Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 6

Controversy section wording

Current wording:

Though the non-traditional program, Learning for Life, does not restrict participation other than by age, membership in the traditional BSA programs is more restricted and controversial. Girls can only join Venturing though women can be adult volunteers in all programs. BSA membership policy also excludes known or avowed atheists or agnostics from all traditional programs. "Known or avowed homosexuals" are not employed or allowed to be adult volunteers; no current, formal policy forbids them from being youth members but they cannot hold youth leadership positions.[25] The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission in the traditional programs to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law. These policies have been called unjust by critics and legally challenged at the state and federal level. The Supreme Court has affirmed that, as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards under the Constitutional right to freedom of association. However non-discrimination laws may prohibit certain types of government support and other lawsuits have been filed to determine what is and is not permitted or required.

I think this fairly summarizes what we know. I used adult volunteers because it is my understanding that all adult volunteers are considered role models and leaders for the youth. I used 'formal' because there may be informal policies. --Erp (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional Article

I put up the article "Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas". Following are my origination notes from the discussion section of that article:

Review of related articles and their discussion sections indicated that the subject material needed to be covered, is noteworthy, and is widely sought after. Actual practice has borne out that articles or sections which define their subject as the controversies themselves inevitably will not cover the subject of this article, such being either occluded or absent, and not the subject of the articles. So, despite having many of the same words in their titles, the subjects (as defined by the titles) are absolutely different. However, this article was substantially guided by the discussion sections of that article and article section. The originator also felt that this subject would be too disproportionately large (especially given it's coverage of "hot topics") to put into the main "Boy Scouts of America" article.

This article was launched January 5th, 2010. The originator believes that it meets fundamental Wikipedia criteria, but, of course, this is just the starting point of contributions and improvements which are welcomed. The originator intends that it remain unreferenced by other articles for a short period (1-2 weeks?) during which time such improvements by many are anticipated.

Since the limited scope of the title (detailed by the scope statement in the first two sentences of the article, as originate) the first two sentences in the article) is important for both effective coverage of this topic and avoiding substantial overlap with related articles, the originator asks for consensus and support from all to keep the article within the scope of the title, to keep those first two scope sentences as originated, and intends to do their best to support this focus in order to achieve coverage of the subject.

Happy editing!

North8000 (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion on New Article Described Above

For those interested in reviewing the discussion and / or making comments, there is a deletion discussion for the above described new article occuring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas North8000 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It got deleted. That important topic is now homeless. Let's hope it works out somehow. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

Does anyone think this is ready for Featured Article Class. My goal is to have it featured on the main page on February 8, 2010, which is the official 100th anniversary. If not, can I have a to-do list like thing on this talk page? --12george1 (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The opposes voiced at this article's last FAC need to be fully addressed. For example, lack of secondary sources and scope, etc. The TFA for Feb. 8 has not yet been selected and a centennial is worth 6 points for selection, but there may not be enought time left to get this article promoted to FA, I'm afraid.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try for this go for it, but as JG says, btwn writing and FAC time, you need to start NOW. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to do something with the sex abuse section. The main article is badly written and has been ignored for quite a while, so a proper summary is going to be difficult. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. In the meantime, the article is listed on today's Main Page as an "On this day" milestone: "1910 – Newspaper man and magazine publisher William D. Boyce (pictured) established the Boy Scouts of America, expanding the Scout Movement into the United States."  JGHowes  ^talk 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

2009 membership

Partial numbers are now available.[1] Learning for Life numbers are not included, so we can't update the total membership. Final numbers will probably be out after the National meeting 26–28 May, 2010. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd where did the "Explorers 121,407" come from. I thought Exploring was part of Learning for Life? Preliminary check shows 1,634715 cubs, webelos, tigers (a 1.9% decline from 2008). Total traditional scouting (not including the Explorers from this list) is 2,790,632 a 1.5% decline. I think we should wait till the official numbers come out before updating.--Erp (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the national commissioner, the LFL numbers are no longer tracked or reported. I am trying to clarify the Exploring numbers. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Exploring participants must register, so the numbers are tracked. The in-school programs do not require individual registrations; councils have licenses for a range of youth (i.e. 500–1000). The BSA cannot validate exact numbers for the in-school programs, so they no longer report those participants. Total numbers are going to appear to drop dramatically, but more youth will be served than actually reported. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight?

What do you think?

This article covers a multi-million person organization with a 100 year history. Due to such scope, and, presumably, not wanting this article to get too huge, huge topics within BSA don't even have a section in this "top level" article (i.e. are only covered in more specialized articles elsewhere) Yet, of the mere 20 section/subsections of this article, 3 (and about 1/8 of this whole article) are devoted to sex abuse, including one whole subsection dedicated to a particular newspaper's coverage of the topic. North8000 (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that's skewed. Sex abuse should be one section with a link to a sub article if needed. This article is often a target for people on various bandwagons. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe create a condensed summary as Gadget850 hinted at above. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that when you condense crap you still end up with a turd ball. The main article has been a problem since the start. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that one part would be a place to start?

I think that the overall article has a lot of good content & good writing. But the overall structure and choice of topics (or lack thereof) looks like it was designed by a committee. Oh wait, it was :-). North8000 (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem, and it is a general one for Scouting articles, is our policy of notability being "noted by others". When Scouting is going well it is not noticed by others except for the local press saying little Johnny from the 1st XXX has won an award. Scouting is noticed when it goes wrong or when it is strongly criticized for its policies. So there is undue weight in our sources to cases of sex abuse, boys being killed on a Scout activity, members being thrown out of the movement, or court cases on any of these. We have to live with it in one sense, but I agree with Rlevse, that we should continue to use, and expand the use, of sub-articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(Through my lens) in essence you are saying that high profile stories on the Scouts tend to be more about "problems". I would argue that this is the case on most topics. And that the difference with Scouts is that there are millions of cases of positive small media coverages of small topics. And, that, in actual Wikipedia practice (vs. it's more ethereal principles) the former makes it much easier to put a negative section into a Scout article than a positive one. Of course, you are right on all counts. But I think that such just makes it harder but not impossible to make a good article, and I would think that this one is too important to "write off". North8000 (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The section here is just a big chunk copied from the main article. It is not a proper summary. The problem is trying to summarize a main article that is so disjointed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that you're right, those three sections are a total mess. And any real useful overview / perspective of this would inherently be synthesis, and so would require finding some solid objective sources which did that type of work. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than trying to summarize a bad article, let's just get the salient items into one section, solving the undue weight problem. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Workspace for work on these three sections

Age of cases covered

Of the 4 references given in this section, 2 cover the same 27 year old (1983) case, one is is a dead link, and the other is a 19 year old article covering 21-39 year old cases. (1971 - 1989) North8000 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You keep mentioning the age of references. I do not understand why. The BSA is 100 years old. We need to cover all 100 of them. The undue weight is towards recent activities and recent sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 17:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just starting an analysis/worksheet. For coverage about an organization I think that I think that both history and "current state" are important and interesting. As long as one covers both and does not make one sound like the other. The "gorilla in the living room" on this topic is that BSA made huge changes 15-20 years ago and became very strict in this area, with large effects. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it will take additional sources to summarize this section. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just read all 70 pages of the referenced 1991 Washington Times article. This is a very thorough article with a lot of useful material in it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Salient points supported by identified references

Please consider this section and the next section a "work in progress", to be a brief summary of salient points, and feel free to edit it. Put anything that you don't want edited outside of it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• In 1991 "Scouts Honor" a major series of articles was produced.
• Said article said that there were 1,151 identified cases, and listed 416 of them.
• Beginning in the late 80's but hitting it's stride in the early 90's BSA's Youth Protection program started, and it is considered to be a good one.
• A large (~$20 million) court award was recently made on a 1983 case.
• Circa 1991 Scout spokesperson said that the rate of cases in the BSA is not higher than elsewhere, considering the size of the organization. (3 million+ youth, 1 million+ leaders)

Salient points not (yet) supported by identified references

See note in previous section.

• Everything in the current lead paragraph for this section
• Pre-Youth-Protection-Program cases were probably at a rate to be expected (sans a strong program to reduce it) for an organization with millions of people whose program inherently provided many opportunities for such.
• Post-Youth-Protection-Program cases are at a vastly reduced and very low rate. I recently Googled "Boy Scouts" "Sex Abuse" and 98 of the first 100 hits were about cases over 20 years old.

End of sections North8000 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Workspace notes

This is going to take some real work and time to do well. I plan to try. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless y'all feel otherwise, I plan to wait a few days and then take out the "main article at" phrase in the sex abuse caqses section. Aside from the fact that others (above) have noted that the linked article has severe problems, this is structurally mixed up. Most to the point, there isn't a "main article at". The specific link is to a section which is just a list of 8 USA sex abuse cases, no other content. And the overall article that that section is in Scouting sex abuse cases worldwide, but then it has some BSA-specific material interspersed in the non-USA specific sections. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall this has been about "undue weight" as discussed above. And the main remedy will be by shortening it. Looking at the three sections / subsections, the first two sections contain mostly major stuff, albeit needing cleanup. I think that the best candidate for reduction is the third (legal actions)section , with (for the top level BSA article) too much detail on that one case, and too much / too lengthy supposition material with the "probably higher" statement, and redundancy of telling us that 180 per year is one every two days. I plan to shorten it by reducing these three items, and then folding this section into the main "sex abuse cases" section. This is probably as far as it should be condensed right now. If the separate article got fixed, maybe someday this could get further reduced with a pointer to the other article for more info, but I don't that is workable today. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally leave BSA stuff to BSA people, but I am prompted to comment here. I disagree about removing "Main article: Scouting sex abuse cases#United States". That article is about sex abuse cases and the link should remain unless the article forks off a "sex abuse cases in the USA" article. The point is that that Scouting sex abuse cases#United States needs to be improved. The US section is currently a list, but I note that the following sections, with sub-sections, is all about the BSA. That section should be rewritten and folded into the US section. Then back to the BSA article, the section needs to be drastically reduced with the content that is there at present moved to Scouting sex abuse cases#United States - a lot is already there. However, you can not reduce it if you do not have the "Main article" pointer. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The section here should summarize the main article in a paragraph or two, and usually is a variant of the main article lead. [[Scouting sex abuse cases#United States]] is a mess, and the editor who added the section here just copied a huge chunk and dumped it here. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fine by me. I had also thought the same thing as you regarding the way it should be, except that it is dependent on fixing that other article, and until if and when it's fixed the pointer will be to a wreck. But I'm cool with it either way and will leave the "main article" pointer there. I think that in the long run that other "Sex abuse cases" article will just need to ignore "too US centric" comments allow the USA the dubious honor of a larger section as BDuke described. And BDuke, don't hesitate to comment despite being a few miles away. :-) Even though local knowledge is helpful on this, so is wisdom such as yours. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the material that is essentially replicated in the "main article". I have also reorganized the "main article" to bring the US material under the US heading. That article does give undue weight to the US, but I think that can be handled by making the other country sections more detailed and the US section more concise. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

A good move, especially with your improvements on the main article on this topic. North8000 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

New sections / material reverted/deleted

A few folks added sections / material (merit badges and good turns) which got removed / reverted essentially because they had too much detail for a topic considering that this is the overall BSA article. We already have one glaring example of that already in the article (sex abuse cases) but I think that the reverters didn't want to allow more such new such situations get added.

Perhaps it would be appropriate for those folks to add shorter, more condensed material on those topics. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference Format

This says that it uses "list defined" reference format in lieu of the more common type. In reality it appears to use a mixture of the two. So I guess it "works" either way. Plus, in the "list defined" section it says that there are 20 unused references.

Does anybody know if there is bot or something that can fix this up? My vote would be for the common format. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)