Talk:Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPedophilia Article Watch (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles

If not deleted[edit]

If this doesn't get deleted this certainly / obviously would need to get renamed. Most appropriate would probably be Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain why the extra word matter one way or the other, but it seems really important to you and I see no difference. Thus, it is so moved. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the title I suggested and you just created yet another new article with yet another bad title. North8000 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved? I see the logic behind changing the name; the original title implied two distinct articles, the new one is more specific. No opinion on whether or not the page should be deleted. Jackson Peebles (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you move it to an upper case article name. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(article_titles)#Article_titles says that we should not use upper case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse article name. It is more than just the cases themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As worded (with the "and" in it) it is about (implies) the connection between the national organization and sex abuse cases or the national organization in conjunction with those cases. This has immense lack-of-scope, POV, and wp:notability problems. The title that I suggested had none of those problems. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing track as roughly each hour an article in the area is getting renamed, created, deleted or gutted. I just noticed that it changed again. What I see there as of this minute "Boy Scouts of America Sex Abuse Cases" doe not have these problems, but does need a tweak for WikiTitleCase. SO who knows what it will be an hour from now. North8000 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, had an edit conflict...the name just changed again, and for the better. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already getting a POV problem[edit]

I just gave the a couple of reads and looked at the trend in the edits and this is already getting a POV problem. There was a "their program program was been criticized"....it was criticized by a blog, and then the blog was given as a source. Which was spun. Leaving out the time of the incident (1980's) when copying the recent $ award story into the lead. This is already going badly. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gothamist isn't exactly a personal blog, but you're right that better sources are out there-- I've added the LA Times source. The fact that the jury award was the US record (for such cases) is a highly notable fact mentioned by multiple RSes , hence placement in the lede. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was a personal blog. But, as a note, its not just the format of the source, it's that the statement is that there has been such criticism. They are the one that said it, not a wp:rs secondary source that it is being said. Ditto for the LA Times which looks like an op ed. But if we stick to the core points with the less spin (as it has now) the I'm cool with it being in. I say less spin because even the focus on just that one aspect (date of starting universal requirement for background check) in a program that has been very stringent in a wide range of other areas since the 1980's is spin. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NO consensus after a month of discussion, closing Tiggerjay (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases → Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse or Sex abuse and the Boy Scouts of America – This page has gone a number of names (see one of the previous threads). I prefer the one that I am suggesting because the article is more that just about he cases themselves. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Beyond oppose My support for the retention of this article during the AFD we explicitly (to put it mildly) conditional on the current title as opposed to the problematic one which it was changed from which you now bring up. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sex abuse concerning the Boy Scouts of America ? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit clunky. I have made the additional suggestion of Sex abuse and the Boy Scouts of America. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support It makes sense to me for the title to be "Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse", since we do discuss the Youth Protection Plan in detail even though it's not a case. But North's "Beyond Oppose" suggests maybe the change would cause strife, while the current title is certainly not a bad title. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Child sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America. The main article is Child sexual abuse, and I presume the article is not covering adult-on-adult abuse, which does happen, but is apparently not newsworthy. "Cases" implies only a list of cases, where this should not be an indiscriminate list. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Gadget's idea as well as keeping the current name. Strongly oppose the other ideas, and most of them have severe flaws. The title was central to the decision to keep at AFD. A contentious title would quite properly mean a re-review at AFD. North8000 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number listed in opening[edit]

BSA seems to have fallen to kess than 700,000 youth over the last two years. The outdated numbers in the opening need to be addressed. On the other hand the 5 million plus numbers seen in the 1960s and 1970s are more relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BSA acronym[edit]

The Bank Secrecy Act is not to be confused with Boy Scouts of America. Criminal corruption is illegal to hide evidence. 97.118.207.247 (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bsa[edit]

Hello how can I find my claim? My name is James Lewis Allen when I fild it I was living in Livermore KY it's been a long time since then.this has made my life hell now that this is out I lost my wife over this life isn't I'm just lost please help 75.186.11.195 (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy in source[edit]

The second paragraph of the article uses a statistic that says that 1,000,000 cases were filed, but the source citing it lists it as 92,000. This seems like it may be a malicious edit, but I wanted to run it by others to see if that is correct. Benito Juarez 10 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources missing[edit]

I dont know of I am doing this right but under the youth protection programs there are gaps on the sources of what is being said. From when the program was initiated,how it was initiated, to lists if what the program entails aren't cited. The cdc citation is a broad program that the BSA contributed to doesn't say half of what the sections say. And perhaps it should be balanced with other o parties who say these things weren't infact implemented. Meemsworldwide (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_sex_abuse_cases&oldid=1206402773"