Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mormon Control of the Boy Scouts

Penn & Teller had an episode about the Boy Scouts in their B*** S*** series where they claimed that the Mormon church controls the Boy Scouts. This is, of course, hogwash. The Mormon church has embraced the Boy Scouts and church-sponsored troops are integrated into the church structure. However, while a Boy Scout leader in the church, I saw no sign of undue influence that the church had over the Boy Scouts as a whole. I was surprised to see nothing about this in the Wikipedia article. Is this issue worth discussing in the article? Rsduhamel (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The LDS Church does formally integrate the BSA programs into the church youth programs; that should be noted in a section on relationships or the like. I've seen the Penn & Teller episode, but I'm just not sure how to treat it as a reliable source. I have to find the numbers; I think the LDS Church is the chartered organization for the highest number of units, but is second on members. So, the LDS church probably wields a bit of weight at National and probably in some councils. There are snippets of information here and there, but I have never seen a comprehensive analysis of LDS influence. The church has discussed withdrawing from the BSA if membership is extended to gays. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you ever have dealings with the BSA in Utah or Southern Idaho, you'll run head on into the LDS involvement in the BSA. I wanted to join the BSA when I was a kid but my folks wouldn't go for it because the majority of the people in it in this area were Mormons in the late 70's and early 80's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.67 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Turns

In the section titled Good Turns, the first sentence reads:

"In 1913, Scouts began the first of a series of Good Turns that included the promotion of a safe and sane Fourth of July."

'Safe and sane' is a little wierd here, as I have only heard it used in sexual references. Type in 'safe and sane' in the wikipedia search and see what comes up. I would change it to just 'safe', but I didn't know if it was an actual reference that existed in 1913. Perhaps someone has an idea? AndyHuston (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That was the actual term used. Here is the BSA Fact sheet: [1] and Google actually returns a myriad of hits: [2]. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for, by TX Gov. Rick Perry

Folks, Texas Governor Rick Perry has just come out (Feb 12, 2008) with a book relevant to this page. Consider if/how it should be added. Here's a link to On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for:

http://www.amazon.com/My-Honor-American-Values-Fighting/dp/0979646227/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203610744&sr=8-2

I learned about this listening to WABC radio, 11AM hour, Feb 21, 2008, interview of Gov. Rick Perry by radio talk show host John R. Gambling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent Deletion of "POV" Material

Although it's pretty clear that much of recently deleted material was POV, was all the text removed inappropriate? It seems that some of the material was worded in a relatively neutral fashion, and could legitimately belong in the "Membership controversies" section (which definitely needs expansion). Would it be OK if some of this text was re-added to the article? ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything that's wiki policy compliant is okay. That said, everyone knows the BSA is a target of some people who oppose the BSA's refusal to bow to political pressure. Therefore, this BSA article becomes like a magnet for those who wish to brush aside wiki policy for the more important goal, to them, of further besmirching the BSA. Even relatively neutral language can add up to obvious POV and violations of other wiki policy. As a matter of wiki policy, this article should not appear like a bulletin board for people opposed to the BSA. So do whatever you would like, but just try your best to keep this article wiki complaint. And I'm just another editor like you, so give this comment as much or as little credence as you wish. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Bad turn" material was a cut and paste of the entire article Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. That article is properly summarized and linked from this article. If you are trying to propose a merge, be aware that the section grew to the point here where it was forked to the controversies article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention a copy/paste of that nature is vandalism and obvious bad faith. Putting that all here took this way beyond max article size limits. THe Controversies article is even a FA. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, further, after looking at the removed material I had another idea. The gripes of people are not encyclopedic. For example, the American Library Association page has some controversy, but it does not go into detail, no matter how neutral, about the ALA's support for the Cuban dictator, the ALA's opposition to the BSA, the ALA's opposition to the Bush administration policies, the ALA's election fraud when it purposefully left off conservative librarian names from internal election ballots, the ALA's refulsal to assist conservative librarians, the ALA's coverup of massive criminal activity, the ALA's awarding of books containing oral sex with awards for children as young as twelve, the Office for Intellectual Freedom's refusal to comply with state Supreme Court rules, and on and on. Now it looks like I added that to take a dig at the ALA. No. In this case it is used to illustrate what should not happen on this BSA page. The removed material, no matter how neutrally written, read like a list of grievances against the BSA just like the list of grievances against the ALA I just provided. Yet the ALA page is not bristling with such grievances. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to make the BSA page bristle with such grievances. Please keep that in mind too. Better, add a wiki worthy source having a web site listing such grievances (perhaps the ACLU?), and that should make everyone happy while being wiki complaint. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All good points! But having the "Membership controversies" section be only a few lines long? I don't know if that's NPOV. Yes, the entire article that deals exclusively with the criticisms and controversies should definitely not be incorporated here. However, it pays to provide an effective summary, instead of a mere couple of lines. This holds especially true for this article, because the controversies page is very detailed, and includes many more topics than just the ones currently listed here. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In theory, the summary in the article should be the same as the lead in the main article; see WP:SS. In practice, editors fiddle with one and never update the other. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the few sentences, particularly since they point to 4 separate references, and, on top of that, a link to an entirely separate page just chock full of BSA controversies. As Homologeo stated, "the controversies page is very detailed, and includes many more topics than just the ones currently listed here." So the link to that page does the job perfectly. I am against summarizing on this page what is "very detailed" on another page that's prominently linked here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, what's your take on having the summary intro of the Controversies article replace the text within the section we're currently considering on this page (per above suggestion by Gadget850)? Would this work? All we would have to do is copy/paste what's already prepared and deemed NPOV by many editors. ~ Homologeo (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As Gadget pointed out, this summary section is often changed and the controversies article lead is too and people don't update the other, usually. This has probably been going on for two years now. The crux of the issue is what constitutes a "summary". WP:SS does not require a direct copy of the sub article's lead--that would sometimes be bad article writing and may require minor tweaks, but it does call for an adequate summary. So again, what is an adequate summary, that is the question. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

this is one of the cases where wholesale copy and paste of the lead for Controversies into BSA would be bad writing style. The Controversies lead contains many statements which arguably supply necessary context for the Controversies article ("the BSA is largest youth group in US" for example) but which are clearly redundant with material already in the BSA article. Lasalle202 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Homologeo, I agree with the above two comments. However, I'm just another editor like you. So long as you comply with wiki policy which should mean the article is well written and encyclopedic, I'll support it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just expanded this section by incorporating parts of the summary intro of the "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies" article. Everything has been blended together, so that only necessary info has been copied. What do other editors think of this? ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The phrase "In recent years, policy disputes have led" seems rather vague and I would like it rephrase it (and the sentance in the Controversies article) something like: "The discriminatory membership policies have led" or "These membership policies have led", but I am not opposed to the current content. Lasalle202 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, I've changed it to "These membership policies have led...", as you suggested. Going one step farther, I would further propose that the previous sentence in Membership controversies be changed from "its openly discriminatory membership policies..." to something more NPOV, say "its restrictive membership policies...", especially since the piped link to Discrimination refers to a "generally illegal act in Western democracies". JGHowes talk - 02:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
"Restrictive membership policies" does sound more NPOV. Please feel free to make that change. ~ Homologeo (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for, by TX Gov. Rick Perry

Folks, Texas Governor Rick Perry has just come out (Feb 12, 2008) with a book relevant to this page. Consider if/how it should be added. Here's a link to On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for: [3] --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the book, bu I have seen some discussions, what points are relevant to this article? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI- I just added the full book cite, including the official website to Rick Perry. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Organization

This is a rough draft of proposed reorganization. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

  1. Origins
  2. Ideals
  3. Methods
    1. Uniform and insignia
    2. Advancement and recognition
    3. Publications (or perhaps under 'Activities' < and rename Activities?)
  4. Membership divisions
    1. Units and chartered organizations
    2. Scoutreach
    3. Scouting for the handicapped
    4. Other divisions
  5. Organization
    1. National Council
      1. Federal charter
    2. Regions and areas
    3. Local councils
      1. Boroughs
      2. Districts
  6. Activities <perhaps this needs to be renamed?
    1. National Scouting Museum
    2. Learning for Life
  7. Finance
  8. Impact on American life
    1. Good Turns
    2. Membership controversies <perhaps under Membership

Lasalle202 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I prefer Gadget's new one. Also, "Boroughs" is not important nor long enough to warrant a separate section. It should be a paragraph or at the end of a para in the section on councils/districts. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Publications are not one of the methods of Scouting, nor is it an activity; the magazines come under the Publications Group and could probably be placed under other divisions.
  • ScoutReach and other divisions are not membership. Membership could go under organization, but it is central to the article and needs to come early.
  • Learning for Life is a non-Scouting subsidiary of the BSA; this could probably be a separate section after membership divisions.
  • Districts should come under councils, as they have no separate legal status.
  • I'm really not quite sure where to place Scouting for the handicapped. It really is not a separate program, as all except Lone Scouts are integrated into the unit. It might work better in the membership articles.
--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a few changes to my organization. Ideals are part of methods; the methods section needs a lot of work, as each division has different ideals and other methods. I am considering that we just want to chop this down to a universal aims section. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The level specific stuff can go into those articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • sounds good to me. --evrik (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I refined the organization a bit. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure I follow the reasoning on equating "ideals" and "methods". For instance, an ideal is to train young men in leadership, whereas the method is the troop patrol (in Boy Scouts). I'd suggest that the section Origin and history follow the Lead, then Ideals and purposes next. If we're going to have 3 major sub-divisions following (Cubs, Boy Scouts, LFL), the methods specific to each should go there, shouldn't they? JGHowes talk - 04:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In this context, ideals are part of the methods:
    • Methods of Cub Scouting: Ideals (Cub Scout Promise, Law of the Pack...), den, advancement, family involvement, activities, home and neighborhood centered, uniform.[4]
    • Methods of Boy Scouting: Ideals (Scout Oath, Scout Law...), patrols, outdoor program, advancement, association with adults, personal growth, leadership development, uniform.[5]
    • Methods of Venturing: Leadership, group activities, adult association, recognition, ideals (Venturing Oath, Venturing Code...), high adventure, teaching others.[6]

--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 08:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point. Perhaps it would be better to discuss the aims and purposes of Scouting and leave the methods for the membership articles. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvements

  • Lead- this needs to be gutted and rewritten.
 Done JGHowes talk - 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • References- there are too many primary references to the BSA web sites; we need to look for alternatives.
  •  Done Membership divisions- change to "membership", add section on membership requirements and move controversy section here. If the controversy section is more near the top, perhaps folks won't start stuffing in redundant material. Move Scouting for the handicapped here.
  • Added: Impact on American life - significant expansion using reliably sourced content.
 Done JGHowes talk - 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)...added to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, I'm starting to nibble at the Lead and also organizing notes from some books on Scouting for good WP:RS cites. JGHowes talk - 19:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, instead of the article saying there are 3 divisions of Scouting and listing LFL in a separate section, wouldn't it be more accurate and better-organized to list all 4 divisions (including LFL) under the Membership section, with sub-sections for Cubs, Boy Scouts, Venture, and LFL each having {{main}} or {{further}} sub-section hats? That would also help in addressing the membership controversy issue, following your suggestion to move it here, because the membership requirements differ so, depending on division. JGHowes talk - 19:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Good ideas. I will dig out my books this weekend. Moving LFL up is good, but not as a membership division- it is a subsidiary (I still think the BSA should spin it off entirely, but that is another issue.) The divisions and sub-divisions are already linked and bolded, so I don't think we need hatnotes here. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


  • The article seems to be missing any mention of controversy, which ought to be corrected asap. An article on the Boy Scouts program should not go without addressing issues of homosexuality/religion in the organization. --Callie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Callielo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you actually read the article? This is a serious question, as I would really like to know how you missed the section that was just moved up from the end of the article so folks would see it more readily. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've completed a draft rewrite of the Lead here for a more complete overview per WP:LEAD and to make it more interesting for the reader. There are fairly numerous inline citations because of the contentious nature of the subject that would likely be challenged otherwise. How does this look? JGHowes talk - 21:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Affiliated Organizations

It might be useful to list some of the affiliated organizations of the BSA, including some of the biggest sponsors and contributors, as well as some of the original affiliations. I heard something the other day about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints being affiliated with the BSA, but I found nothing here about that. I found this page discussing it: http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5169-1,00.html

Furthermore, here is a list from the BSA of "Chartered Organizations and the Boy Scouts of America": http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-507.aspx Mmortal03 (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point. Those references are a bit general, I would like to see some specific numbers as to the biggest sponsors and contributors. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like it would make a good topic for a list article.Lasalle202 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Applebome says in Scout's Honor (ISBN 0-15-100592-3) that as of 2003, one-third of Scouts nationwide are in troops chartered to Methodist, Catholic, and Mormon churches. That year, there were 412,864 Scouts in Methodist-chartered troops, 410,805 in Mormon-chartered troops, and 376,000 in troops sponsored by Catholic churches. There were 33,272 Mormon units compared to 12,102 Methodist units, so evidently the average unit size is much greater in Methodist-sponsored troops. I plan to incorporate this kind of information in the "Impact on American life" section JGHowes talk - 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone on Scouts-L just found it at P.R.A.Y.: [7] I will work up a chart of the top 25. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Chartered organizations

BSA membership as of December 2007
Organization Packs Cub youth Troops Scout youth Crews Vtr youth Total units Total youth
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 9959 135115 18726 199141 8028 66473 36713 400729
United Methodist Church 5307 232758 5201 125989 1187 9673 11695 368420
Roman Catholic Church 4617 189985 3878 97185 905 10141 9400 297311
Parent-teacher groups
other than PTA		 3911 162534 874 21527 340 8671 5125 192732
Groups of citizens 2454 85060 1249 24297 1035 20159 4738 129516
Baptist churches 2114 69296 1969 33813 350 3467 4433 106576
Lutheran churches 1875 71680 1888 46834 436 3710 4199 122224
Presbyterian churches 1531 68556 1893 53031 408 3514 3832 125101
Business and industry 1432 42328 931 17298 1096 13712 3459 73338
Private schools 1568 46883 698 15171 804 30458 3070 92512
American Legion 1248 45762 1220 23023 311 4130 2779 72915
Lions Clubs International 1288 48539 1224 24174 190 1996 2702 74709
Other community organizations 922 30192 680 14671 814 16421 2416 61284
Parent-Teacher Associations 1779 73075 330 6336 41 971 2150 80382
Community centers 725 17521 509 9268 211 4444 1445 31233
Rotary International 625 27061 618 15570 179 3225 1422 45856
Fire departments 607 21636 583 11499 217 1889 1407 35024
United Church of Christ 565 24039 653 16224 119 966 1337 41229
Episcopal Church 551 24167 608 17261 161 1666 1320 43094
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 571 21648 584 12038 131 1027 1286 34713

62% of all units are now sponsored by a religious organization. ----— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding! I've incorporated this into the Units and chartered organizations section. JGHowes talk - 04:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

International

Need some material on how the the BSA interacts with WOSM and with other NSOs. Some points off the top of my head are helping to regrow Scouting in Europe after WWII and helping Scouting after the fall of the USSR. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points, but is that better here or in the History of BSA article? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LFL membership

I finally found the 2007 traditional membership.[8] Anyone have Learning for Life membership? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical difference, but there are no LFL members. There are LFL participants. I will see if I can find any data on number of participants. IanCheesman (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Any luck on participantship? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't found anything in the various records, etc. that I could find on my at this time. I have sent some requests to some people I know on various national committees to see if they have anything that would help. Unfortunately I haven't really been involved with LfL since 1998 (when I switched my focus from Exploring to Venturing), so I'm not "in the loop". I shall continue to try and find some more information, but I do not have any real idea on when I will be able to find any solid data. Sorry IanCheesman (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Found it. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins

Since the Origins section has become an issue, I have opened it up to restart discussion. Here is the article as it was when it was put up for FAC,[9] after I expanded the Origins section,[10] and as it is today.[11]

My particular concerns with the current version are:

  • Scouting did not begin until 1907, so there could not have been decades of development.
  • The BSA was not a merger of three older organizations; the three groups noted were older by only a few months and merged into what was already a larger, more national, but disorganized organization.
  • This new statement is simply not supported by the reference and it removes the previous context of Progressivism in the United States. The Origins section should be a summary of content developed in Scouting in the United States and History of the Boy Scouts of America.
  • experiential education does not seem very relevant to Scouting; perhaps for Exploring and Learning for Life, but that is much later
  • "scouting (not Scouting) in the United States" makes no sense to me.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, revert and merge. The "expanded origins" version (#2) is reliably sourced and is the most accurate. The arguments enumerated above hit the nail on the head. The current version is largely OR and a synthesis of unconnected events not supported by any reliable source I know of. In fact, is there a single reliable source referring to late-19th century youth programs by the term wikt:scouting, per se? In 19th century usage, there were army scouts, Indian scouts, wagon train scouts, etc., but no youth program called scouts.
Looking at what other encyclopedias say, in the World Book Encyclopedia we find:
"History of Boy Scouts. The Scout movement was founded in England by Sir Robert Baden-Powell (later Lord Baden-Powell) in 1908. It was brought to the U.S. by W.D. Boyce..."[ref: BSA in World Book Encyclopedia, Chicago: Field Enterprises (1958), p. 951].
B-P was the first to use "Scouting" as applied to a youth movement in 1907 at Brownsea, and codified with the publication of Scouting for Boys in 1908. He may have used it somewhat earlier, but only by a year or so. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would go a step further, and suggest that Scouting in the United States be merged into this article, because Scout is a BSA tradename and that separate article referring to non-BSA Scouting has confused the issue and given rise to the current dispute. JGHowes talk - 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Gadget850 and JGHowes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. "Scout" is a trademark shared between the BSA and the GSUSA. The Scouting for Girls section in Scouting in the United States is in need of major expansion; I have little reference material for Girl Scouting. There is a lot of other content not appropriate for the BSA article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The merge is not a good idea as Gadget says. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Done. Edit as needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

BSAseries

The BSAseries box is redundant with the navboxes and causes clutter. I would rather see a BSA navbox. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

BSA dishonesty

It is my contention that the BSA has exhibited a disregard for honesty which is incompatible with their alleged values, and this fact is both notable and verifiable. Present your counterarguments here. Also, the claim that "The BSA seeks to train youth in responsible citizenship..." has no cite, and reinserting without a cite is therefore vandalism, and therefore my removal of it is not subject to the 3RR. Furthermore, labeling the values that the BSA teaches "responsible citizenship" is blatant POV and is completely indefensible.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) I see that other people consider themselves to have the right to revert other people's edits without discussing them. Note to editors: the "reliable source" policy clearly states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In other words, if the only cite you can find for the claim that the BSA teaches responsible citizenship is the BSA itself, that's not a valid cite.Heqwm2 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An edit by Heqwm2 has just been reverted with the comment "due to OR and manifest POV". Now I agree that there is some POV here, but our job is to work to a NPOV by covering all the POVs in a balanced and calm way. There was also some OR in the edit that was reverted. Nevertheless Heqwm2 has a point, although he has put it badly. The Fox News source is clearly one source for what I believe is a fact that the BSA has said in court that it is a religious organization and said on other occasions that it is not. It is also quite clear to me that many people in the US have accused the BSA of dishonest. Heqwm2 is right. This should be mentioned on wikipedia, but not in the way he has done it. It wants good reliable calm sources, not from blogs where people are driving their agendas. I think such sources will exist, but from here I can not easily find them. I suggest that the edit be added here on the talk page and a discussion started about transforming it into a shorter better and NPOV expression of this view that the BSA has been dishonest. Remember that defending the BSA is a POV too. We need some outside calm eyes. At least I am not in the BSA or indeed any Scout organization, but I am very involved with the Scouting Project. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Bduke, there are several issues here, including 3RR and WP:NOTSOAPBOX for what Heqwm2 himself states is his "contention" and thus POV. The edit was reverted as OR because it essentially is the author's synthesis of blogs and opinionated sources to support his contention. As noted elsewhere, the question of inconsistency in BSA's representation of its nature as a non-sectarian organization needs to cite reliable sources analyzing the court cases, etc.
As you know, the article already has a Membership controversies section with a hatnote to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies (a Featured Article), where consensus enabled FA status. It would make sense for this aspect of the larger controversy about BSA's membership policy excluding atheists to be incorporated therein, to avoid WP:UNDUE. JGHowes talk - 06:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but it does not make this issue go away. As for putting it in the membership controversies articles, I think that article, after a lot of work, is doing a good job, but Heqwm2 is talking about dishonesty. That does come up under membership, but it is much wider. The question really is whether the BSA, and perhaps other large Scout Associations around the world, act as the corporate world often acts, i.e. dishonestly, or whether such large organizations can actually work in the spirit of B-P. Heqwm2 is correct that the BSA often acts like the former and this needs to be faced. However, it needs to be faced calmly and with good sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We agree that the criticism of BSA's stance needs to be covered and not swept under the rug. Sources in mainstream media such as the New York Times or Newsweek, etc., if such articles can be found, would be helpful. POV'ish section titles such as "Dishonesty" must be avoided, however. In the meantime, I've added a mention of this to the litigation over BSA use of public facilities already noted in the Membership controversies section. JGHowes talk - 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think that that "contention" and "POV" are in any way synomynous, then you have no business editing on the English version of Wikipedia. The idea that merely by presenting the claim for discussion I have given license for it to be dismissed as "POV" is offensive and goes against the very core of WP. I've asked for responses to my assertions, and what have I gotten?

3rr
3rr is a rule that deals with editors, not content. Please don't waste my time with idiotic responses.
not a soapbox
This is simply a restatement of the POV claim, with no support
contention=POV
Bullshit. Contention=proposed edit that I presenting for discussion. So all are proposed edit POV, or just the ones that editors agree to discuss?
author's synthesis
Again, bullshit. My edit consisted entirely of direct quotes and the statement that people have questioned the BSA's dishonesty. If that's OR, then 99.9% of WP is OR.
The sources are opinionated.
They are stating that the BSA is dishonest, and that the BSA is dishonest is fact. Furthermore, one of my cites is of BILL O'REILLY. Opinionated, yes, but in the BSA's FAVOR. If even BILL O'REILLY acknowledges the BSA's dishonesty, how in the world can anyone dispute it?
We need to have court case analysis.
??? Since when is WP content based solely on court cases?
There’s already a membership controversies section
One, having all the positive claims in the main article and all the criticism in another article is obvious POV. Two, this is only tangentially related to the membership issue. Three, I tried to add it to the membership article anyway, and it was deleted.
This violates undue weight.
The entire article is about how wonderful the organization is. Putting in ONE SECTION of opposing points of view is not “undue weight”. Given that the entire putative mission of the BSA is to promote good morals, the weight that is due to the fact that they’re liars is pretty damn high. If the American Lung Society secretly owned a tobacco company, wouldn’t that fact deserve very prominent mention?
We agree that the criticism of BSA's stance needs to be covered and not swept under the rug.
The issue is not merely the stance, but the fact that the stance is being supported through dishonesty.
POV'ish section titles such as "Dishonesty" must be avoided, however.
It’s not “POV” to refer to dishonesty as dishonesty.

Your position is simply rife with hypocrisy. The article as a whole has glaring pro-BSA POV. It even has an entire section devoted to “Good Turns” (with the "POV-ish" title). The term “boy scout” is used in American parlance to mean “a person devoted to a high standard of ethics”. This is even mentioned in the article: “The term "Boy Scout" is used to generally describe someone who is earnest and honest, or who helps others cheerfully; it can also be used as a pejorative term for someone deemed to be overly idealistic”. If this fact is notable, then the fact that it is based on a false belief is also notable. When I try to mention their dishonesty, you demand court cases, nationwide coverage, and other high standards of proof. But for the claim that the BSA teaches good citizenship, the mere fact that the BSA claims to teach good citizenship is enough. This article is the literary equivalent of a blow job.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"This article is the literary equivalent of a blow job." What a profound and insightful way to get people to engage in discussion and working toward a solution. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the very fact that I am expressing an opinion that differs from your own establishes that my opinion is not worth listening to.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's not that you disagree, it's your behavior, distortion and POV pushing. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Let's take a look at the core of the last addition by Heqwm2; my comments are highlighted:

Allegations of Dishonesty

- Numerous people have accused the BSA of violating its alleged principles.

  • "Numerous" is a vague term as well as a weasel word; looking at the rest of this content, "numerous" appears to be four.

Brian Miller writes:

-

Although it must be said that the increasing amount of distortion and outright lies that BSA and their supporters have been using to justify the ban underscores the fact that it has no purpose other than to demonize gay people.http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2006/10/kolbe-targeted-right-wing-lies-twice.html

- - Bill O’Reilly said:

-

On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion."

-

However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html
  • I read the article. This content cherry picks a selected section of the article and takes it out of context.

- - A blogger identified as Matt wrote:

-

Almost every principle of the Scout Oath and Law was broken by those who handled my dismissal from the Scouting program.

-

They should be ashamed of the lies and plain, outright, un-Scout-like behavior.http://www.interstateq.com/archives/2087/

- - Austin Cline wrote:

-

Defenders of the bigotry endemic to the Boy Scouts of America insist that only atheists are excluded by the religion clause in the scout laws — they insist that the duty to “God” can be interpreted broadly. This case demonstrates that this disingenuous defense isn’t really true.

-

The Buchheims said [Troop 71 Scout Master Gene] Doherty told them that if Cody had lied about his faith, the boys could have remained with no problem. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/05/15/boy-scouts-wiccans-not-welcome-liars-just-fine.htm

-

There are a lot of people in America who support the Boy Scouts. When they attempt to support the Scouts' policies of discrimination, however, they almost never do so honestly.
  • Another blog, but Cline might be considered reliable. I can't find his credentials, nor do I see that he has ever published anything, but he does seem to be well considered in the atheist community. The single incident depicted was a situation where individual volunteer leaders rejected Scouts because of their religion; extending this to BSA as a whole is fallacious.

- - When discussing an article written by a BSA member and hosted on a BSA website, Cline refers to the author as an “outright liar”. http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/05/04/misleading-defense-of-boy-scouts-bigotry.htm

  • A blogger giving his opinion on an opinion piece originally published as a newspaper editorial.
  • You have ignored my comments in the past (even advice that would have helped you), but I'm going to take one more stab at this. Take these sources over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask them to check them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You accuse me of "cherry-picking", but give absolutely no justification for that charge. And as my edit merely says that people have accused the BSA of dishonesty, rather than saying that they are dishonest, quotes of people accusing the BSA of dishonesty clearly establish the truth of my claim.Heqwm2 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"violating its alleged principles" is rather odd to begin with; it seems like a convoluted double negative. "numerous" is vague. As to cherry-picking: the article in question presents several points of view; you quoted one section that supports your argument. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone should probably tell you, since it appears you are unaware, but your opinion doesn't matter at all. John Reaves 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
That was not called for, please, let us all discuss this with civility. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
My point being, no ones opinion matters here. We are here to convey the facts in a neutral fashion. John Reaves 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Technically correct, but the original statement seemed harsh. 'Nuff said. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"As to cherry-picking: the article in question presents several points of view; you quoted one section that supports your argument." That's not what cherry picking means. If it were, then every single cite would be cherry-picking. How does the context give a different meaning?Heqwm2 (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I don't want to get in an edit war over belief issues, so I'm making a note here. The reliability of the Boy Scouts' handbooks as a source for their teachings has been called into question. I think it seems like a good enough source, describing their policies. This seems to apply whether one agrees with the polices or not - they are still the policies. Josh3580talk/hist 00:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, the orgs own teachings and policies are fine. A handbook clearly shows what an organization is teaching. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If the handbook says that members should be honest, and one of their websites includes outright lies, doesn't "actions speak louder than words" apply? The idea that the handbook of an org and its actual policies are identical is quite naive.Heqwm2 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that the handbook says what their intentions are. If you think these intentions are not fulfilled in practice you need a good third-party reliable source from someone who has made that point. Just asserting it is so is original research. Sourcing something you think is not honest and drawing that conclusion is also original research. You would have to reference a source that had draws that conclusion. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the handbook says what they claim their intentions are. I have a third part reliable source saying that the BSA is defended dishonestly, yet my claim was deleted anyway. When someone writes an article that flat-out lies about an issue involving the BSA, and the BSA hosts that article on one of their websites, what do YOU think is a statement regarding that fact that is consistent with WP policies? There are two issues here. First is the article claiming that the BSA promotes responsible citizenship. There, the burden of proof is not on me. The BSA clearly is promoting dishonesty. All the handbooks in the world don't trump the fact that the BSA is not only countenancing its members flat out lying about issues, but they are providing a forum specifically to repeat those lies. People who have even the slightest concern for honesty simply don't do those sort of things. The second is the positive claim that the BSA is dishonest. For that, I have reliable cites.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Please provide here your reliable sources. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I provided my sources in my edit.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations in Lead

The edit summary here is not entirely correct based on the content of WP:Lead section#Citations "information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasalle202 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A well-written lead, since leads are summaries, will require few, if any citations. As summaries, the details and refs will be in the body, usually. I will agree that a detail in the lead that is not in the body will need a ref. My edit summary was just a general rule of thumb (ask the FA directors for confirmation). If the lead contains lots of details, it's not a summary. In the case of this BSA article and the tags in question-it is a summary, so the cite tags are not warranted. That being said, I will agree there are cases where lead refs are needed as in the pre-existing ones here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So if items in the summary don't need cites, why are my edits being reverted on the basis of not having "acceptable" cites?Heqwm2 (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and the reverts. My opinion is you are pushing a POV. And removing that whole paragraph was not swift. My suggestion is to use the Talk page where you start to see resistance, as you are now. Good. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

BSA organizational changes

The BSA is making a number of organizational changes. Before making additions to the article, we need to wait until these shake out and we can get sources. A new org chart for the National volunteer organization has been published on the Se Scouting site.[12] (3MB) As I understand it, the membership programs are now under the Outdoor Adventures committee. Since this only shows Sea Scouts, the relationships are unclear. This may be a preliminary chart. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Explorer Scouts Not Mentioned

The paragraphs in the "Membership" section do not mention Explorer Scouts, although Varsity Scouts are included under the Boy Scouts Division and Sea Scouts are included under the Venturing Division. A brief history of the Divisions and subdivisions would be useful as well. Can someone fill in the missing information? Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 19:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)tofman

Read the Membership section further on and you will find Exploring under Learning for Life— those two articles will fill you in on the major changes to the Exploring program that I think you have missed. This article is about the BSA at the National corporate level, and only gives an overview about each membership division— each of the linked articles is more in-depth. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America/Archive_4&oldid=1143900219"