Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 3

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

Other United States Scout organizations

I propose moving this to List of Scouting organizations in the United States. Then we can include all of the other Scouting and Scout-like associations. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

How many are there? I wouldn't like to see a list with just five entries. --Smack (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

More than I thought. See User:Gadget850/Sandbox3. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good starting point. Lists tend to grow like mushrooms after a rainshower, often by becoming crufty. I think this one is likely to attract many small-time, non-notable organizations. However, the corresponding section of this article hasn't done so (in fact, I think it has fewer entries now than it did a year ago), so I'm willing to support this split. --Smack (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a few updates. I added Exploring, Traditional Scouting and Alpha Phi Omega so we can start to clean out the See also list. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm rm'ing this section, ZHP stmt contradicts article and the other two can go in See also or the main body.Rlevse 14:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rovers are a historical subject, so it rather sticks out. I just found Scouting in the United States- we can expand this to include the stuff in User:Gadget850/Sandbox3. The ZHP article does have sites for groups in the US, so they should be included, but without the "not connected" statement. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Rovers could have a para for sure, but I think a list is bad form, my 2 cents is to put them back in the body if it's expanded. The ZHP is not a part of BSA AFAIK, so I don't even think they should be in the main article. RR is a definite See also for the same reason.Rlevse 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That is the point- the list is not a BSA list, but a list of Scouting, Scouting related and Scout-like organizations in the US. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is on the BSA, I simply think RR and such is better in See also. If you really want it in the main body, please make it prose, not a list as if this ever goes for FA, it'll get pinged most likely. Another option is a "Scouting in the United States" article, where all Scouting related orgs would be covered, then a short summary para with a main link would be the way to go. On another note, this made GA today and was improved in the process, my whole goal. Congrats on a fine article, Gadget!Rlevse 15:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's back up. I do not want Rovers, ZHP and the other stuff in this article, nor do I want them in See also as they really have nothing to so with the BSA. I want them in a separate article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

fine with me, looks like we crossed wires-;).Rlevse 16:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold - Specifics

The article is well-written and well organized. But if you're using in-line citations than all sections should have some citation in them, or you should maintain a notes section as different from a more general reference section that might include more general sources rather than citing each statement or paragraph - unless of course you're working towards FA. The following sections or sub-sections are lacking citation: Origins, all of Ideals except the portion about the left-handed handshake, four of the sections in Organization, National Scouting Museum, Advancement and Recognition, and Other United States Scout Organizations. Mocko13 02:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Concerns addressed. Thanks and good work. Mocko13 13:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for watching so close, I was about to leave a msg!Rlevse 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Advancement and recognition

I rewrote this yesterday. Please review it as my eyeballs are getting a bit tired on this one. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Soccer and Scouting

Should the article discuss Soccer and Scouting? [1] --Jagz 02:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, if so, then why not football/wrestling/tennis etc and Scouting.Rlevse 02:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the link- this is for the BSA Soccer and Scouting program. Yes, it should be mentioned. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the BSA chose soccer as a way of attracting Hispanics to Scouting. --Jagz 13:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, DOH on me, if it's an official program, I think it's okay.Rlevse 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is part of ScoutReach- I expandeded that and split it to a section. Frankly, it could become an article in its own right someday. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It is an offical program. Often used in the Scout Reach division of a council; however, standard districts may use the program for a unit. The focus is on Hispanics as it has been found that soccer will attract them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackannapolis (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Religious principles

Should the article discuss the BSA's religious principles? --Jagz 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

● Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, § 1, cl. 1 “The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of good citizenship should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life.”

● Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, § 1, cls. 2-4. “The activities of the members of the Boy Scouts of America shall be carried on under conditions which show respect to the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion, as required by the twelfth point of the Scout Law, reading ‘Reverent. A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.’”

“In no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denominations or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church.”

“Only persons willing to subscribe to these declarations of principles shall be entitled to certificates of leadership in carrying out the Scouting program.”

I have been considering this, especially since several religious articles have crept into See also. It probably should go under Ideals. It is specifically noted on the adult and youth applications, so the BSA does give it some weight. Let me think on this a bit more. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am totally confused as to whether we are eligible for boy scouts or not. We are neopagan. I wish there were more religious clarification. What about Hindus? If they are ok, we should be ok, but I can't find anything on if Hindus are allowed in either.

All that is required is a belief in a higher power. I know for a fact Unitarians and Hindu can join. Hindus have a religious medal recognized by BSA. For Unitarians, see Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America). Most troops would be glad to have a kid join. Talk to a troop directly.Rlevse 18:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scout Committee

Propose that Boy Scout Committee be merged into this article. Boy Scout Committee is about the organization of different levels of the BSA. Several parts are already noted here. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please oppose or support:

  • SupportRlevse 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should have an article on the organization of different organizations. --21:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure If it comes in here, then you have a whole mess of committees to deal with such as the Pack Committee, and not just those associated with Boy Scouts. How do we decide which committees to cover and which not? --NThurston 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Or just an ==Organization== section with sub-sections on National, Region, Council, District, and Unit. That would be manageable since there is not so much program specific except and the Unit level, and at that level, they are pretty much parallel in structure. Seems vaguely familiar... --NThurston 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Each membership article (Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Varsity Scouts, Venturing, and Sea Scouts) already has a paragraph on the unit committee, duplicating what is in Boy Scout Committee. District through National organization is in this article, and in my mind, this is where the committee stuff of that level goes (there are 5 main National committees and 14 standing committees). The organization section in Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) is probably most up to date at the moment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • support merge. Chris 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The article lacks a single topic; instead, it has four. Furthermore, it's impossible to describe any of the four without expatiating on the broader structure of the BSA. It should be merged into the "Organization" section here. --Smack (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

done, redirects checked. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the BSA

"The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is to promote, through cooperation with other agencies, the ability of youth to do things for themselves and others, and to teach youth patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues. In achieving this purpose, emphasis is placed upon the Boy Scouts of America’s educational program and its oaths, promises, and codes for character development, citizenship training, and mental and physical fitness."[2] --Jagz 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First Female Scoutmaster...a place for her?

Hello all. Although I'm no stranger to perusing Wikipedia, I am to typing in it! Below is a link to a nice write-up on Catherine Pollard's arrival as the first female scoutmaster (there are additional links provided in the story with further information). http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/12/16/first-woman-scoutmaster-catherine-pollard/ Might someone (more capable than I) find a spot for her in the article? She deserves to be in it. K8Gr8 12:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a note on the talk page of History of the Boy Scouts of America to add this.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw this last night, and noticed that it is on the Scouting project ToDo list already... -- Horus Kol Talk 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Navigation creep

These articles are starting to get a bit over-navigated. We need to consider how to keep the information but lay it out better.

This article uses:

  • BSAseries
  • Infobox WorldScouting
  • InteramericanScout
  • BSAbystate
  • Scouting

The membership articles use:

  • BSAseries
  • Scouting Sections
  • Scouting

Scouting Sections

Scouting Sections duplicates the links in BSAseries. It uses the title "Programme Sections"- this is not BSA useage- it would be "membership levels" or "membership divisions". Just to make it more fun, Varsity Scouting is part of the Boy Scouting division and Sea Scouting is part of the Venturing division. I also fear that the images are going to get slammed on over-use of fair use.

I deleted the Scouting Sections navbox at the bottom of each article as it was redundant with the BSASeries navigation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Scouting

Everything in BSAseries is duplicated in Scouting.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to nondiscrimination policies

This section of the BSA Membership Controversies article needs to be expanded/clarified in case any of you are knowledgeable about the issue.[3] --Jagz 02:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Are Neopagans &/or Unitarians allowed in boyscouts IF they express a belief in god(s)? No one will answer me on this one locally and I get no replies from the website owners. My son REALLY wants to join- has for 2 years - and I don't want him to join and then get hurt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.59.58.244 (talk) 16:50, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

All that is required is a belief in a higher power. I know for a fact Unitarians and Hindu can join. Hindus have a religious medal recognized by BSA. For Unitarians, see Religious emblems programs (Boy Scouts of America). Most troops would be glad to have a kid join. Talk to a troop directly.Rlevse 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

POV?

This reads like an endorsement for the group, what happened to the controversies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.146.147 (talk)

You mean the section here titled Membership controversies with a link to a main article? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some technical recommendations for improvement: minimal for FA

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Won't.
It appears in a footnote, so it's a quote.Rlevse 21:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
fixed. Rlevse 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Other controversies - POV

This new section is not balanced- it presents only a negative view based on one incident. There is no mention of any other view, and fails to mention Youth Protection program (Boy Scouts of America) or the like. Until this is resolved, I must oppose the feature article candidacy. The section also fails to meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Summary style. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's agenda pushing, see WP:SOAP and is definitely not balanced. It should be removed until fixed.Rlevse 02:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BSA history

Historical information other than the short Origins section should be placed into History of the Boy Scouts of America. If we add every historical tidbit, such as the region material, this article will blow up. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Membership and discriminatory policies

If prohibiting membership to certain people is important enough to the BSA for them to take the issue to the Supreme Court for them to continue the practice, it is important enough to mention in the Membership section (even if it is mentioned again later in the article). I will be re-adding the information within a week unless someone can provide a more convincing reason not to.207.69.137.15 14:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The membership section is about the program divisions, so it maybe should be renamed. It is not about who can join, which is in another section and has an entire article. Wiki policy is not to repeat info in one section in another section of the same article.Rlevse 15:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
there are many pieces of information in this article that are repeated more than once. Take them all out then too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.38 (talk)
if the statement is accurate and verifiable, you have no right to remove it from the article. It is both - Put it back.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk)
OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.17.82 (talk)
I've marked the 74 IP talk page with a vandal warning. It has a long vandalism history.Sumoeagle179 18:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The first (two) anons were Earthlink IPs with multiple warnings. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Chartered Organization Representatives

I deleted the reference to COR's being "members of the Council Executive Board." While they are voting members of the council (as are Council Members at Large), that is different from being a member of the Executive Board. --Jdurbach 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Pulliam edits

The proper response to poorly formatted edits is correction of the formatting, not outright deletion.Heqwm —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:52, August 25, 2007 (UTC). You know, it's weird. When *I* undid changes, I got the message "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary rather than using only the default message." In compliance with AGF, I must assume that, for some reason, Jdurbach did not see any such message.Heqwm 06:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me give a non-USA perspective to these edits. First, they are in a section headed "Public relations" but actually deal with one incident in which one member of the BSA is claimed to be not doing public relations very well. The section does not say anything in general about public relations. Second, the amount of material in this rather general parent article on the BSA is quite out of proportion to its importance in an encyclopedia. My advice would be to add something on this incident to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. This controversy about whether the BSA is a religious organization follows from arguments, such as the Dale case, about criteria for membership. It should be better written and formatted and put the issue in context. At the same time it should not be as long as the recent addition by Heqwm. If, and only if, a balanced section on public relations could be added to the main BSA article, it might contain a brief mention to this affair. --Bduke 07:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest a more appropriate title. This does not deal with one incident; each article is a separate incident of people lying on the BSA's behalf, and the hosting of those articles on their site in yet another incident of dishonesty. The length of this addition is less than all the fawning over the BSA (Good Turns, notable Scouts, etc). I think that given the BSA's reputation, the fact that they are in fact lying bigots merits some attention. This is only tangentially related to membership controversies (and it was deleted when I tried to put it there, anyway).Heqwm 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at this section from a technical standpoint:

  • "Mark Pulliam, a lawyer affiliated with the BSA"- This makes it appear he works for the BSA; he is a volunteer leader who happens to be a lawyer
  • "wrote an <url= http://www.bsalegal.org/daily-transcript-42604-233.asp>article</url>"- Please, for the love of Gutenberg, please read up on how to do references. See WP:S-REF for a nice little tutorial.
  • "The BSA hosted this article, and in a section entitled “What Others Are Saying and also hosted several other articles, all of which echoed Pulliam’s article."- The BSA does not directly host BSALegal. It reads to me like every article on the site echoes the Pulliam article; that is incorrect.
  • "Pulliam: “The Boy Scouts will have to sell a lot of popcorn to overcome the ACLU's San Diego taxpayer-funded war chest.“"- This is the first mention of the ACLU, but never tells us how the BSA, Pulliam and the ACLU are involved. I only understand it because I already know about the Balboa Park issue.
  • "<url=”http://www.bsalegal.org/citysold-144.htm”> George A. Davidson</url>:"- Looks like this link went 404 over the last 10 months.
  • "“The city’s settlement will fund the ACLU’s continued litigation against Boy Scouts. “"- What litigation? Again, this is missing the context- I have no clue what point is to be made here.

The rest is in a similar vein and there is simply no focus. Without understanding the material, there is no way another editor can fix this section. I really don't see where any of this has to do with public relations. I would not accept written material of this nature from a 14 year-old Scout, and it is certainly not of the caliber required for Wikipedia. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm, first it has to be in the right article and notable. Pulliam simply isn't that important and YOU should fix your own garbage entries, not leave it for others, but it should not be there in the first place per Bduke and Gadget850 above.Sumoeagle179 02:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please explain to me what this section is about? Just a one sentence summary would do. Every time I read this, I am reminded of a quote from Victor Meldrew. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Pulliam, in his article, makes a big deal out of both being a lawyer and being affiliated with the BSA. The BSA went to the trouble of putting his article on their website, making no effort to state that he does not speak for them. All of the articles dealing with the San Diego case echo the Pulliam article, in their points, attitude, and lack of honesty. Not only did the BSA refuse to recognize dissenting views, but they chose only liars to present their case. Apparently the new Davidson link is http://www.bsalegal.org/city-sold-out-scouts-214.asp. I don't know what's going on with that site. Regarding your last point, one of the anti-ACLU talking points is that the ACLU's real goal is to destroy every organization that believes in God, has any conservative leanings, doesn't worship Satan, etc. Supposedly, the ACLU will use their money to file more "frivolous" lawsuits to drive the BSA into bankrupcy. Sumoeagle179, why should I go to the trouble of formatting something that you're just going to delete anyway? The actions of Scouts here and elsewhere have made it clear that they simply are not willing to deal with criticism fairly. When I have people outright lying about me, AGF goes out the window.Heqwm 18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heqwm, I have not lied to you, so don't insinuate I have. YOur sole purpose is to get Pulliam into the article and you obviously only care about that as if you cared about the article itself you wouldn't insert garbage formatting and confusing text into it. Your accusation about not dealing with criticism is baseless, as we an FA on BSA membership controversies and summary sections on that in other articles. Your text is so obviously out of sync with the rest of the article that I'm amazed you can't see it.Sumoeagle179 19:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why can't you say that? Back up and look at the rest of the article and compare it to your section. It is not up to us to teach you how to write, nor is up to us to fix this. Move it to your user subpage and work on it. Ask for an independent review by someone like the League of Copyeditors or any of your other WP acquaintances. I gave you quite a few hints on how to fix things 10 months ago, but you seem to have ignored them. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse in the BSA

We do need a section on abuses and responses in all forms. The recently added statement has no context. Normally I would draw from the main article, but Scouting sex abuse cases is just plain horrible. The Seattle Times seems to be the source for the Yahoon News article [4]

The Yahoo article does have one glaring error: "they affirm that volunteers represent a small fraction of the 1.2 million adults who participate in Scouting every year." The Seattle article states "ejected volunteers represent a small fraction of the 1.2 million adults who participate in Scouting every year." I would recommend using the seminal article for this reference.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A well-written and formatted paragraph or section on this would be fine. Defnitely use the source that does not have the error.Rlevse 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Seattle Times article seems very well researched. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003849260_boyscouts23m.html --Jdurbach 20:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

BSA's bigotry and lies

The fact of the matter is that the BSA is a significant player in a widespread campaign to incite hatred against homosexuals, atheists, and other group that do not meet with the approval of The Right, and that deceit is a major weapon in this campaign. This fact is both notable and verifiable, and therefore some discussion of it should appear in this article.Heqwm 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording you use indicates that you have a very strong POV on this issue and therefore are going to have problems in writing a NPOV section. I am sure you are well aware that there are people who will argue that this is far from "the fact of the matter". Nevertheless, have a go at writing something from a NPOV here on the talk page and see if you can get agreement. You are playing into the hands of those who disagree with you by writing the sloppy confused material that you added earlier. Doing that will certainly get it deleted and rightly so. You want changes. The onus is on you you to write something decent that follows policy. --Bduke 23:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This coming from a person who filed a 3RR against someone but got blocked himself (see the thread "User:ILike2BeAnonymous reported by User:Heqwm" here and more here, filed a 10-month old complaint against an admin in which that was [were amazed it was filed--see Johntex thread], and since he reappeared after a 10-month hiatus, in addition to the above, over a whole 11 days has gotten into disputes (see histories and talk pages) at Bowling for Columbine‎, African_American_Vernacular_English-- see talk page too, and 1953 Iranian coup d'état--see talk here. This appears to be every article he's edited except Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Heqwm, I suggest you take a hard look at this pattern and mend your ways as Bduke tactfully points and heed his suggestions. A continuation of this pattern of behavior and attitude will eventually get you an indefinite block. We're trying to be helpful here, but as Bduke says, the ball is in your court on this.Sumoeagle179 11:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Its very important Heqwm that we keep a neutral point of view in editing. By excessively stressing your point with biased and aggressive language you make it hard for editors to take your comments seriously. And thats a terrible shame as you do make some valid points that this article reads slightly POV biased towards the BSA, upon my first reading of it (I'm english and have never been a scout, I am entirely neutral) I admit I felt it read across a little like an advert and played down what has obviously been some fairly extensive criticism of the organistations policies. I have cleaned up the leading section of POV and shall continue to work on this article to ensure its entirely free of POV. What we need to do collectively is keep things in perspective. Whatever our personal views are on the BSA we have to recognise both the support and praise they recieve, as well as the criticisms and keep them in proportion in a neutral manner. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Heqwm, if I understand the segment that you are trying to include, the essence is that: the BSA has posted on its website an open letter from an attorney and that there are statements within that letter are less than fully truthful (OK lies), or biased, or that make claims to know other people's motives. In the grand scheme of things, that one letter is not really worthy of an entire section in an encyclopedia article. If ALL of the leters on the BSA website are just as faulty or if you have a verifiable source that points out the BSA is aware of the the errors yet keeps the letter on the site in violation of the Scout ideals of being 'trustworthy' and 'morally straight', then I could support working something into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.21 (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sumoeagle said:

This coming from a person who filed a 3RR against someone but got blocked himself You misrepresent the chronological order. I was blocked on baseless grounds (only two of the edits were actually reverts, and they were in response to vandalism), and while I was blocked, ILike2BeAnonymous took the opportunity to revert my edits and attack them on the talk page (which he had previously refused to visit). As he had violated 3RR in the process, I reported him.

filed a 10-month old complaint against an admin in which that was Huh? I think you’re missing some words here. Johntex outright lied about me on this talk page, then had me blocked based in part on that lie. And I’m supposed to just ignore that just because I didn’t find out about it until later (BTW, Johntex never notified me of his reporting me).

and since he reappeared after a 10-month hiatus, in addition to the above, over a whole 11 days has gotten into disputes (see histories and talk pages) at Bowling for Columbine‎, African_American_Vernacular_English-- see talk page too, and 1953 Iranian coup d'état--see talk here. Interestingly, I believe that all of these disputes involve one editor who has been following me around and reverting my edits.

And if I hadn’t edited any page other than this one, you would have accused me of being a SPA.

A continuation of this pattern of behavior and attitude will eventually get you an indefinite block. And I suppose you have convinced yourself that that sort of attitude will somehow make the situation better, rather than worse. I am still trying to determine whether this page is an exception, or whether wikipedia is dominated by a bunch of bullies who ignore the alleged principles of WP in favor of intimidating any editors that don’t share their views. Any guesses which side of the aisle your comments are falling?


207.69.137.21 said:

In the grand scheme of things, that one letter is not really worthy of an entire section in an encyclopedia article. That fact that any person so filled with hate and dishonesty hasn’t been barred from participation in the BSA is rather notable. If he had written an article claiming that CAIR was out to destroy Israel, would it have been met with such equamity?

If ALL of the leters on the BSA website are just as faulty Have I not shown that this is the case?

or if you have a verifiable source that points out the BSA is aware of the the errors yet keeps the letter on the site in violation of the Scout ideals of being 'trustworthy' and 'morally straight', then I could support working something into the article.The article was printed in papers across the country, and I have brought it up with the BSA, and the general reaction has been “meh”.Heqwm 05:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If ALL of the leters on the BSA website are just as faulty
Have I not shown that this is the case?
  • I must have missed your individual analysis- where is it? For example, how is this one a lie? [5]
  • I'm curious- what is your opinion of Bork Communications Group?
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are convinced that the BSA has a 'campaign' of bigotry beyond their discriminatory membership policies, then you should be able to find other items than this particular letter that can form a section. You will need more verifyable evidence than one letter that was not written by an official spokesperson for the BSA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.35 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I see little change here from a year ago- we are rehashing the exact same issues. For those who may be new to this, here are the older discussions:

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true, but this time we have a neutral outsider who says he'll continue to help, User:WikipedianProlific. See his talk page (RfA section).Rlevse 11:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel its now in a position where it neutrality is not disputed. It reads a lot less like an advert. Obviously its going to need constant watching and careful editing to keep it this way but that tag can probably come off if others agree. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions from someone with fresh eyes

  • Activities and Finance merged with organization. maybe moving organization down to where activities are currently
  • national scouting museum shortened to a sentence, and an article stub could be created with the paragraph written.
  • is the good turns section necessary?
  • Ideals section: the list of ideals like the motto, and the slogan i do not believe are thought in the cubs scouts. maybe a boy scout practices page could contain that information. uniforms and insignias could be merged into that page.
  • maybe a sentence or two at the beginning of the organization section could help.
  • Boroughs section merged with local councils sections?
  • a fair use picture of boys life might be good by the publications
  • the cub scouts part of the rank section could be copyed or outright moved to the cub scout section
  • because you have a seperate achievement article, couldn't you massively trim advancement and recognition section.
  • maybe a table section for the ranks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldag07 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Follow the money. All non-profit organizations are closely scrutinized for their spending (how much overhead is skimmed from contributions) but the BSA finances are not fully fleshed out in this article. I find that a lot of money is being paid to professional lobbyists in D.C. to push agendas that rarely come up in the discussions of local troops. Face it, our local packs and troops have never spent any time looking for atheists or gays; they just want to go camping, fishing and doing other outdoor activities. But that gets harder to do with fewer boys joining scouting - and the money just isn't there. We certainly don't get much from BSA National. And while I personally could care less what barriers of entry an organization sets for itself, I can only look at my local community and see that there are *fewer* scouts staying in after age 11, not more. Controversies do well to drive national elections but they do little to get kids interested in scouting. Scouting will eventually will be just as popular as the Catholic priesthood. And the finances will be just as impenetrable.
It will be a bit before I get back to this article, but there are some good thoughts in your list. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Red link

"Boy Scouts of America Local Councils" is red linked in this article. --Jagz 16:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. We just cleaned up the BSA and GSUSA categories. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionality of federal charter

Is the BSA's federal charter constitutional? See the Scouting in the United States talk page?[6] --Jagz 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

State charter

Did the BSA have a state charter prior to receiving its federal charter? --Jagz 16:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the BSA was chartered in Washington,DC in 1910. --Jagz 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


Merge Boy Scouts of America's predominance

Some of the material in Boy Scouts of America's predominance may be suitable for merging with this article. Just thought I'd throw that out for disussion. Dreadstar † 20:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The title needs to change, it can be made less POINTy, and it could go back into Scouting in the United States in POV, OR form. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the information should be merged into the controversies page myself. Either way, I think that having an article unto itself is too much. If someone wants to write a piece on it, it would be better suited in wikinews as an original piece. --evrik (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The controversies page might just be the better merge-to location. I'll change it to that and copy this discussion over. I think the wikinews artcile is a good idea, but can't that be done independently of any merge that takes place? Dreadstar † 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is about trademarks and the charter. I don't see how that fits into membership. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's also about controversies regarding membership. It's entirely possible to view BSA's predominance as a membership issue due to its operations and functions that lead to the dominance in membership. Where else does the predominance lay besides in membership..? Dreadstar † 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What controversy? One bill to revoke the charter that failed by a huge vote is not a controversy. An organization protecting its trademarks is not controversial. The article is worded in such as manner as to make it appear controversial; where are the news articles reporting on this? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen any news reports on this, except old ones from the 1910s. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made counter-proposals at Talk:Boy Scouts of America's predominance. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America/Archive_3&oldid=1136575769"