point, BSA has no policy restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. In essence, the BSA policies say that homosexuality is a bad and wrong practice, and that "avowed" homosexuals can't hold leadership positions. Your impression that BSA seeks to "find out" sexual orientation is also mistaken. Although, when triggered by something, BSA has, on occasion, sought to find out about homosexual activism activities by leaders and employees.
It's reasonable to assume that the original writer(s) of that section wanted to include statements about Scouting in other countries being less negative about homosexuality then BSA. And so, I guess one could say the mere inclusions of such inherently means making a "statement" about a non-issue. As a sidebar note, their original wording incorrectly implied that BSA bans MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. And so I guess the "end point" from your statements is either that all such mentions should be dropped, or else shortened to simply say that homosexuality is a non-issue in many countries including Australia and the UK. North8000 ( talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If you do not count firing of near-adults from paid positions, then I think that you will find that there are NO known cases of a youth having been denied membership or stripped of membership for any homosexuality-related reason, or even specific allegations of such. I think that the fact that this article, which seems dedicated to seeking out and highlighting such things has no cases of such reinforces this. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 13:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
A DESPERATE PLEA: Can those of you who so aggressively want to defend to the honour of BSA here please do so in a more friendly, constructive, sensible and structured way? Or perhaps have a think about whether this is really the place to even try? Several posts above have absolutely nothing to do the the section you've posted them in. Please have a look at the section heading. A number of posts are unsigned. The whole approach is nit-picking and clumsy, and not going to help BSA in the slightest.
In briefly ignoring my own request, I will simply say here that that BSA has an image of discriminating against homosexuals. That it has such an image is unquestionable and is one of the reasons the article exists. The posts trying to defend it here (even though it's not really the place) tend to take the position "Yes, it discriminates, but not precisely in the way you say it does". A tip. That approach won't get you anywhere.
Like many of you, I want the image of Scouting everywhere to be as good as it can possibly be. Look a little deeper at why the attacks are occurring. I'm not close enough to be able to tell you. But don't turn these pages into a forum for nit-picking about details of rules. The fine details aren't the controversial bit, and, I would argue, not really relevant to this article. (Look again its title). It's the overall image. Please address it, for Scouting's sake, but address it elsewhere. Here is the place to discuss how to write about it. Maybe it can become the place to discuss how to write about what is being done about it. But it's not the place to argue about minor details of the rules and their alleged historical application.
HiLo48 ( talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48
While I think that this discussion section may be violating the rule that it be limited to potential article changes, I think that it has been quite friendly. I think that the only unsigned sections were by me and those were accidental / from lack of familiarity (editing in 2 places and only the second one got signed.) (I'm normally at 75.24.138.102) My participation in the discussion section was to build a consensus to allow change of genuine inaccuracies in the article, and to respond to persons who seemed to be seeking information. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 03:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right. It jumped the tracks at the very beginning when the unsigned person who created this section in talk (I think accidentally and unknowingly) put an incorrect (and wrong-section) statement about BSA in as an an implied premise for a different statement that they were making. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 20:08, 28 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. |
The people at Featured Article Candidates have recommend we change the title to make it clear that this page doesn't cover earlier controversies like Scout's history of racial segregation, their exclusion of women leaders, and membership controversies, and instead make it clear to the reader that this article centers on the gay/atheist exclusion issue and its aftermath. So, what are some good titles that do this?
Any other ideas? Any opinions? - Alecmconroy 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not think we should go along entirely with the people at Featured Article Candidates and I think we should call it "Recent Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America". Thus while not talking about earlier controversies, it can deal with other recent controversies such as whether membership numbers are accurate. -- Bduke 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Several people have suggested a topically-based splittling. So, I propose:
Any strong objections to trying out this organization and seeing how we like it? -- Alecmconroy 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the most prominent Scouting organization in the United States (U.S.), has certain policies which prohibit gays and non-theists from participation in their organization. Because of these policies, there have been several cases in which both Scouters (adult volunteers) and Scouts (youth members) have been expelled from the BSA or people not employed for being atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters argue that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics contend that one or both of these policies amount to illegal and/or immoral discrimination. Not all critics oppose both policies. Challenges to the policies have taken three forms:
- Whether the organization has the legal right to have such policies. This has been upheld in the courts.
- Given these policies, whether the organization is legally entitled to all the traditional government support it has received. This is still in the courts but the BSA has lost in the lower courts in several cases.
- Attempts within the BSA to change the policies
Each of these challenges has met responses from the BSA and its supporters.
Whether the Boy Scouts of America should admit girls to to all its traditional programs is not a major current controversy. Women have been allowed into all adult leadership positions since (1988) and into the Venturing (a program for youth 14-21) since 1971 (when it was called Explorers).
I love it! I think it add as lot of clarity to put the two litigations together, and I think the breaking it up into three general kinds of issues helps the structure immensely.
A few criticisms-- 1) I wouldn't mention the exclusion of girls in the intro-- intros are more summary of what we do discuss, not talking about what we won't discuss. 2) 3) I might avoid oversimplifying the goverment support debate: Some people say the government CAN'T legally support the BSA at all, some say the governement CAN'T legally NOT support them, and some say it can choose whether ore not to suppport. 4) I wouldn't create seperate section just FOR internal support and criticism-- that sorta implies the internal debate is bigger than it is. This is a SOCIETAL debate more than it is a BSA debate. So I'd lump internal and external support together-- internal support included in support, intenal opposition included in opposition.
Lastly, I might slightly change the wording so that the focus remains on the policies themselves, rather than on the CHALLENGES to the policy. I might say:
I'm sleepy, the wording may not be the best, but the idea is that the three questions are: 1. Is it legal to exclude? 2. Is it legal for the goverment to support / not support. 3. Is it moral to exclude?
We might need to use the word moral for the 3rd question, but it's meant to be catch-all for all the people who strongly support the policies and those who oppose the policies.
Lastly, should we ditch (or fork) the issue on the Unitarian emblem and the people being expelled for opposing the polies the policies? getting into them in this article may make the page a little too anti-bsa.
- Alecmconroy 16:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article, I feel that there is bias present against the homosexual policy in terms of sheer weight of listing opposition to the policy as opposed to support. The article admits there is strong support, but barely offers a paragraph to state as such. I also feel that the introduction to the Unitarian Universalists is biased a little heavily towards them, seeming to summarize the religion but phrasing it in such a way as to hide the objections other religions and organizations have towards them. I feel that this colors the article towards pushing an agenda, which is against policy.
I don't have any contentions with any specific factual claim, but rather that this article isn't fully comprehenive, in that it only details arguments against the policy. Support is listed, but not explained or detailed, suggesting that the reader should dismiss any such support as nonsense in the weight of the opposition. Fieari 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I just read this and it does make the BSA sound like cold hearted elitest bastards. Whether they are or not, this article sort of makes the BSA sound like a relgious cult that is openly supported by the government and allowed access to government facilities like schools.
Oh, and this: "In light of the recent debate, there have been many questions about the future of this sort of governmental support for the BSA. Critics of the BSA have sued to prevent governmental entities from granting what they feel is "special" access to the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA, meanwhile, has sued governmental entities for what they see as "preventing equal access" to them." has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read.
H2P
14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Shall we? -- Alecmconroy 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Comments:
I added the wording about the National Scout Jamboree controversy from the old article to the National Scout Jamboree article. [6] Maybe we can include a link to it.-- Jagz 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I reorganized the article sections. How does it look? I guess the links are messed up now?-- Jagz 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
In the article it says: The Boy Scouts of America's position is that agnostics and atheists, and known or avowed homosexuals cannot participate as Scouters (BSA registered adult member volunteers and salaried employees), Scouts (youth members), or chartered organizations (Scouting unit hosts).
Where can I find the criteria for the participation of chartered organzations?-- Jagz 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"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." [7]
Is this BSA policy covered sufficiently in the article?-- Jagz 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not support the merge. The Scouting for All page can give more usefull detail than is needed here. -- Bduke 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Bduke. LARS 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I was reviewing the article and read the section in regards to membership decline and am seeking consensus to add the following points somewhere in that section.
Please feel free to leave your comments. KC9CQJ 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again. A mix of footnote types (in-line and ref) means that there are two each of notes 1 through 8. I just don't have time to fix it right now. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the notes here use the older Wikipedia:Footnote3 system. I cleaned these up some time back. Recent additions aren't footnotes per se- just a link inserted into the text. The problem with mixing this is that in-line links get a number like [1] just like the footnotes, but the systems get auto-numbered separately. Thus you get two [1] links, but only one of these has a reference in the footnote section. Eventually, all of the footnotes should be converted to the new Cite.php method per Wikipedia:Footnotes. The footnote reference should use a citation template such as {{ Cite web}}. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Despite all the controversy over this page, I am really impressed by all the great information and references! Thank you! - MarkBuckles 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this article going to be nominated as a featured article candidate again?-- Jagz 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The Good article nomination for Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 4 has failed, for the following reason:
If you have any recommendations for improving this article, including specific sections that may need further work, please write your comments and suggestions below.-- Jagz 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, are there any other problems now other than the in-line citations?-- Jagz 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
In responce to the mark metioned in the header:
I hope you understand my points and I displayed them with out much grammaticall or spelling errors.
I can't find a good citation but examples like "Livestock grazing is permitted under a lease agreement between the Forest Service and the non-profit Hector Cooperative Grazing Association " at Green Mountain National Forest web page indicates that non-profits can lease Federal land. A discussion on camps on Federal land is at a American Camp Association website.
"In 2002, H.R. 5316 - The National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act - passed in the House of Representatives.
This important legislation affects 320 nonprofit camps in 25 states. These non-profit camps that lease Forest Service land are facing hefty fee increases as land is reappraised after many years. This bill would redefine the category of appraised land that the Forest Service fees are based on from developable land to rural land. It would also redefine the formula for fees to 5% of the appraised value bringing that formula in line with private cabin permits on Forest Service land.
There are many camps and youth groups affected by this bill including Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Easter Seals, diabetes and cancer camps, church camps, municipal camps, YMCA, and 4H.
Unfortunately, it did not pass in Senate. With the commencement of the 108th Congress in 2003, we hope to resurrect the legislation."
Note that this is apparently a case of all groups having equal access to lease land for camps and not preferential treatment for one group. This is in contrast to the Jamboree.-- Erp 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
How can I find the comments from the peer review? Supposedly they are archived somewhere.-- Jagz 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to say how glad I am that Jagz, Erp, and others are still working hard to polish this article further. If we ever get to good or featured articles, it will be 100% because of these great new edits.
Regarding the sentence "Some local governments have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances and have subsequently moved to discontinue special or equal access to the BSA because of its exclusionary membership policies."-- the problem is this wording gives the meaning that there have in some cases been instances where local governments have denied equal access. I don't know that that's actually objectively true-- for example, to my knowledge, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act or the Support Our Scouts have ever actually resulted in a withdrawal of funds. I tried a different wording by making it more verbose.
-- Alecmconroy 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this is a good article that will never be recognized as such due to its controversial content.-- Jagz 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice the page has again gotten mixed link styles. This would definitely hurt us becoming a featured or good article. most use the ref style, but some are just inline links. When we add a link, lets try to at least put the ref tages around it, like this <ref>[http://google.com]</ref>. If you can use the cite template, even better. -- Alecmconroy 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I had noted that in the improvements section above. I cleaned this up a few months ago- it took all day and gave me a headache -and someone else did some cleanup a while back. One of the problems I fixed was that many of the references were descriptions of the article and not the actual titles of the linked article. I believe that doing this is POV- if the title of the linked article doesn't stand by itself, then perhaps it isn't a good reference. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Originally, I had been pretty content to try to keep a balance between the BSA and its supporters on one side and the opponents on the other. But the more that I think about it, if we we're really gonna shoot for FAC-- maybe we should not count the BSA comments as part of the support, but should beef up the Support For section in order to make it roughly equitable to the Opposition section-- might help to make it more NPOV. So, I've added a few direct quotes from supports-- may add more. - Alecmconroy 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
mmk. I added Bush and Frist and a couple other supporters opinions, so the Support section now appears to take up as much or more space as the Opposition section. When I look back at our failed FAC the two main criticisms were about the title and about an Anti-BSA POV. We've changed the title, cut out some of the criticisms, and added more Support quotes-- so... hopefully it's better.
You're making great edits all the time. When you feel it's good, I'd say you could just go ahead and put it up for a peer review or a FAC and see what happens, rather than waiting for the good article people. Good article evaluation seems to take quite a bit of time, and doesn't seem to have the same level of scrutiny and feedback that peer and FAC do. -- Alecmconroy
I was asked to re-review the article for you. There are a couple of little points you might want to look at before resubmitting. I'd first like to mention that you guys have done a phenominal job of improving the NPOV of the article, as well as its comprehensiveness. Well done there!
Don't let these points nessesarily disuade you from reapplying for GA status. FA requirements are of course much higher than GA ones.
That said, here are some issues that would cause me to object if it were to be a FAC...
That about covers it. You might want to consider opportunities to find images to add, but those aren't required for FAs, just reccomended. This is a pretty good article... mostly now it just needs to back up all its facts.
Good luck! Fieari 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I agree with the removing the discussion of the "Youth Leadership" policy. Nowhere in the many court filings or major media reporting has there been any talk of a change in policy. Scouting For All wrote back and said categorically there hasn't been any shift in policy. BSA hasn't responded for comment. The only person I can find that believes non-leader gay youth ARE allowed in BSA was one poster on the archive of this talk page. So, I think we are okay with removing the speculation that gay non-leader youth are allowed until such time as a reliable source can back up that there's been a some major change in policy. In line with that, I reworded a few things: changed the 2004 text to a "statement" rather than a "policy", and shortened the quote from it. The article's looking really good, what else are we missing? -- Alecmconroy 11:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
...might be dead. Their website has not had any activity for almost a year. Any Google hits either lead back here or to some link page. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Their website is undergoing a major update and information from their prior web site is being moved from their prior site to the new one. They are alive and welcome those interested in their efforts to contact them directly for membership information or volunteer opportunities. Those participating in their forums by posting on line should realize posts might unfortunately be lost as the update process continues, thus the dates of posts might not appear recent.
So... what connection does a pedophillic scottish mass murderer who was expelled from the Scottish Scouts for poor leadership have to do with the BSA's gay/atheist policies? -- Alecmconroy 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a faction of society who would like to both see Homosexuals allowed to lead Scout troops and the age of consent laws in America lowered. 132.241.72.20 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Frankly if you like apples it doesn't matter how big or small the apples are and the same goes for penis. 132.241.72.20 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
If the anonymous editor from CSU can't explain the connection, then I say leave it out. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed the Jim West link for several reasons. One is because I didn't see that he was legally found guilty of an offense against a Scout. Even if he was found guilty, pedophilia isn't a controversy. If pedophilia was a controversy, his wrongful personal actions would have to help illustrate a general problem within BSA itself.-- Jagz 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if people are going to claim gays can molest kids this would be a good example. 132.241.72.20 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The first section was getting quite long so I suggest starting a new section to make it easier to find things. -- Erp ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is about controversial policies and controversial practices; however, both have to be documented. As far as the oath/law barring non-straight youth members, I'm not aware that the standard material given to youth members states that the "morally straight" bit forbids homosexuals (it is a bit more obvious that atheists are forbidden as they have to avow a duty to God with no rephrasing allowed [other than presumably into Spanish or American Sign Language if appropriate]); I must admit the thought of a scoutmaster explaining that homosexuals are immoral to a tenderfoot seems unlikely. This is not to say that some troops would make life hell for gay scouts or kick them out (and others are probably quite accepting and would stop any scout who tried harassing another scout because of his sexual orientation; they also probably ignore the bit about denying youth leadership positions to out homosexuals). However neither is documented in reliable sources so we have to make do with official statements by the BSA and by actions they've taken against people (mostly adult members). The situation for atheistic scouts and scouters is somewhat different. Now the article could probably be improved and we each might want to look over it to see if it is well written, up-to-date, and well sourced. -- Erp ( talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, briefly out of retirement. BSA policies that reference Homosexuality are written, short and concise. The can be listed and speak for themselves in the article. If anything is added, it would be material on actual practices and "incidents" in this area, if any. It does not need what CWmpls continues to try to inject which is personal derivations, interpretations, seletive comnining of BSA and non-BSA statements etc., misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject. It is even secondary that I believe that Cwgmpls comes to clearly wrong conclusions via his/her derivations etc, it matters just that they are personal derivations, interpretations which are both unnecessary and inappropriate, for the article. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject."
The reason why I said short and concise is because such makes it very practical to directly show Wikipedia readers what the policies say instead of your derivations and interpretations of them.
The biggest personal derivation is saying that BSA bans homos3exuals from membership. There is no such policy or practice. Your biggest faulty logical leap in your derivation is, in essence saying that those who violate the Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, etc.) are expelled from Scouting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- "the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be 'expressive association'." "the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational" and "beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to merit First Amendment protection" [21]
CWgmpls, using your same logic, one would say that Scout policy bans everyone from membership who is untrusworthy, unhelpful, unfriendly, unkind or unthrifty, etc. as those are points of the scout law, an obviously incorrect derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The truth is that gay scouts that are already members can only retain their membership as long as they keep lying -- every time they recite the Scout Oath, which is usually weekly, and every time they pass a Board of Review for the next rank, which is at least once per year. I've never said they can't be members. I've never said they are banned from membership. I've said they don't meet BSA qualifications for membership.
I've never said we can't re-word the sentence to more clearly state my point. How about "BSA does require applicants for membership to understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law"? The policy statement regarding avowed homosexuals and the Oath and Law is in the previous paragraph, so there is no need to repeat it.( Cwgmpls ( talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))
ERP: Well written. But I think that BSA National's actual agenda is to get as many Scouts as possible, including gays. And, as a much lower priority, to discourage homosexuality. And, as a part of the latter, to exclude people who go high profile with their homosexuality from senior leadership roles. Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership. This is just my own sincere, accurate as possible conclusion from thousands of hours of observation and evaluation of all of the information that is available. And as someone who has spent > 45 years in scouts (and Eagle Scout) with an attribute (atheism) which is much more heavily discouraged by BSA policies, and never had even the tiniest problem, Not secret, but not "in your face" or high profile (e.g refusing to sign applications) about it. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership."
So you are saying that BSA asserts, at risk of perjury, to the Supreme Court of the United States that it teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, but BSA rarely gets around to actually teaching that to any boys? That makes BSA a liar, doesn't it?( Cwgmpls ( talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
Cwgmpls, you are jumping all over the place. But the answer to your question is no, those two things do not conflict with each other. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the better link that Marauder40 was asking for: "Scouting... teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight" [22]. Go to PDF page 27, which is page 39 in the document. That same document was cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his majority opinion that allows BSA to legally exclude gays from membership. [23]
There are also these:
When in court, BSA clearly states that it teaches that homosexuality is immoral. If BSA did not make this assertion, it would have no legal basis to exclude homosexuals from membership.
Either 1) BSA teaches that homosexuality is immoral -or- 2) BSA has no legal right to exclude gays from membership.
Which of the two is correct?( Cwgmpls ( talk) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
I understand that BSA has been using the words "morally straight" as a requirement for its members since around 1910. I haven't been around quite that long but my impression is that the idea that straight means not gay has only been a linguistic concept since the 1960s. What did morally straight mean in 1910? Has BSA's requirement been confused by a change in the meaning of the word?
HiLo48 ( talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the subject section Bduke reverted my changes on a sentence, taking it back to "In 2005, a high-level employee of BSA was fired by the National Council after the organization received a copy of his bill from a gay resort at which he had vacationed." With the notes: "where is the source that says staying in a gay resort makes you an activist?"
I would start with two comments:
But, my edit confused two cases (i.e. with the Dale case where he WAS clearly a gay activist, and that that activism WAS given as the reason for the action.) And so, despite the above, my edit was in error and so it is good that it was reverted. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Under the sub-heading of Mainstream Scouting we have "In countries where homosexuality is legal, there is usually at least one Scouting association that allows even avowed homosexuals to be leaders." Similar comments exist elsewhere. While the statement is technically true, it doesn't really reflect the situation in those countries, certainly not in Australia where I come from.
Here we don't explicitly allow nor disallow homosexuals to be members. We don't place any emphasis on homosexuality in Scouting at all. The difference is not just that Australia allows homosexuals as members. We just don't care if a member is homosexual, and make no effort to find out. BSA does. That's the difference. BSA officials seem to want to know. We don't. If a person chooses to make their homosexuality public, it might be the equivalent of an American saying they voted for Ralph Nader. It would publicly make them a bit unusual and place them in a minority, but wouldn't require them to to banned from anything.
So it's not a matter of different regulations. It's a matter of different attitudes. To me, the controversy is the apparent need among BSA officials to even know.
HiLo48 ( talk) 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48 & BDuke. I think that all would accept your description of the situation in Australia and the UK as accurate. And also the main point of HiLo48 which, as I see it, is saying "Since homosexuality is a non-issue in Australia, so one should see no need to make such statements about a non-issue. However, I can tell you that what you both have said about BSA and homosexuality is about 80% wrong. As a starting point, BSA has no policy restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. In essence, the BSA policies say that homosexuality is a bad and wrong practice, and that "avowed" homosexuals can't hold leadership positions. Your impression that BSA seeks to "find out" sexual orientation is also mistaken. Although, when triggered by something, BSA has, on occasion, sought to find out about homosexual activism activities by leaders and employees.
It's reasonable to assume that the original writer(s) of that section wanted to include statements about Scouting in other countries being less negative about homosexuality then BSA. And so, I guess one could say the mere inclusions of such inherently means making a "statement" about a non-issue. As a sidebar note, their original wording incorrectly implied that BSA bans MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. And so I guess the "end point" from your statements is either that all such mentions should be dropped, or else shortened to simply say that homosexuality is a non-issue in many countries including Australia and the UK. North8000 ( talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If you do not count firing of near-adults from paid positions, then I think that you will find that there are NO known cases of a youth having been denied membership or stripped of membership for any homosexuality-related reason, or even specific allegations of such. I think that the fact that this article, which seems dedicated to seeking out and highlighting such things has no cases of such reinforces this. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 13:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
A DESPERATE PLEA: Can those of you who so aggressively want to defend to the honour of BSA here please do so in a more friendly, constructive, sensible and structured way? Or perhaps have a think about whether this is really the place to even try? Several posts above have absolutely nothing to do the the section you've posted them in. Please have a look at the section heading. A number of posts are unsigned. The whole approach is nit-picking and clumsy, and not going to help BSA in the slightest.
In briefly ignoring my own request, I will simply say here that that BSA has an image of discriminating against homosexuals. That it has such an image is unquestionable and is one of the reasons the article exists. The posts trying to defend it here (even though it's not really the place) tend to take the position "Yes, it discriminates, but not precisely in the way you say it does". A tip. That approach won't get you anywhere.
Like many of you, I want the image of Scouting everywhere to be as good as it can possibly be. Look a little deeper at why the attacks are occurring. I'm not close enough to be able to tell you. But don't turn these pages into a forum for nit-picking about details of rules. The fine details aren't the controversial bit, and, I would argue, not really relevant to this article. (Look again its title). It's the overall image. Please address it, for Scouting's sake, but address it elsewhere. Here is the place to discuss how to write about it. Maybe it can become the place to discuss how to write about what is being done about it. But it's not the place to argue about minor details of the rules and their alleged historical application.
HiLo48 ( talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HiLo48
While I think that this discussion section may be violating the rule that it be limited to potential article changes, I think that it has been quite friendly. I think that the only unsigned sections were by me and those were accidental / from lack of familiarity (editing in 2 places and only the second one got signed.) (I'm normally at 75.24.138.102) My participation in the discussion section was to build a consensus to allow change of genuine inaccuracies in the article, and to respond to persons who seemed to be seeking information. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 03:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you're right. It jumped the tracks at the very beginning when the unsigned person who created this section in talk (I think accidentally and unknowingly) put an incorrect (and wrong-section) statement about BSA in as an an implied premise for a different statement that they were making. 99.151.168.32 ( talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)