![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This statement in the subject section is not properly cited: "The Boy Scouts of America forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public or to youth members." Someone said it may be in the Scoutmasters Handbook but I don't have a copy of it. -- Jagz 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed citation needed again from the section so I rewrote it according to the information we have now. -- Jagz 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on anyone other than Dave Rice being expelled? -- Jagz 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the second paragraph of the introduction. Right now it states:
"The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character".[2][3] Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to discrimination. [4][5] BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards."
Any comments. Does it sound okay? -- Jagz 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you two please take a timeout on this? Just step back for a day or so and come back to this amiably. If you are this passionate about this, then you just need to let go a bit. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've again returned the intro to last week's intro. As of this moment, there isn't a consensus to change it, so we talk about it until there is one.
Evrik-- I'm sure that some people do have a problem that critics of the BSA consider the policies to be immoral. I'm sure that many opponents of the policies similarly have a problem with the fact that the supporters of the BSA consider homosexuality to be immoral, or that the BSA feels that excluding gays&atheists helps children become more ethical. I'm know for a fact that BOTH sides have deep problems with the POVs of the other side.
However, your disagreeing with the critics' POV does not cause them to cease to exist, or cause their point of view to no longer be revelent. The fact is, critics DO feel the policies are immoral discrimination. That's just how they feel. May be right, may be wrong, but that's they way they feel about the subject. That's why there's an article about this in the first place-- if you DIDN'T have a problem with them calling hte policies immoral, and if they didn't have a problem with the BSA calling homosexuality/atheism, then we wouldn't have an article here in the first place.
If you want the critic's point of view removed, it is not sufficient for you to argue that their point of view is wrong, or that you take issue with it. We don't debate the issues, we don't decide the issues, we just cover 'em, ya know? If you want the statement taken out, you need to prove that the critics do NOT believe that the policies are immoral discrimination. Saying that YOU don't believe they are immoral discrimination does not help your case in any way, because we're not saying that you believe that, we're saying the critics believe that. To remove it, you have to say that the critics some DON'T believe it's immoral discrimination.
I think this is a very difficult case to make, because there are a number of primary sources in which the critics refer to the policies as a) "discriminatory" b)"immoral" and c) "immoral policies of discrimination". See, for example this page which bears a title Scouting For All's National Day of Protest Against the Boy Scouts of America's Immoral Policy of Discrimination Against Gay Youth and Adults. Or take the critical site BSA-discrimination.org, the url and site name both mentioning "Discrimination in the BSA".
In addition to the deletion of the critic's views on immorality, the reorg edit had some other issues. The additional counter argument "BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards" was re-added, despite my above expressed concerns. (As an interesting bonus, also note how the sentence rebuts a "phantom" criticism that was itself deleted from the article in that reorganization").
Lastly, and this, like all of the things i've said, is something we can discuss. I personally prefer 3 paragraphs to 2. Paragraph 1: Here's the situation. 2: Here's each side's POV. 3: Legal issues. Merging 2 into 1 is, to me, conflating two very distinct ideas. -- Alecmconroy 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-- evrik ( talk) 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
let's all not edit the sentence in dispute since i've gone ahead and written the RFC all out, it will confuse users if we change it around during the discussion. The NPOV tag is up, and it will stay up until there's a consensus-- so our readers will be informed that some part of the page is being disputed, and will know ot read it with an even-more-careful eye. Incidentally, Evrik, I think you've done four reverts on this now and technically could get like a 24 hour block or something-- so, let's not do that, let's freeze the intro for the time being. -- Alecmconroy 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This disagreement is over what the second paragraph of the introduction should be
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to immoral discrimination.
(emphasis added)
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to illegal discrimination.
(emphasis added)
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discrimination.
Critics believe that these policies are wrong and are discrimination. The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these exclusionary policies are not discrimination, but simply adherence to membership standards.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these membership policies are essential because having atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals as members would impede its mission of instilling in young people the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law in order to prepare them to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong, and that having discriminatory membership policies instills bad values in Scouts and is unfair to those who are unable to participate.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission of instilling in young people the the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are unfair, politically incorrect, and bigoted.
I would like to see Proposed Version 3 used. -- evrik ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)... are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". [1] [2]
There are some people who believe it is illegal, some people who believe it is wrong, some people who believe it is immoral, and some people who believe it is a combination of the above. The only thing that all these critics agree on is that it is discrimination. In any case, the above three qualities are all quite clearly judgmental, and any one of those adjectives ought to be sourced. Something along the lines of "Critics believe that this is discrimination, and some say that it is immoral (source) or illegal (source)." - Che Nuevara 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Version 2 is the best and most neutral version. The one change I would make is in the last sentence. "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree completly with Ramsquire. JBKramer 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
“ | The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory. | ” |
Seems like there's a fair amount of consensus behind what is currently label "version 2". (and please, no one change the labeling around :) ). That's the version that says has neither "immoral", "illegal" or "legal", but just says "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discriminatory."
I think the initial version is better, but I can certainly live with that one, no question asked. I think Jagz can live with it. (correct me if you object to it though Jagz). Evrik is the one who proposed it in the first place, so I think that he could live with it. Ramsquire thinks it's the optimal verison, and JBKramer has listed it as one of his two favorites.
Having seen so many independent eyeballs endorse dropping the word "immoral", I'm satisfied, therefore, that Version 2 is the consensus version, and I'd be cool with using that version and calling it good. If however, anyone wants to wait for more opinions, that's totally fine. For my part, however, I'm now satisfied that Version 2, the "compromise" solution Evrik, is not just a "compromise" but an actual consesus". -- Alecmconroy 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, my beef with immoral is that it leads towards violating some religious belief or something (e.g. fornication, adultery, etc. ). I could be wrong about that. "Wrong" doesn't have that connotation. However, simply using discriminatory accurately describes the position of the critics, and doesn't get into whether "immoral" is POV. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from the subject section: "The practice, presumably done to obtain more grant money and so that paid professional Scouters can retain their positions, may have been going on for years but only recently has it been reported by the media." Let's put in the findings of the various investigations and/or litigation on this issue instead. -- Jagz 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How about the idea of adding a section on historical membership controversies? It can mention racial segregation and how women were excluded from leadership positions, then just Scoutmaster positions before being being allowed to hold all positions. -- Jagz 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Boy Scouts give female adult leaders all of the privileges of male adult leaders. Although this was not true in decades past, the policy was instituted in response to a shortage of adult males willing to participate actively in running the troops. While many scouting adults do have their own children in the program, it is not necessary to have a child in the program to be actively involved with a scout unit.
Until 1954, the Boy Scouts of America was a racially segregated organization. Colored Troops, as they were officially known, were given little support from Districts, Councils and the national offices. Some scouting executives and leaders believed that Colored Scouts and Leaders would be less able to live up to the ideals of the Boy Scouts.
In the 1980s, some Boy Scout troops in the Eastern United States were involved in a scandal resulting in violence occurring on campout trips. In Virginia, a report surfaced that a scout had been badly beaten by fellow scouts at the Goshen, Virginia Boy Scout Camp. Further reports followed of bullying of younger scouts by older scouts, especially on prolonged outdoor trips where adult supervision was limited. Parents challenged the Boy Scouts attitude to such instances, since several adult leaders were quoted as saying that scouts in the field should "know how to take care of themselves" and that "natural horseplay" on campout trips was not a problem.
To prevent such incidents and other forms of child abuse, the BSA developed an extensive Youth Protection Plan in the mid-eighties that actively teaches both youth members and adult leaders in how to recognise, resist and report child abuse in both Scout and non-Scout venues. In addition, it provides tight requirements on adult leadership and activities to help ensure that Scouting is a safe venue for its participants. Several Scouts have been expelled from the organization for violence." -- Jagz 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Quinnipiac Council v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 528 A.2d 352 (Conn. 1987) A female volunteer leader sued a Boy Scout council alleging that the then policy of limited Scoutmaster positions to men violated the Connecticut public accommodations law. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the public accommodations law did not apply to Scouting’s leadership positions because volunteering to serve youth was not a right protected under that law.
In 1988, Boy Scouts of America changed the policy and allowed women to be Scoutmasters." -- Jagz 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article discusses the close ties between the Mormon church and the BSA but says nothing about the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the Roman Catholic Church sponsors a lot of troops, etc., however, I can't think of anything worthwhile to add to the article but maybe someone else can. -- Jagz 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I went through the whole article recently and did some rewording and reordered some of the sentences. -- Jagz 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Woman who opened doors to women in Boy Scout leadership dies: [2] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies from countries and regions around the world. -- Jagz 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following comment was posted in the article so I moved it to the Talk page: -- Jagz 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"During the 1970's and before, admitted atheists and agnostics were freely allowed to be members of Scouting and advance in rank up to and including Eagle Scout in many local scouting organizations at the local level. Many of these former scouts post messages on atheist, humanist, and agnostic websites to discuss their experiences in Boy Scouts."
I added a new section to the article called Break up of Explorer Scouts. -- Jagz 08:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Explorer Scouts are part of The Scout Association in the UK. In the BSA, the program is Exploring and is now part of the subsidiary Learning for Life. This happened almost 10 years ago, so it might better belong in the history. You might also want to define Exploring (Learning for Life) and Learning for Life. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know about Star Scouting America? [3] I wonder how many members they have, etc. -- Jagz 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for Youthscouts [4]. BTW, it is interesting to note that Youthscouts used Wikipedia as a reference during their trademark dispute with the BSA. [5] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the other Scouting groups to Scouting in the United States. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should update the "Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program" section, here's a site on the current status of that program: http://www.uuscouters.org/
Camp Fire USA is listed in the article as not excluding atheists. Is this true? See their Law below. -- Jagz 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Camp Fire Law is:
Worship God.
Seek beauty.
Give service.
Pursue knowledge.
Be trustworthy.
Hold on to health.
Glorify work.
Be happy.
You are apparently not required to follow the law to be a member.
The Camp Fire USA Law, which dates from the first few years of Camp Fire, was originally the Wood Gatherer’s Desire. In 1942 the words “Worship God,” implicit in the whole statement, were explicitly given as the first item of the law. The word “law” is sometimes misleading, however. At no time in the organization’s history has a Camp Fire member been asked to take any oath or make any promise. The Camp Fire law is a desire or a goal, not an oath. We believe that children and youth are our most precious resources.
http://www.campfireusaihc.org/campfireusalaw.html There also doesn't seem to be any national policy of asking known atheists to leave. -- Erp 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the chance of this article ever appearing on the Main Page? -- Jagz 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Their new website is set to go live on 15 March 2007. References linking to the site should be checked at that point. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been over a month, but none of the referenced articles from Scouting for All are available. These are references 42, 52, 58, 59, 65 and 66- some fix needs to be made here. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You can now get a BSA version of the game Monopoly. [6] -- Jagz 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You can also get ones on birds, sports teams and almost every other subject. It's a specious argument. GCW50 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the Coalition for Inclusive Scouting's website? [7] -- Jagz 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the subject section. Please don't use the Monopoly section to discuss items that should be in the subject section. -- Jagz 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it fair of the BSA to not allow certain segments of the US population to become members while maintaining a monopoly of Scouting for boys? -- Jagz 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Should I put a Fairness section in the article? -- Jagz 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What if the Ford Motor Company had sued General Motors and Chrysler to get them to stop using the words car, auto, automobile, and horseless carriage? How would GM and Chrysler have been able to remain competitive if they couldn't use those words? -- Jagz 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Federal charters are honorary titles that serve as a prestigious national recognition of an organization. [8] What were the reasons that the federal government granted the BSA a charter? -- Jagz 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The BSA charter is a bit more than honorary, as it adds an extra measure of protection to trademarks and copyrights. BTW- as I understand it, Boyce tried to get a charter in 1910 or so, but it got tied up with Hearst over some issue. West finally got the charter through in 1916 as part of his attempts to keep the BSA trademark from being diluted. Frankly, this is no different than any other corporation protecting its marks. The BSA has never gone after other youth organizations per se (and indeed helped to start the Camp Fire Girls), only after groups misusing a trademark. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Girl Scouts is for girls and young women only is clearly stated in the Coeducational Scouting section that is linked in the Mainstream Scouting membership policies section. I believe I am the one who wrote it. It does not need to be included in the article again.
The Opposition to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies section is by design slanted against the BSA in the same way that the Support for the Boy Scouts of America section is slanted in favor of the BSA. The two sections were designed to balance each other out. I am opposed to anyone going into either of the sections and start trying to neutralize them or otherwise change the slant of the sections. -- Jagz 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The meat of this section is that the BSA is acting as a monopoly and keeping any other groups from using the Scouting program. As I noted above, the BSA 'must actively defend its trademarks or copyrights or those marks will become generic. This is no different from any other corporation such as Xerox, Disney or even Rotary International. This has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a very insider point of view. Let me give an outsider view. First, the Spiral Scouts appear to be less exclusive. Second, I see it as fairly obvious that one thing an alternative Scouting organisation could do is allow brothers and sisters to be together in Cubs or Scouts, allowing the parents (and the community) to support one group not two. That is seen as a real plus here in Australia particularly in small rural communities. Third, if the BSA stopped its trademark and copyright protection, it would be like all (I suspect) other countries where the terms Scout, Scouting, Cub, Pinewood Derby, Jamboree, and Explorer are freely available. Is the BSA so vulnerable that it needs this protection. They would become "generic". So what? There is no "must" about it. The BSA does not have to have this protection. If having this protection "has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition", it sure helps, as any real alternative would be attacked and the new organisation who not be able to advertise itself as what it was - a Scouting organization. Well, I should not be commenting on the BSA but on the article. Everything I have said supports the view that a more outside view on BSA controversies would improve this article by making it more NPOV. I agree with you about sources. In "controversy" articles more than anywhere, everything must be sourced. -- Bduke 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I see the section has been retitled to Scouting in the United States. I still fail to see how this section relates to the membership of the BSA itself. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit filed by Youthscouts in U.S. District Court? [16] -- Jagz 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the first paragraph to:
"The Boy Scouts of America is by far the largest supplier of Scouting to boys in the United States of America. The BSA is the only Scouting association of significance in the United States that boys can join and there are no comparable alternative organizations available to them throughout most of the country. The situation is different in some other countries where a number of Scouting associations with varying membership criteria are available to boys."
Is the last sentence worded correctly? Should it say many other countries or some other countries? --
Jagz
10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Inclusive Scouting link from "External links" because it has not worked in quite a while. To maintain balance in the links, a link to a site critical of the Boy Scouts of America's policies should be added. -- Jagz 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to write this article so that it pleases everyone 100%. I think that a lot of effort has been put into making the article neutral overall. The article content is controversial as the article name states. -- Jagz 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason for my putting up the neutrality template was not because of GCW50's March 27 edits but because he stated that the article is biased and he has persisted in making pro-BSA edits for a period of time in excess of a year. He continues now even after the article has achieved featured article status and the edits have become more numerous recently. The last time he did this the article started looking like it was written by the BSA and that's when Alecmconroy rewrote it. After Alecmconroy's rewrite there was much work done to make the article NPOV overall so it could become a featured article. -- Jagz 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not normally like commenting on articles about Scouting in the US, but I have been following the various controversies for many years. If this article is biased in any way, it is biased towards the BSA not against. In general I think it does a good job of being NPOV. I would also comment that WP is not about truth but about what verifiable sources say. We should just be neutrally reporting the controversy not decided what is true. -- Bduke 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there any additional issues about article bias/neutrality that should be discussed now, while we're on the topic? -- Jagz 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Gays and atheists are minorities in the United States and it's an emotional issue with some in the majority so it's no surprise when you start throwing out numbers greater than 50%. Maybe we should put a section in on how churches brainwash people and if it wasn't for all that brainwashing that the numbers would be different. Stop using statistics to validate the oppression of minorities. I don't think we should try to put the name of every advocacy group into the article but since we are mentioning that people have created advocacy groups it is good to list some examples. I don't see comments from others agreeing with you on this Talk page. -- Jagz 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Support for the BSA section sounds like the place where some of the things you are talking about should go. -- Jagz 21:23, 3 April 2007 (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. |
Thought I'd take a try at a draft of a roadmap to fixing it. I think that some "strategic level" consensus is needed to really make progress on fixing this article. Basically three steps:
North8000 ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, here's the draft:
The title is overall a little vague, but such is life. The title has two main qualifiers:
"Membership" implicitly that means: "restrictions on eligibility for membership". In practice the article expands this to "restrictions on eligibility for membership and leadership positions". Solution: let's just accept this and nail it down in a scope sentence. Do this so that this departure does not undermine that there is a scope for this article vs. full of random material.
In reality the article has expanded this qualifier into three areas
Scattered through the article, but much of this in the "Position on" Sections. Some (including myself) have argued that Wikipedia standards, plus the objectives of accurate NPOV coverage dictate that #2 be covered elsewhere, not in this article. Solution/compromise: Set this complaint aside in exchange for agreeing to getting the "Position on...." sections to be CURRENT BSA position on....... Include policies identified as such, whatever (that meets Wikipedian standards) that sheds ligth on this area such as practices in these areas, litigation in these areas (see note under "litigation section"
This is basically the whole "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" As much as I like this section and consider it to be informative, it really doesn't belong in this article and should go. First, it's outside of the "controversies" scope, not germane to the topic, and is inherently a POV magnet. It inherently argues one side of the "Is BSA too restrictive/OK/too lenient? controversey by selection of organizations for comparison of BSA to them.
These are cases where the reference number given for a statement either does not support the statement, or refutes the statement. Wherever these are the only references given for a contested statement, remove the statement and the reference (if not used elsewhere). To put the statement back in, one would need a cite that supports it.
These are sprinkled throughout the article. Wherever an unsupported contested implication of cause-effect is made, remove it, and putting it back in would require a supporting cite.
Coverage of litigaiton has numerous organizational issues. Even within the "litigation" section, half the litigation is "filed" under one system (by subject) the other half is "filed" under a different system (active vs. inactive)("inactive" apparently is a not-so-useful term meaning "Resolved" litigation.) And then some other other sections which need this material just badly duplicate it either sparsely/badly duplicate it. And other sections which need it (the BSA choice to fight something in court is certainly very germane to "Position on....." sections) don't have it or a reference to it. Solution: Put all litigation into the litigation section under categories germane the the article (probab; by issue: gender/homosexuality/atheism/agnosticism or alternately cagegorized by membership/leadership/access to facilities) Put the case names first for quick finding, and then other section of this article that "need" this litigation will say the case name and refer to the litigaiton section.
I suspect that this title was a sort of a typo. The logicians who figure out the title realize that nothing the section (or even the overall article) matches the title. Solution: Move everything in the section to more appropriate places elsewhere in this article, and delete this title.
The most common example is heavy use of the "www.BSADiscrimination.org" web site as a reference for factual material. Such references could be used objectively as examples of the controversies, but not as sources of factual material. Following one a reference to these usually leads to an op-ed piece with some apparent facts blended into it. Solution: The article relies on such type sources so heavily that removal of statements reliant on such sources would gut the article. If anybody knows the "BSA Discrimination.org" folks, possibly they could get the material claimed as factual separated from the material which is clearly Op Ed, then reference only the former for factual type statements, and reference the latter only as examples of the controversies. Alternately, take out only the contested statement that are reliant on such references, putting them back in would require an additional references or one which not so blatantly Op Ed material.
Generally, in this article coverage of opposition to BSA policies includes quotes or summaries of what the opposer said to support (give a basis for) their position, while coverage of groups supporting BSA policies has no quotes or summaries of what the supporter said (give a basis for) their position. Solution: Create balance in this area. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- - - - End of "Proposal for Fixing this Article" Section - - - -
North8000 ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, let me read back first major point you're making. You're saying that currently, the article covers more than it should, i.e. it's scope is too wide. To fix this, it's proposed to:
Based on what I've heard so far, I think it would be a mistake to redefine the article scope in a way that excludes the recent history of the controversy and the perspective of the overall scouting movement. The past statements of BSA balance any claims that only "gay leadership" rather than "gay membership" is prohibited. The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting.
But in a larger sense, these elements-- the history, support and criticism from within Scouting, the sponsorship and funding backlashes, the backlash against the backlash, and all the other aspects of the subject-- these things are kind of what make it such a good encyclopedia article. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Alecmconroy. We are writing an encyclopedia. We should be covering all controversies that have been about the BSA and not just current ones. The question of women leaders, now resolved, is just as important as the question on gays, now not resolved. He is is correct on "The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting". It is only necessary to give the position of a few large Scouting associations, to demonstrate this point. It is one reason why there there is controversy and why some people do not accept the BSA position. They do not see that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting. North has argued for covering only the current BSA position, but this in, in my opinion, all wrong. The article is about controversies. We focus on those whenever they occurred and we give the BSA's position to show what people are disagreeing with. They can then be sourced by primary sources. The current position only needs to be covered to explain the controversy. The controversies have to be covered by independent sources. So the section should not be headed "Position on religion". It should be "Position on atheists and agnostics" because that is the controversy. "Position on religion" would have to be current. "Position on atheists and agnostics" should cover controversies at any time, and explain them by giving the BSA position at that time. Shifting the emphasis from controversies to positions is what was wrong with North's other article, now rightly deleted. Let us not make the same mistake here and try to change this article to be like the one that was deleted. NPOV on controversies does not mean giving the BSA position as such. That is too wide. It means giving all sides of the controversy. It is the controversy that determines what we say about the position of the BSA. The latter does not determine the former. That would indeed by POV. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This comment from the featured article review "The majority of the article (all but a tiny, unsourced paragraph at the end) focus on the issues of homosexuality, atheists and agnostics, all relatively recent issues. Information on the BSAs controversies with regards to race and gender are not explored at all, which they should be in an article that thoroughly covers the controversies of the membership of the organization." says something relevant to whether we cover history. I agree with the comment. It should cover all controversies about membership and I see "membership" including leaders. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the analysis at the beginning of my proposal, with respect to both a precise reading of the title and Wikipedian standards, about 70% of this article is out of scope. Not talking about anyone in particular, but my general impression from the last few weeks on this article is that the 70% is OK, as long as it conforms with a pre-conceived POV. But come in with 1% of basic matter-of-fact info that is much more germane to the article than most of the 70% and then everybody suddenly "finds religion" on scope to keep it out.
I think that we are debating certain items that we already all agree on (e.g. inclusion of history). And one area where there is some disagreement (inclusion of comparisons to other organizations) which I think can clearly get resolved. North8000 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) which leads to:
I think that being the object of current controversies, and ostensibly already being "covered" in the article, that the BSA policies/position in the areas which are the object of the controversy should be covered in clear, un-occluded, fact-laden, referenced section. And by "position" I don't mean providing a venue for BSA statements supporting their position/policies, I mean just the position / policies. Do y'all agree or disagree? North8000 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I though I'd chrystalize a bare bones version of the toughest question and ask y'all to weigh in on it. My proposal would be to have two subsections that cover BSA written policies related to restriction on membership or leadership based on 1. homosexuality and 2. atheism/agnosticism. Any other material (commentaries, interpretation, paraphrasing, derivaitons) would be seperated so as to not confuse the issue of what those written policies are. The one on Atheistm/Agnosticism would be the 4 paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at [21]. The one on homosexuality would be the three paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp. And so my question to each of you is, would you say to "allow this" or "not allow this" ? North8000 ( talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Anybody else? North8000 ( talk) 13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
This statement in the subject section is not properly cited: "The Boy Scouts of America forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public or to youth members." Someone said it may be in the Scoutmasters Handbook but I don't have a copy of it. -- Jagz 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone removed citation needed again from the section so I rewrote it according to the information we have now. -- Jagz 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on anyone other than Dave Rice being expelled? -- Jagz 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone keeps changing the second paragraph of the introduction. Right now it states:
"The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character".[2][3] Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to discrimination. [4][5] BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards."
Any comments. Does it sound okay? -- Jagz 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you two please take a timeout on this? Just step back for a day or so and come back to this amiably. If you are this passionate about this, then you just need to let go a bit. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've again returned the intro to last week's intro. As of this moment, there isn't a consensus to change it, so we talk about it until there is one.
Evrik-- I'm sure that some people do have a problem that critics of the BSA consider the policies to be immoral. I'm sure that many opponents of the policies similarly have a problem with the fact that the supporters of the BSA consider homosexuality to be immoral, or that the BSA feels that excluding gays&atheists helps children become more ethical. I'm know for a fact that BOTH sides have deep problems with the POVs of the other side.
However, your disagreeing with the critics' POV does not cause them to cease to exist, or cause their point of view to no longer be revelent. The fact is, critics DO feel the policies are immoral discrimination. That's just how they feel. May be right, may be wrong, but that's they way they feel about the subject. That's why there's an article about this in the first place-- if you DIDN'T have a problem with them calling hte policies immoral, and if they didn't have a problem with the BSA calling homosexuality/atheism, then we wouldn't have an article here in the first place.
If you want the critic's point of view removed, it is not sufficient for you to argue that their point of view is wrong, or that you take issue with it. We don't debate the issues, we don't decide the issues, we just cover 'em, ya know? If you want the statement taken out, you need to prove that the critics do NOT believe that the policies are immoral discrimination. Saying that YOU don't believe they are immoral discrimination does not help your case in any way, because we're not saying that you believe that, we're saying the critics believe that. To remove it, you have to say that the critics some DON'T believe it's immoral discrimination.
I think this is a very difficult case to make, because there are a number of primary sources in which the critics refer to the policies as a) "discriminatory" b)"immoral" and c) "immoral policies of discrimination". See, for example this page which bears a title Scouting For All's National Day of Protest Against the Boy Scouts of America's Immoral Policy of Discrimination Against Gay Youth and Adults. Or take the critical site BSA-discrimination.org, the url and site name both mentioning "Discrimination in the BSA".
In addition to the deletion of the critic's views on immorality, the reorg edit had some other issues. The additional counter argument "BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards" was re-added, despite my above expressed concerns. (As an interesting bonus, also note how the sentence rebuts a "phantom" criticism that was itself deleted from the article in that reorganization").
Lastly, and this, like all of the things i've said, is something we can discuss. I personally prefer 3 paragraphs to 2. Paragraph 1: Here's the situation. 2: Here's each side's POV. 3: Legal issues. Merging 2 into 1 is, to me, conflating two very distinct ideas. -- Alecmconroy 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-- evrik ( talk) 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
let's all not edit the sentence in dispute since i've gone ahead and written the RFC all out, it will confuse users if we change it around during the discussion. The NPOV tag is up, and it will stay up until there's a consensus-- so our readers will be informed that some part of the page is being disputed, and will know ot read it with an even-more-careful eye. Incidentally, Evrik, I think you've done four reverts on this now and technically could get like a 24 hour block or something-- so, let's not do that, let's freeze the intro for the time being. -- Alecmconroy 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This disagreement is over what the second paragraph of the introduction should be
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to immoral discrimination.
(emphasis added)
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to illegal discrimination.
(emphasis added)
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discrimination.
Critics believe that these policies are wrong and are discrimination. The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these exclusionary policies are not discrimination, but simply adherence to membership standards.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these membership policies are essential because having atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals as members would impede its mission of instilling in young people the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law in order to prepare them to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong, and that having discriminatory membership policies instills bad values in Scouts and is unfair to those who are unable to participate.
The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission of instilling in young people the the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are unfair, politically incorrect, and bigoted.
I would like to see Proposed Version 3 used. -- evrik ( talk) 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)... are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". [1] [2]
There are some people who believe it is illegal, some people who believe it is wrong, some people who believe it is immoral, and some people who believe it is a combination of the above. The only thing that all these critics agree on is that it is discrimination. In any case, the above three qualities are all quite clearly judgmental, and any one of those adjectives ought to be sourced. Something along the lines of "Critics believe that this is discrimination, and some say that it is immoral (source) or illegal (source)." - Che Nuevara 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Version 2 is the best and most neutral version. The one change I would make is in the last sentence. "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory." Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree completly with Ramsquire. JBKramer 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
“ | The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory. | ” |
Seems like there's a fair amount of consensus behind what is currently label "version 2". (and please, no one change the labeling around :) ). That's the version that says has neither "immoral", "illegal" or "legal", but just says "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discriminatory."
I think the initial version is better, but I can certainly live with that one, no question asked. I think Jagz can live with it. (correct me if you object to it though Jagz). Evrik is the one who proposed it in the first place, so I think that he could live with it. Ramsquire thinks it's the optimal verison, and JBKramer has listed it as one of his two favorites.
Having seen so many independent eyeballs endorse dropping the word "immoral", I'm satisfied, therefore, that Version 2 is the consensus version, and I'd be cool with using that version and calling it good. If however, anyone wants to wait for more opinions, that's totally fine. For my part, however, I'm now satisfied that Version 2, the "compromise" solution Evrik, is not just a "compromise" but an actual consesus". -- Alecmconroy 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, my beef with immoral is that it leads towards violating some religious belief or something (e.g. fornication, adultery, etc. ). I could be wrong about that. "Wrong" doesn't have that connotation. However, simply using discriminatory accurately describes the position of the critics, and doesn't get into whether "immoral" is POV. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from the subject section: "The practice, presumably done to obtain more grant money and so that paid professional Scouters can retain their positions, may have been going on for years but only recently has it been reported by the media." Let's put in the findings of the various investigations and/or litigation on this issue instead. -- Jagz 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How about the idea of adding a section on historical membership controversies? It can mention racial segregation and how women were excluded from leadership positions, then just Scoutmaster positions before being being allowed to hold all positions. -- Jagz 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"The Boy Scouts give female adult leaders all of the privileges of male adult leaders. Although this was not true in decades past, the policy was instituted in response to a shortage of adult males willing to participate actively in running the troops. While many scouting adults do have their own children in the program, it is not necessary to have a child in the program to be actively involved with a scout unit.
Until 1954, the Boy Scouts of America was a racially segregated organization. Colored Troops, as they were officially known, were given little support from Districts, Councils and the national offices. Some scouting executives and leaders believed that Colored Scouts and Leaders would be less able to live up to the ideals of the Boy Scouts.
In the 1980s, some Boy Scout troops in the Eastern United States were involved in a scandal resulting in violence occurring on campout trips. In Virginia, a report surfaced that a scout had been badly beaten by fellow scouts at the Goshen, Virginia Boy Scout Camp. Further reports followed of bullying of younger scouts by older scouts, especially on prolonged outdoor trips where adult supervision was limited. Parents challenged the Boy Scouts attitude to such instances, since several adult leaders were quoted as saying that scouts in the field should "know how to take care of themselves" and that "natural horseplay" on campout trips was not a problem.
To prevent such incidents and other forms of child abuse, the BSA developed an extensive Youth Protection Plan in the mid-eighties that actively teaches both youth members and adult leaders in how to recognise, resist and report child abuse in both Scout and non-Scout venues. In addition, it provides tight requirements on adult leadership and activities to help ensure that Scouting is a safe venue for its participants. Several Scouts have been expelled from the organization for violence." -- Jagz 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"Quinnipiac Council v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 528 A.2d 352 (Conn. 1987) A female volunteer leader sued a Boy Scout council alleging that the then policy of limited Scoutmaster positions to men violated the Connecticut public accommodations law. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the public accommodations law did not apply to Scouting’s leadership positions because volunteering to serve youth was not a right protected under that law.
In 1988, Boy Scouts of America changed the policy and allowed women to be Scoutmasters." -- Jagz 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The article discusses the close ties between the Mormon church and the BSA but says nothing about the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the Roman Catholic Church sponsors a lot of troops, etc., however, I can't think of anything worthwhile to add to the article but maybe someone else can. -- Jagz 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I went through the whole article recently and did some rewording and reordered some of the sentences. -- Jagz 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Woman who opened doors to women in Boy Scout leadership dies: [2] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies from countries and regions around the world. -- Jagz 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The following comment was posted in the article so I moved it to the Talk page: -- Jagz 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
"During the 1970's and before, admitted atheists and agnostics were freely allowed to be members of Scouting and advance in rank up to and including Eagle Scout in many local scouting organizations at the local level. Many of these former scouts post messages on atheist, humanist, and agnostic websites to discuss their experiences in Boy Scouts."
I added a new section to the article called Break up of Explorer Scouts. -- Jagz 08:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Explorer Scouts are part of The Scout Association in the UK. In the BSA, the program is Exploring and is now part of the subsidiary Learning for Life. This happened almost 10 years ago, so it might better belong in the history. You might also want to define Exploring (Learning for Life) and Learning for Life. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know about Star Scouting America? [3] I wonder how many members they have, etc. -- Jagz 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ditto for Youthscouts [4]. BTW, it is interesting to note that Youthscouts used Wikipedia as a reference during their trademark dispute with the BSA. [5] -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I added the other Scouting groups to Scouting in the United States. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should update the "Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program" section, here's a site on the current status of that program: http://www.uuscouters.org/
Camp Fire USA is listed in the article as not excluding atheists. Is this true? See their Law below. -- Jagz 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The Camp Fire Law is:
Worship God.
Seek beauty.
Give service.
Pursue knowledge.
Be trustworthy.
Hold on to health.
Glorify work.
Be happy.
You are apparently not required to follow the law to be a member.
The Camp Fire USA Law, which dates from the first few years of Camp Fire, was originally the Wood Gatherer’s Desire. In 1942 the words “Worship God,” implicit in the whole statement, were explicitly given as the first item of the law. The word “law” is sometimes misleading, however. At no time in the organization’s history has a Camp Fire member been asked to take any oath or make any promise. The Camp Fire law is a desire or a goal, not an oath. We believe that children and youth are our most precious resources.
http://www.campfireusaihc.org/campfireusalaw.html There also doesn't seem to be any national policy of asking known atheists to leave. -- Erp 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What's the chance of this article ever appearing on the Main Page? -- Jagz 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Their new website is set to go live on 15 March 2007. References linking to the site should be checked at that point. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It has been over a month, but none of the referenced articles from Scouting for All are available. These are references 42, 52, 58, 59, 65 and 66- some fix needs to be made here. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
You can now get a BSA version of the game Monopoly. [6] -- Jagz 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
You can also get ones on birds, sports teams and almost every other subject. It's a specious argument. GCW50 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
What happened to the Coalition for Inclusive Scouting's website? [7] -- Jagz 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the subject section. Please don't use the Monopoly section to discuss items that should be in the subject section. -- Jagz 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it fair of the BSA to not allow certain segments of the US population to become members while maintaining a monopoly of Scouting for boys? -- Jagz 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Should I put a Fairness section in the article? -- Jagz 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What if the Ford Motor Company had sued General Motors and Chrysler to get them to stop using the words car, auto, automobile, and horseless carriage? How would GM and Chrysler have been able to remain competitive if they couldn't use those words? -- Jagz 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Federal charters are honorary titles that serve as a prestigious national recognition of an organization. [8] What were the reasons that the federal government granted the BSA a charter? -- Jagz 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The BSA charter is a bit more than honorary, as it adds an extra measure of protection to trademarks and copyrights. BTW- as I understand it, Boyce tried to get a charter in 1910 or so, but it got tied up with Hearst over some issue. West finally got the charter through in 1916 as part of his attempts to keep the BSA trademark from being diluted. Frankly, this is no different than any other corporation protecting its marks. The BSA has never gone after other youth organizations per se (and indeed helped to start the Camp Fire Girls), only after groups misusing a trademark. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the Girl Scouts is for girls and young women only is clearly stated in the Coeducational Scouting section that is linked in the Mainstream Scouting membership policies section. I believe I am the one who wrote it. It does not need to be included in the article again.
The Opposition to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies section is by design slanted against the BSA in the same way that the Support for the Boy Scouts of America section is slanted in favor of the BSA. The two sections were designed to balance each other out. I am opposed to anyone going into either of the sections and start trying to neutralize them or otherwise change the slant of the sections. -- Jagz 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The meat of this section is that the BSA is acting as a monopoly and keeping any other groups from using the Scouting program. As I noted above, the BSA 'must actively defend its trademarks or copyrights or those marks will become generic. This is no different from any other corporation such as Xerox, Disney or even Rotary International. This has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems to me to be a very insider point of view. Let me give an outsider view. First, the Spiral Scouts appear to be less exclusive. Second, I see it as fairly obvious that one thing an alternative Scouting organisation could do is allow brothers and sisters to be together in Cubs or Scouts, allowing the parents (and the community) to support one group not two. That is seen as a real plus here in Australia particularly in small rural communities. Third, if the BSA stopped its trademark and copyright protection, it would be like all (I suspect) other countries where the terms Scout, Scouting, Cub, Pinewood Derby, Jamboree, and Explorer are freely available. Is the BSA so vulnerable that it needs this protection. They would become "generic". So what? There is no "must" about it. The BSA does not have to have this protection. If having this protection "has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition", it sure helps, as any real alternative would be attacked and the new organisation who not be able to advertise itself as what it was - a Scouting organization. Well, I should not be commenting on the BSA but on the article. Everything I have said supports the view that a more outside view on BSA controversies would improve this article by making it more NPOV. I agree with you about sources. In "controversy" articles more than anywhere, everything must be sourced. -- Bduke 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I see the section has been retitled to Scouting in the United States. I still fail to see how this section relates to the membership of the BSA itself. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit filed by Youthscouts in U.S. District Court? [16] -- Jagz 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the first paragraph to:
"The Boy Scouts of America is by far the largest supplier of Scouting to boys in the United States of America. The BSA is the only Scouting association of significance in the United States that boys can join and there are no comparable alternative organizations available to them throughout most of the country. The situation is different in some other countries where a number of Scouting associations with varying membership criteria are available to boys."
Is the last sentence worded correctly? Should it say many other countries or some other countries? --
Jagz
10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Inclusive Scouting link from "External links" because it has not worked in quite a while. To maintain balance in the links, a link to a site critical of the Boy Scouts of America's policies should be added. -- Jagz 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to write this article so that it pleases everyone 100%. I think that a lot of effort has been put into making the article neutral overall. The article content is controversial as the article name states. -- Jagz 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason for my putting up the neutrality template was not because of GCW50's March 27 edits but because he stated that the article is biased and he has persisted in making pro-BSA edits for a period of time in excess of a year. He continues now even after the article has achieved featured article status and the edits have become more numerous recently. The last time he did this the article started looking like it was written by the BSA and that's when Alecmconroy rewrote it. After Alecmconroy's rewrite there was much work done to make the article NPOV overall so it could become a featured article. -- Jagz 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not normally like commenting on articles about Scouting in the US, but I have been following the various controversies for many years. If this article is biased in any way, it is biased towards the BSA not against. In general I think it does a good job of being NPOV. I would also comment that WP is not about truth but about what verifiable sources say. We should just be neutrally reporting the controversy not decided what is true. -- Bduke 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Are there any additional issues about article bias/neutrality that should be discussed now, while we're on the topic? -- Jagz 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Gays and atheists are minorities in the United States and it's an emotional issue with some in the majority so it's no surprise when you start throwing out numbers greater than 50%. Maybe we should put a section in on how churches brainwash people and if it wasn't for all that brainwashing that the numbers would be different. Stop using statistics to validate the oppression of minorities. I don't think we should try to put the name of every advocacy group into the article but since we are mentioning that people have created advocacy groups it is good to list some examples. I don't see comments from others agreeing with you on this Talk page. -- Jagz 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The Support for the BSA section sounds like the place where some of the things you are talking about should go. -- Jagz 21:23, 3 April 2007 (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. |
Thought I'd take a try at a draft of a roadmap to fixing it. I think that some "strategic level" consensus is needed to really make progress on fixing this article. Basically three steps:
North8000 ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, here's the draft:
The title is overall a little vague, but such is life. The title has two main qualifiers:
"Membership" implicitly that means: "restrictions on eligibility for membership". In practice the article expands this to "restrictions on eligibility for membership and leadership positions". Solution: let's just accept this and nail it down in a scope sentence. Do this so that this departure does not undermine that there is a scope for this article vs. full of random material.
In reality the article has expanded this qualifier into three areas
Scattered through the article, but much of this in the "Position on" Sections. Some (including myself) have argued that Wikipedia standards, plus the objectives of accurate NPOV coverage dictate that #2 be covered elsewhere, not in this article. Solution/compromise: Set this complaint aside in exchange for agreeing to getting the "Position on...." sections to be CURRENT BSA position on....... Include policies identified as such, whatever (that meets Wikipedian standards) that sheds ligth on this area such as practices in these areas, litigation in these areas (see note under "litigation section"
This is basically the whole "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" As much as I like this section and consider it to be informative, it really doesn't belong in this article and should go. First, it's outside of the "controversies" scope, not germane to the topic, and is inherently a POV magnet. It inherently argues one side of the "Is BSA too restrictive/OK/too lenient? controversey by selection of organizations for comparison of BSA to them.
These are cases where the reference number given for a statement either does not support the statement, or refutes the statement. Wherever these are the only references given for a contested statement, remove the statement and the reference (if not used elsewhere). To put the statement back in, one would need a cite that supports it.
These are sprinkled throughout the article. Wherever an unsupported contested implication of cause-effect is made, remove it, and putting it back in would require a supporting cite.
Coverage of litigaiton has numerous organizational issues. Even within the "litigation" section, half the litigation is "filed" under one system (by subject) the other half is "filed" under a different system (active vs. inactive)("inactive" apparently is a not-so-useful term meaning "Resolved" litigation.) And then some other other sections which need this material just badly duplicate it either sparsely/badly duplicate it. And other sections which need it (the BSA choice to fight something in court is certainly very germane to "Position on....." sections) don't have it or a reference to it. Solution: Put all litigation into the litigation section under categories germane the the article (probab; by issue: gender/homosexuality/atheism/agnosticism or alternately cagegorized by membership/leadership/access to facilities) Put the case names first for quick finding, and then other section of this article that "need" this litigation will say the case name and refer to the litigaiton section.
I suspect that this title was a sort of a typo. The logicians who figure out the title realize that nothing the section (or even the overall article) matches the title. Solution: Move everything in the section to more appropriate places elsewhere in this article, and delete this title.
The most common example is heavy use of the "www.BSADiscrimination.org" web site as a reference for factual material. Such references could be used objectively as examples of the controversies, but not as sources of factual material. Following one a reference to these usually leads to an op-ed piece with some apparent facts blended into it. Solution: The article relies on such type sources so heavily that removal of statements reliant on such sources would gut the article. If anybody knows the "BSA Discrimination.org" folks, possibly they could get the material claimed as factual separated from the material which is clearly Op Ed, then reference only the former for factual type statements, and reference the latter only as examples of the controversies. Alternately, take out only the contested statement that are reliant on such references, putting them back in would require an additional references or one which not so blatantly Op Ed material.
Generally, in this article coverage of opposition to BSA policies includes quotes or summaries of what the opposer said to support (give a basis for) their position, while coverage of groups supporting BSA policies has no quotes or summaries of what the supporter said (give a basis for) their position. Solution: Create balance in this area. 75.24.138.102 ( talk) 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- - - - End of "Proposal for Fixing this Article" Section - - - -
North8000 ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
So, let me read back first major point you're making. You're saying that currently, the article covers more than it should, i.e. it's scope is too wide. To fix this, it's proposed to:
Based on what I've heard so far, I think it would be a mistake to redefine the article scope in a way that excludes the recent history of the controversy and the perspective of the overall scouting movement. The past statements of BSA balance any claims that only "gay leadership" rather than "gay membership" is prohibited. The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting.
But in a larger sense, these elements-- the history, support and criticism from within Scouting, the sponsorship and funding backlashes, the backlash against the backlash, and all the other aspects of the subject-- these things are kind of what make it such a good encyclopedia article. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Alecmconroy. We are writing an encyclopedia. We should be covering all controversies that have been about the BSA and not just current ones. The question of women leaders, now resolved, is just as important as the question on gays, now not resolved. He is is correct on "The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting". It is only necessary to give the position of a few large Scouting associations, to demonstrate this point. It is one reason why there there is controversy and why some people do not accept the BSA position. They do not see that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting. North has argued for covering only the current BSA position, but this in, in my opinion, all wrong. The article is about controversies. We focus on those whenever they occurred and we give the BSA's position to show what people are disagreeing with. They can then be sourced by primary sources. The current position only needs to be covered to explain the controversy. The controversies have to be covered by independent sources. So the section should not be headed "Position on religion". It should be "Position on atheists and agnostics" because that is the controversy. "Position on religion" would have to be current. "Position on atheists and agnostics" should cover controversies at any time, and explain them by giving the BSA position at that time. Shifting the emphasis from controversies to positions is what was wrong with North's other article, now rightly deleted. Let us not make the same mistake here and try to change this article to be like the one that was deleted. NPOV on controversies does not mean giving the BSA position as such. That is too wide. It means giving all sides of the controversy. It is the controversy that determines what we say about the position of the BSA. The latter does not determine the former. That would indeed by POV. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This comment from the featured article review "The majority of the article (all but a tiny, unsourced paragraph at the end) focus on the issues of homosexuality, atheists and agnostics, all relatively recent issues. Information on the BSAs controversies with regards to race and gender are not explored at all, which they should be in an article that thoroughly covers the controversies of the membership of the organization." says something relevant to whether we cover history. I agree with the comment. It should cover all controversies about membership and I see "membership" including leaders. -- Bduke (Discussion) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Per the analysis at the beginning of my proposal, with respect to both a precise reading of the title and Wikipedian standards, about 70% of this article is out of scope. Not talking about anyone in particular, but my general impression from the last few weeks on this article is that the 70% is OK, as long as it conforms with a pre-conceived POV. But come in with 1% of basic matter-of-fact info that is much more germane to the article than most of the 70% and then everybody suddenly "finds religion" on scope to keep it out.
I think that we are debating certain items that we already all agree on (e.g. inclusion of history). And one area where there is some disagreement (inclusion of comparisons to other organizations) which I think can clearly get resolved. North8000 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) which leads to:
I think that being the object of current controversies, and ostensibly already being "covered" in the article, that the BSA policies/position in the areas which are the object of the controversy should be covered in clear, un-occluded, fact-laden, referenced section. And by "position" I don't mean providing a venue for BSA statements supporting their position/policies, I mean just the position / policies. Do y'all agree or disagree? North8000 ( talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I though I'd chrystalize a bare bones version of the toughest question and ask y'all to weigh in on it. My proposal would be to have two subsections that cover BSA written policies related to restriction on membership or leadership based on 1. homosexuality and 2. atheism/agnosticism. Any other material (commentaries, interpretation, paraphrasing, derivaitons) would be seperated so as to not confuse the issue of what those written policies are. The one on Atheistm/Agnosticism would be the 4 paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at [21]. The one on homosexuality would be the three paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp. And so my question to each of you is, would you say to "allow this" or "not allow this" ? North8000 ( talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Anybody else? North8000 ( talk) 13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)