Misplaced Pages

Talk:Boy Scouts of America: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:34, 26 October 2006 editHeqwm (talk | contribs)401 edits →Fact tags on refs← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:35, 10 November 2024 edit undoCFA (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers41,791 editsm Reverted edits by 2601:240:8300:E790:15E3:DAC8:77D5:E381 (talk) (HG) (3.4.13)Tags: Huggle Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Article history
{{ScoutingWikiProject|class=A|importance=High}}
|action1=WAR
{{talkheader}}
|action1date=16:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
==Archives==
|action1result=approved
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
|action1oldid=61435209
|-
!align="center"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}
<br style="clear:both;">
---------------
The first mention of Baden-Powell in this article is buried parenthetically in the following sentence, without a first name, and without a link:
In warfare using simple weapons (practiced in the medieval period, as well as by the Ashanti people who Baden-Powell met in West Africa), a warrior carries a shield in his left hand.


|action2=GAN
== Boy Scouts of America ==
|action2date=13:35, 17 February 2007
I am not too sure but I know that our local American Legion Post 127 Glendale, with the Boy Scouts of America, funds the Military Explorers Post 2127. Are there any other such posts? ] 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
|action2link=Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 2007#GA On Hold - Specifics
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=108834914


|action3=FAC
== Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America ==
|action3date=16:57, 28 June 2007
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America/archive1
|action3result=not promoted
|action3oldid=140583849


|action4=GAR
The article "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" was recently rewritten. Please take a look at it and provide any comments on the article's Talk page.--] 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
|action4date=June 19, 2008
|action4link=Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 2008#GA Sweeps Review: Pass
|action4result=Kept
|action4oldid=220508105


|action5=FAC
You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Rlevse. If saying that the BSA participates in lies and bigotry isn't NPOV, then neither is saying that it promotes good citizenship, etc. And claiming that my edit "cut key program elements" does not justify deleting the additional information in the controversy section. I edited the parts that I considered NPOV. You just deleted what you claimed was NPOV.--] 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
|action5date=21:59, 26 July 2008
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America/archive2
|action5result=not promoted
|action5oldid=228056662


|action6=WAR
:It is verifiable that the BSA promotes citizenship training. No question there. I guess you have a problem with the word "good." Perhaps something to be addressed. However, I don't think that anybody is trying to hide that there is controversy, just collect the discussion of it in a single usable, referenced place. I looked carefully at Rlevse's edits, and he is right - everything that he removed is covered in adequate detail on the controversies page. --] 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
|action6date=16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
|action6link=
|action6result=demoted
|action6oldid=335874959


|topic=Socsci
I made the last edits to the controversy section. The section here is a '''summary''' of the main ] article. If you want to add relevant details to that article, your are welcome to do so. The summary here had aquired a lot of word creep and had not been updated to reflect the main article in quite a while. Thank you for helping us notice that. --] 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
|otddate=15 June 2004|otd2date=8 February 2010|otd2oldid=342609790|otd3date=2011-02-08|otd3oldid=412635401|otd4date=2014-02-08|otd4oldid=594332223|otd5date=2019-02-08|otd5oldid=882377183|otd6date=2022-02-08|otd6oldid=1070623696
|otd7date=2023-02-08|otd7oldid=1111587782


|action7 = GAR
:Sorry about the mistaken ID. Forgot who it was. I have rv'ed the article and edited the various sections in question to be more NPOV. There may be some further minor edits required, but it looks much more consistent now. --] 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
|action7date = 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
|action7link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Boy Scouts of America/1
|action7result = delisted
|action7oldid = 1172650599
|currentstatus = DGA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Scouting|importance=High|past-collaboration=] ]}}
{{WPUSA}}
}}
{{bsastyle}}
{{archives|auto=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive %(counter)d
}}


==GA Reassessment==
::No problem- there were three of us editing at one time. --] 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Boy Scouts of America/1}}


==Meeting of the minds==
It is completely inappropriate to claim that the BSA promotes good citizenship while failing to mention that it participates in vicious lies against its opponents. Either the praise should be deleted, or its duplicity should be included. Putting all the praise in the main article and shuffling all the criticism off to another page is not NPOV. '''This unsigned comment was made by ]'''
{{ping|Graywalls}} The last few days, you have been all over the BSA related articles:
*{{la|Boy Scouts of America}}
*{{la|COPE (Boy Scouts of America)}}
*{{la|National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience}}
*{{la|Philmont Training Center}}
*{{la|Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)}}
*{{la|Béla H. Bánáthy}}
*{{la|Scouting}}


Then there's this: ]
:It seems you are now taking issue with the definition of promote. I am intending the meaning: "urge the adoption of, advocate for." And I also notice that you have include the POV phrase "good citizenship" where I tried to change that to a more NPOV statement consistent with the BSA's published and stated goals (which establishes verifibility), eg. citizenship training. I think that the page at present is headed towards a factual, NPOV statement of what the program intends or purports to accomplish. --] 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to ask here, but clearly you've decided to focus on scouting articles, and you seem to be taking a lot of unilateral actions on long-established articles. I'm going to bring in {{ping|Jergen|btphelps|North8000}} to see if they can help focus this discussion. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 04:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::By the way, if you really believe that the BSA participates in spreading damaging lies about people, you might have a good libel case in your future, however, it makes one wonder: What side of the case will you be on? --] 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:{{re|Evrik}}, After some digging following the Big Sur thing, I've come across sufficient proof to show btphelps have a strong COI with ] and White Stag and a probable ] as well as I've started working on it once I've identified their insertion of Whitestag.org sources into various articles. They've been asked to answer on their page. We have a ] policy, so I can not discuss the proof on Misplaced Pages ] (]) 06:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:::btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
I haven't looked at the other ones but for this one you deleted long standing material core material on the basis of which wiki formatting method was used. And then are claiming that a consensus is needed to retain long standing material. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, which is why I have changed the article back. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::per the comments above, look at ]. --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: ] --]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


:For ease of finding it, now ] -- ] (]) 13:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I would not be considered to have standing. I notice that no one has challenged the factual basis of my claims. Unless bsalegal is not, in fact, run by the BSA, it's an objective fact that the BSA is a dishonest organization. Its actual actions are more relevent than its "stated goals".--] 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


== Use of Age Range for Cub Scouts in Infobox ==
::I changed the controversy section because it was getting a lot of verbage creep. It is supposed to be a summary of the main controversy article. Again, if you have relevant, verifiable details, please add them where they belong. At this point, please take this to arbitration if you feel that we are wrong. --] 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Since Cub Scouts membership is based on current grade of the Scout, rather than their age, would it make more sense in the Info Box to list a wider age range than just 5-10, or to instead list K-5th Grade? I was 4 when I started Kindergarten, so based on what's listed here, I couldn't join in Kindergarten which I know is not correct. Additionally, there are some 5th graders that turn 11 before bridging over to Scouts BSA, so perhaps a wider age range is appropriate? ] (]) 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:69.107.97.36--you're being even more POV than you're accusing us and this article of being. One of the reasons the controversies have their own article is that it became such a big section here that it warranted it's own separate article; and that is SOP on wiki. You should be glad all that space is devoted to it and that it's a Featured Article. Look in the mirror more closely.] 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:Info boxes always need to be over-abbreviated. I think that giving a general idea based on ages is good even if imperfect. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


==Organization name change in the lead==
What does "more POV" mean? According to the guidelines, "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." But if you want me to start a new article, fine. The other article is NOT devoted to the issues that I am bringing up; LYING about discriminating against gays & atheists is completely separate from discriminating against gays & atheists, and it should be prominantly mentioned. By the way, it's spelled "its".--] 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Nice work! IMO eventually there should be a section on this for two reasons. Would allow putting more on this important news than can fit in the lead. Also the lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article and I don't see where this is in the body of the article. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
:The controversies article is not a POV fork, it's a full fledged article and a Featured Article, with a section, main link, and summary in this article. The BSA openly admits it doesn't accept gays and atheists, so I don't see how that is lying. I'll gladly continue this here on the talk page more if you like. Let's please work this out here first rather than continued edit battles. ] 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:Yes. This information needs to be described in detail in its own section in the article and summarised in the lead. ] (]) 23:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


:The POV fork issue was well discussed when it was decided to create the controversies article before it ate the main BSA article. You can look through the archives on both talk pages for the discussion. Bottom line: the statements you added were uncited and unsupported, thus they do not belong. The statements you removed are referenced, thus they do belong. The controversy section here did need to be cleaned up, and that's done (this whole article still needs a lot of work, but thats another issue). Again– if you have relevant and supportable information, please add it. It would also be nice if you used the edit summary to note your changes. --] 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


==Clarity on name change==
"The BSA openly admits it doesn't accept gays and atheists, so I don't see how that is lying."
I've explained quite clearly how the BSA lies.


Based on recent edits which I had to revert, it would be good to summarize.
"Bottom line: the statements you added were uncited and unsupported, thus they do not belong."
Can't make up your mind, can you? First they were deleted because they "weren't NPOV", now they were deleted because they are uncited. Isn't the normal practice, when one has concerns about whether something has been cited, to mention that in the talk pages, rather than simply use it as a pretext to delete material that one does not like? The parts I deleted were NOT cited, either. Well, I'm going to take you at your word. I'm going to cite my claims, and then, according to what YOU HAVE SAID, they belong.--] 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


*The name of the '''''overall organization''''' will officially change from "Boy Scouts of America" to "Scouting America" in 2025. But they are informally starting to use the new name now.
::Dear 69:
*The name of the flagship '''''program''''' within the organization (roughly speaking the main one serving 11-15 year olds, technically approx 10-18) changed from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts BSA" in 2019 and there is no additional change to this announced and they specifically said that the announced change does not affect this.
::'''My''' mind is well made up as '''I''' have never mentioned POV– indeed I have no desire to dance around the POV flagpole with you. The elements you removed are verifiable and can be cited. This article is in the process of some major revisions. I have already noted that you (and anyone else) are welcome to edit this and any other article with relevant and verifiable information. So far, you have not provided any citations that support your entries.
::It appears to me that that you have a bias against the BSA. While you have the right to have your own opinions, Misplaced Pages articles are not the forum to disseminate them. I am finding this dialog quite tedious and I do not wish to continue. If we can't reason together then we must find alternatives.
::To summarize my previous statements: '''Cite or desist''' --] 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


IMO we should not move/rename the article until new name change is official in 2025.
You people complain about me deleting things without giving an explanation, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Censoring crucial information without even discussing it is completely unaccpetable. Zscout370, if you're going to delete my changes, you'd be better have a reason.--] 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
"So far, you have not provided any citations that support your entries."
Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I mopst certainly have.

"While you have the right to have your own opinions, Misplaced Pages articles are not the forum to disseminate them."
That the BSA is dishonest is not an opinion, it is an objective fact. {{fact}} --] 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::Dear 69:
::It seems that you are drawing attention. The last two reverts to you edits were made by editors who have not been involved here.
::May I propose a truce? Let's leave this as it is through the weekend and pick it up again next week after we all cool off. --] 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear 69.107.97.36 - I have the sinking feeling that you are not actually interested in writing an encyclopedia. There is ample room here for those that disagree with the BSA and its policies. There is not room here for editors with an ax to grind. Please understand that none of us are interested in irrelevant, unverifiable, or inaccurate information. If you can add relevant, verifiable comments, please do. Otherwise, please stop. --] 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

==Age==
As is well known, when a Boy Scout or Varsity Scout turns 18, they are out of the program. Venturing is a bit different; per Venturer Application 28-303K:

''Venturers registered in a crew or ship prior to their 21st birthday may continue as members after their 21st birthday until the crew or ship recharters or they reach their 22nd birthday, whichever comes first.''

This is now footnoted twice in this article and once in the ] and ] articles. I'm not enthused with the use of ''inclusive'' here as it is heavily used in the controversies article and I don't want to get it mixed into this article. I also think it can be misconstrued: per the definition, it means "including (almost) everything within its scope" or "including the extremes as well as the area between". I'm going to pick up a Boy Scout application later today and will note the age requirements in a footnote. --] 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

:Here we go again, more flip flopping about how to write the age limits for BSA. ] 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

== Intro too long ==

The intro section shouldn't be four paragraphs long. I'm tempted to put a heading saying "Membership divisions" after the first paragraph, but on the other hand, I don't want to hide this very important content under such a dull heading. --] (]) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article is 22K characters. Per ] the lead-in should be 2-3 paragraphs. At 30K, the lead-in should be 3-4 paragraphs. I think the article has every potential to grow by at lease 8k characters. --] 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

:The policy you cite is a "general guideline," not a solid rule. Each introduction should be judged by its content. According to the policy page, an intro should "provide overview;" in other words, briefly sketch what the rest of the article will describe in detail. The intro to this article clearly does not do that. --] (]) 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

== LGBT Rights Opposition ==

I removed the category tag for LGBT Rights Opposition. The BSA has no position papers on this subject (see ), and has never filed a court brief in any court case regarding rights of LGBTs. There is no evidence that the BSA opposes "LGBT Rights." The BSA National Organization article does not belong in this category.

I assume this link was added because the BSA does not allow LGBT as members in the organization. Be aware that this does not demonstrate opposition to "LGBT Rights" either, as membership in a private organization, which the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees BSA is, is a privilege, not a right (see ). --] 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

==No mention of mormons?==
A recent episode of '']'' was devoted to the BSA, and they made it clear that mormons are practically running the BSA these days (thus the emphasis on anti-LGBT which didn't exist only a few decades ago). And yet, there's no mention of it in our article? I wonder how many families would pull their kids out of the BSA if they knew that mormons were (at least at the upper echelons) determining what their kids should believe or to what they should be exposed. --<small>''']''']</small>

: I'd sure like to see some evidence of that claim. Nothing that is presented on that show, without evidence to back it up, is of any importance or concern to me or anyone I know that is involved in Scouting.

: As a registered Scout leader for 8 years now, I haven't ever seen or heard anything at any of the meetings, training sessions, etc. that I have attended that makes me think that even if true, this is adversely affecting the program. And I am located in the Dallas area, near the Irving headquarters, and have met and spoken at length with several of the "upper echelon" Scout executives. This is the first time I've ever heard anything about it.

: Further, there are special programming elements for mormon Scouts as there are for certain other religions/sects such as Roman Catholics. If what you say is true, why wouldn't those special progams just be integrated into the whole of the Scouting experience? --] 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this show is talking about thge large amount of support that BSA gets from the LDS church and its branches. And some has claimed that the decision to expel gay scouts is because of the pressure exerted on BSA by the notably socially conservative LDS, since the subject of sexuality and scouting was never an issue until the late 80s to the early 90s, given the fact that until that time, the "morally straight clause" has nothing to do with sexuality but rather the character of the scout. Moral panic as well as religious views has compelled the expulsion, subsequently (legally) justified by BSA v. Dale in 2000. --] 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

*I have been in Scouts for 40 years and have never been compelled to believe any Mormon-specific doctrine. The reason the homosexual arose in BSA when it did is the same time it became a major social issue in US society at large. The Mormon church has always been a large supporter of BSA. This article is about the BSA itself, not the many organizations (many religious denominations, VFW posts, etc) that support it. The Catholic and Jewish churches are big supporters of Scoutig too. ] 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**I believe that the Boy Scouts of America released its first statement that excluding homosexuals from memberships in 1975 (or close to, I will have to find my source again, will update when I do). Also I wanted to say that from the very start the BSA has upheld its policy of high moral value, and that the LDS church hasn't really affected BSA policy as most of the BSA policy is virtually the same as when it was founded (again, I will find the source and list it when I find it). -Choobie
**Yes, this article is about the BSA, but should include information about major organizations that make the BSA possible (and who thus might also be influencing BSA policies). This is only common sense. I am in favor of a table listing the amount contributed to the BSA by its top 5 or 10 supporters, and possibly a break-down of the organization's membership by various criteria (age, rank, religious affiliation, etc). This would be useful information for readers. --<small>''']''']</small> 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
**That could be quite intriguing. It would have to meet the ] policy . --] 01:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
***Unless Wikipedians go out and poll members of the BSA, it wouldn't be original research. --<small>''']''']</small> 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
**NoR is more than that: check the policy. You would have to reference material already published. I would be interesting though. --] 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
***Well... isn't that a given? If Wikipedians aren't doing their own research, someone else must be doing it... otherwise there wouldn't be anything to say. --<small>''']''']</small> 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
*Any issues that might relate to the LDS church and gays belongs in ] with the appropriate cites. I think the LDS church is the only organization to oficially adopt Scouting as part of it's program, and it does some things differently. Currently the only mention of LDS that i am aware of is the age system noted in ]. I would welcome any additions that would clarify the LDS relationships with the BSA and any differences in programs. --] 13:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Mormon church has always been a large supporter of BSA. This article is about the BSA itself, not the many organizations (many religious denominations, VFW posts, etc) that support it. The Catholic and Jewish churches are big supporters of Scoutig too." That case is not very true anymore. The largest Jewish movement in the United States, the Reform movement, has withdrew support of the BSA in light of the anti-gay discrimination. ] addressed that topic.--] 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

==Museum==
Merge of expand the museum article. ] 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

==Council merge==
Merge. ] 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge. The Councils article is too small, and not really its own subject. --] 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge, but leave a dicdef and a "see also" link. --] (]) 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
:On the other hand, maybe we want to list all 304 councils in one place. --] (]) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


==Age==
Since the ages are getting edited back and for:th
*Cub Scouts: first-grade through fifth-grade, or 7 through 10 years
*Boy Scouts/Varsity Scouts: ages 10 through 17. The day the boy turns 18, he is out.
*Venturing/Sea Scouts: ages 14 through 21. From their 21st birthday, their membership ends at the end of the unit charter: see the footnote.
:I know many BSA publications show the Venturing age as up to 20, but that is not correct.
--] 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

== More about controversy ==

I've just made two changes that pertain to controversy.
# Contrary to popular belief, no BSA program or membership division features controversy or scandal as a central program element. This article spends one paragraph talking about the Explorers. It does not make sense to spend half of that paragraph talking about sexual abuse.
# BSA's membership policies are controversial: that's a fact, not an opinion. It's a contradiction in terms to say that "some consider controversial."
--] (]) 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

== Exploring ==

I'm not sure how to fix this, but Exploring is apparently not one of the BSA divisions. It actually is part of Learning for Life, which really isn't a division of the BSA. As far as I can figure out, it is an entirely separate entity that operates parallel to the BSA's three program divisions. See . The 2005 Annual Report doesn't mention LFL or Exploring (while the 1997 report does). Hopefully someone who knows more about this can fix the recent edits. I even wonder if LFL counts as "scouting"?

*Exploring was a BSA program from the 50s until 1998. Exploring recieved a lot of support from government agencies and it adhered to the BSA religious priciple; thus it ran afoul of the lawsuits of the era. BSA split the career oriented section of Exploring and put it under LFL. The outdoor/adventure parts of Exploring became Venturing. Exploring does belong under the BSA history section, but is not a current program. --] 01:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

==NEW Peer Review Output==
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic ], and <font color="red">may or may not be accurate</font> for the article in question.
*Per ], avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. {{#if:soon|For example, ''soon''}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{#if:{{{3|}}}| ,|&nbsp;and}} ''{{{2}}}''}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,|, and}} ''{{{3}}}''}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{#if:{{{5|}}}|,|, and}} ''{{{4}}}''}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{#if:{{{6|}}}|,|, and}} ''{{{5}}}''}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|, and ''{{{6}}}''}} {{#if:soon|might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.}}<ref name="time">See footnote</ref>
*There may be an applicable ] for this article.{{#if:{{{1|}}}|&nbsp;{{]}} may be useful.|&nbsp;For example, see ], ], or ].}}<ref name="infobox">See footnote</ref> (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per ], there should be a non-breaking space - <code>&amp;nbsp;</code> between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of ''18mm'', use ''18&nbsp;mm'', which when you are editing the page, should look like: <tt>18&amp;nbsp;mm</tt>.<ref name="nbsp">See footnote</ref>
*Per ] and ], years with full dates should be linked; for example, link ], ], but do not link January 2006.<ref name="linkdate">See footnote</ref>
*Please alphabetize the ].<ref name="alpha">See footnote</ref>
*Per ], this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per ].<ref name="toc">See footnote</ref>
*There are a few occurrences of ]s in this article- please observe ]. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. {{#if:''apparently''|For example,
**''apparently''}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|**{{{2}}}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|**{{{3}}}}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|**{{{4}}}}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|**{{{5}}}}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|**{{{6}}}}} {{#if:''apparently''|**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper ] (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please <strike>strike</strike> this comment).}}<ref name="awt">See footnote</ref> <!--This javascript cannot determine if a citation is provided; if all weasel terms are covered by citations, please strike this-->
*Watch for ] that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's ].)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “<font color='red'><s>All</s></font> pigs are pink, so we thought of <font color='red'><s>a number of</s></font> ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am <font color='red'><s>now</s></font> using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of ]. See also ]. {{#if:{{{1|}}}|For example,
**{{{1}}}}}{{#if:{{{2|}}}|**{{{2}}}}}{{#if:{{{3|}}}|**{{{3}}}}}{{#if:{{{4|}}}|**{{{4}}}}}{{#if:{{{5|}}}|**{{{5}}}}}{{#if:{{{6|}}}|**{{{6}}}}}{{#if:{{{1|}}}|**and perhaps other copyediting fixes for grammar/spelling are needed.}}<ref name="copyedit">See footnote</ref>
You may wish to browse through ] for further ideas. Thanks, '']''&nbsp;<sub>]</sub> 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

==History==
I'm up to page 59 of 223 in the Rowan biography of West. As I hit good points, I'm adding them to the articles on West, Seton, Beard and others as well as here. I have the Boyce biography on order. I just found Peterson's ''Boy Scouts: An American Adventure'' buried in my library, so I'm going to go through that. I'm looking for Beard's auto-biography, and trying to find something on Seton. This stuff is fascinating.

I have a feeling that we will need to think about splitting off the history section soon. --] 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just got the Petterchak bio of Boyce. Just a few bits involving BSA history, but some is good clarification. Much additions to the Boyce bio of course, and a lot for the LSA.

I am '''seriously''' thinking about forking the history and merging the history sections from Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Exploring, Sea Scouts, Varsity Scouts and Venturing. Thoughts? --] 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:The history section has gotten big and if there is enough material, an article on ] would be warranted. ] 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

:Fork before we have to run for our lives. The historical material is wonderful, but it's threatening to swallow up the article. A merge is probably in order, too, but it's not urgent. --] (]) 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
::I just hope I'm not getting too much cruft into this, but I am essentially condensing pages into sentences. --]
:::The new material is pretty crufty right now, but that just means that it's still a rough draft. --] (]) 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

===Split===
Propose that the history section be split into a a new article: ]. --] 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
:Please '''support''' or '''oppose''' and comment below:
''Support''
#'''Support split''' and link both main and project BSA articles to it, with summaries in each one.] 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. --] (]) 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''': This article is totally overweight. The limit should really be somewhere around the 32 kbyte! Given the state it currently is in, I'd not even give it the A-Class status. <span style="color:#B03060;"><i>] (])</i></span> 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
#'''Support''' The history needs it's own article. --] 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
''Oppose''
<s>#'''Oppose''' I like it the way it is ... --] 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)</s>

''Neutral''
#Can we see the draft of the page before you make the split? --] 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
#:Which page: the main BSA article or the history article? --]

''Comments''
#Please note that the history section is only up to the 1940s. Only six more decades to go. --]
#Please also note that the article is 46 kb long. I estimate that half of that is history (say, 25 kb). If we extrapolate linearly from the first three decades, the latter six decades should take another 50 kb. That leaves us with an article pushing 100 kb. --] (]) 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
#Do we have an agreement yet? Even if ''evrik'' doesn't like it, we would have four supporting and one opposed. --] (]) 04:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
*Seems to me we have, it's getting big and that section is or will be out of proportion. I think it's important and Gadget850 has done a great job, so IMHO the separate article is more than warranted.] 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'''done''' --] 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

==Progressivism==
I was planning to expand the preface to the history section with mention of progressivism and "racial life". The article ] doesn't define the pre-cursor concepts of the BSA very well. --] 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
*"The Four Original Goals of Progressivism: Protecting social welfare - YMCA" is about all it says. Go ahead and expand it. I think we should also mention b-P's goal to menotr disadvantaged boys. --] 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure: I was planning on doing this in the history section (or article if we split). I really do not want to get into that progressivism article. The West bio has some good stuff on this, and I've been searching for more. I think it is important to at least explore this area. --] 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

== Theism ==
I suggest that the word "]" be used to describe the ], if not in the opening sentence, then at least in the opening paragraph. One reviewer deleted my insertion of this word, with the comment: "Scouting organizations are ALL theistic, so this one is not unique." First of all, this is not true. Please see the page regarding membership controversies to verify that there are several nontheistic scouting organizations. Furthermore, an organization that zealously polices its members by expelling those who differ from theistic beliefs deserves to be labeled with the appellation. Lastly, an attribute doesn't have to be "unique" to be part of the definition of what an organization is dedicated to. --] 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
*I don't know. Is ] theistic? The Scouts offer many different ways to be spiritual. --] 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:Ah, but the adjective ''theistic'' is being used to modify ''Scouting organization'', so for ''theistic'' to be necessary, ''Scouting organizations'' need to come in both ''theistic'' and ''non-theistic'' varieties. Despite a few examples, this is not a prominent division among Scouting organizations. It might be appropriate for those unusual ones to be listed as ''non-theistic'', but when the default is to be ''theistic'', labelling the ones that are is redundant. --] 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages articles is not merely to present every fact that it is ''necessary'' to state, but to be informative as possible. Omitting a fact simply because a reader could deduce it from other available facts is absurd.

==spiritual development==
Perhaps the article on ] needs to be modified to remove reference to spiritual development? While I recently learned that ] opened it's membership completely in 1998, I don't know the policy of other WOSM groups on theism. I still don't think that BSA's policy makes them unique in the Scouting Movement as theistic. --] 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
*I think you have it backwards. You said ''"I still don't think that BSA's policy makes them unique in the Scouting Movement as theistic."'' They are not unique, and this is why it shouldn't be cited. --] 16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::My post was in response to the wish to label BSA as theistic. My question is, if BSA is theistic ''and'' Scouting is not, then don't we need to have this discussion over on ] and the changes be made to remove the word spiritual from the ] article. I concur that BSA is not unique in being theistic. Pardon my inability to express it clearly in the original. --] 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:First read the WOMS constitution, it includes a ] 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::Excellent. As such, identifying something as a ''theistic Scouting movement'' is redundant. Would it be accurate to say that the ''non-theistic'' groups may be ''Scout-like'', but they are not ''Scouting'' organizations? --] 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
:::One could, but that opens another big debate as some associations have allowed atheists in. But the movement historically does a belief in a higher being, however one defines that. You're also assuming all Scout are WOSM associatiates, but they're not. God was certainly a part of BP-s vision. ] 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

==Council executive==
Is there any council out there with an actual ''council executive''? The prime professional in a council is the Scout executive, but ''council executive'' has been added to a few articles. Also see the . --] 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
:We call our lead council professional the "council executive"; whether or not that's his official title, I can find out if you like.] 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::::According to your newsletter, Bill Deany is the Scout executive. --] 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::We always refer to ours that way. But I see that our Key 3 at the level are the Council President, Council Commissioner and Scout Executive. Odd that they don't stick with the some adjective (which they do at the District level). --] 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure which came first: National Scout Executive or Scout executive, but one probably derives from the other. --] 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

:::But very few call him the Scout exective, most people, in actual usage, call him the Council executive.] 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can show me a real council executive, I think I'm going to add a footnote to the title:
*Sometimes called the ''council executive'' in common useage. --] 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. shows a council executive emblem, so it looks like thei is or was a position. --] 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

:That's ambiguous. It could mean the specific title ("the Council executive"), or a class of titles ("an executive of the council"). The "Language of Scouting" page seems to imply that ''Gadget850'''s footnote is accurate. --] (]) 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

== Controversy section ==

For some reason, a lot of details have been stuffed into the controversy section lately that really belong in the main article at ]. Since the section has a main link to that article, the section should be a summary of the issues. In my opinion, sections with main links should reflect the lead-in of the main article. I recommend that this be pared back. --] 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:I agree totally.] 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
::Me, too. --] 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::It's been cleaned up. Most of it was already in the controversies article.] 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The Scouting for All citation does document the position of critics, however, it is very out-dated (1995) and containg information that is no longer relevant. Should it be deleted and replaced with '''citation needed'''? --] 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess with all three of us editing at the same time we might get it right :) --] 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:I am not sure how big SFA is, since though it is based in San Jose, California, they do not have a presence, or a huge one, in the San Diego North County area. If this is just coming from one IP address, I would not be surprised if we might have to do a semi-protect. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

::I believe this is registered to , not AT&T. --] 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that part of the reason for the contaversey surrounding Scout membership is that fact that itis the only private organization which discriminates which also recieves public funding? I'm not getting on a soapbox here, it's a real question. --] 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

: If you can cite a reference for that information, then yes, I think that this is a very pertinent point - however, if it is only that you think the fact about the only private organisation to receive public funding, then that would not be valid. ] 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Merger with American Boy Scouts ==

'''Oppose'''. The ] were a separate organization that never merged with the BSA. --] 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''. Clearly a completely different organization. A disambiguation at the top of that article and a see also (or reference in the history section) would be appropriate. A merger would very likely lead to the eventual elimination of the information in that article as not particularly relevant to the BSA. --] 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:It's fairley well noted in the preface of the article now. --] 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::I'm sorry - I meant to indicate that it probably ought to be in the ''See also'' of ''this'' article. Or maybe in the Other United States Scout organizations section. --] 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Comment'''. The ] is a stub and is not likely to advance much more - there should at least be mention of it in the ] section. ] 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Oppose'''. per above but support a mention with a link to the main article. ] 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Comments''' The ABS is noted in the ] along with the other competitors and precursors of the BSA. I think that other United States Scout organizations in the BSA article should be restricted to current organizations with past groups noted in the hsitory article. --] 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:Agree with Gadget850. ] 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:Concur. --] 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
'''Oppose'''. Agree completely with ''Gadget850''. --] (]) 03:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a unanimous consensus- I'm reverting the merge tag. --] 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== Censorship in the name of NPOV ==
"NPOV" doesn't just mean "things I want people to know about", people. If you think something doesn't belong, you should discuss it in the Talk Page ''before'' deleting it.] 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*See ], there is an entire article, a FA even, on this. This is hardly censorship and it is linked from this BSA article. ] 09:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*We have discussed this repeatedly over the several articles where you keep adding the same information. You are adding material that smacks of original research and POV. The few cites you have used appeared to have been copied from other articles and had nothing to do with the statements you added. You created the article ]- I added the fact tag, and an admin put it up for speedy deletion. On at least two occasions, you have added a statement at the top of this article that "This article is for positive aspects of the BSA." That is patently untrue, as Membership controversy rates an entire section. You have made statements that a certain person committed libel, again without any source. Please stop. --] 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*I concur with ] and ]. --] 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

*As do I. To borrow from a phrase that I've heard somewhere (and add my own twist), it would appear that someone has an ax to grind and hasn't staked it down properly. ] 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The other article is about the membership policies of the BSA, not the honesty policies.

It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to call my additions "original research". As for "POV", you have yet to explain what you mean by that term. The Wiki guidelines specifically state that
*None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

*As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Your comment that my cites are copied from other articles is also quite odd. A cite is, by definition, copied from the source material. That is what a cite is. And my cites clearly do have relevance to my claims. I recall putting a comment on the top of the page only once, and this claim is justified, as the controversy section is restricted to only being a summary. Finally, your repeated refusal to admit the libel that has been clearly established marks you as either being either highly self-delusional, or simply dishonest. As your "objections" are without merit, I have reverted.] 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*I also concur with the statements by Rlevse and others. I have reverted your most recent change and also left a message on your talk page. You're most recent claim was that the organization has acted less than honestly on past occasions. First, since you provided no source, this is only your opinion or interpretation of fact and therefore could easily be considred original research. Secondly, this statement could surely be made against any individual or group. That doesn't mean that we need to go dilute all our articles with such generic statements. You seem to have some sort of axe to grind and Misplaced Pages is not the place for that. If this sort of behavior continues, it could be grounds for blocking in the future. ]\<sup>]</sup> 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did provide a source. Not all organizations lie, and it's certainly not the case that all organizations make a big deal about promoting honesty, and then lie. People take the BSA as an authority, and they need to know that that authority is flawed.] 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:There was no source in either of the two changes I reverted. Please state your source here for the record. As a philosophical aside, if you can show me someone who claims to never lie, I will show you a lier. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
:Hegwm: The Dale case and religion are extensively discussed at ] as the are very pertinent to membership and that is where your edits belong. ] 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources were http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml and bsalegal.org
And the whole "everyone lies" doesn't make sense. Even if everyone does, how many other facts mentioned in the article are true of pretty much every organization?
I am disucssing the BSA, and therefore my edits belong in the BSA article. Simply because something involves a different article, that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong here. Other than the fact that the lies were prompted by the membership controversy, they don't have much to do with it. You have yet to present any real reason for the deletion.] 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
*First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites. Second of all, I jsut openned both of those pages and searched them each for the word "honest" and got no hits. Do you understand what it means to cite a source? It means pointing to a source that actually said what you are trying to include, and then pointing out that we are quoting the words of that source, and not making them up ourselves. Please see ]. ]\<sup>]</sup> 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
::Not to mention all of your rationale is your mere opinion of honesty and lying. You are obviously merely trying to grind an axe on the BSA. ] 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

::The article at http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml is 11 years old and is quite dated- much of it is no longer relevant. The bsalegal.org article you seem to be intrigued by is at http://www.bsalegal.org/daily-transcript-42604-233.asp. Personally, I don't care for Pulliam's comments, but it was written as an op-ed, so it is his opinion. If you want to discuss your opinion as to the validity of his statements I suggest you contact him and open a dialog directly as this is not the proper venue. --] 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, if you're going to just make statements that are flatout wrong, I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you. Go back and look at the edits that you reverted. As for the rest of your comment, that makes no sense. I never claimed that either cite is for a site that directly states that the BSA is dishonest. If I have a cite of the BSA saying X, and also a cite of the BSA saying not X, is it "original research" to note that fact? If we're going to play the cite game, I could delete 90% of this article. Do you really want to go down that road?

Rlevse: It is not my "opinion". It is objective fact that the BSA published lies. Also, if you want to discuss this with me, how about writing substantive comments? "Ax to grind" is simply a deprecatory phrase conveying no real meaning.

Gadget: Writing something as an op-ed doesn't give one license to write whatever one wants. And what relevance is it how old something is? The "good turns" section, besides being questionable from a NPOV standpoint, largely concerns things decades old.

A question for you people: after 9/11, Jerry Falwell blamed liberal, homsexuals, atheists, etc. Where does that fact belong?
A) It was prompted by 9/11, so it belongs in the 9/11 article.
B) It was made by Falwell, so it belongs in the Falwell article.
C) It belongs in both.
D) It's just an "ax to grind", so it doesn't belong anywhere.
] 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
:Heqwm, I reviewed the edits and they prove you are mistaken.
:The first time I reverted you, the change you made said "While the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness, in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."
:The second time, your change said "As the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness that causes many people to accept their claims uncritically, it is important to not that in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."
:Neither one of your edits mentions either website that you later mentioned. That is exactly what I said above, "First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites." My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I am making statements that are flat-out wrong.
:I ask again for you to read ]. If you want to make a claim like "...in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values." you need to directly back that up with a specific source that makes that specific claim.
:As for your statement "I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you." no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to post here. ]\<sup>]</sup> 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
You did not quote my edits in their entirety. I put a summary of the claim in the introduction and exposition, with cites, in the main article. And I disagree with your interpretation of ]. The guidelines specifically draw a distinction between '' original'' research and ''source-based'' research. Your interpretation would lead to an absurd requirement; for instance, the claim that "The stated objectives of the BSA are referred to as 'Aims of Scouting" would have to be supported by a cite of the BSA stating that they state that they are their objectives, rather than merely presenting a cite of the BSA stating that they are their objectives.] 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Since my edits were deleted from the controversies article, I have replaced them here.] 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to actually present a reason for the reversions, or are you just going to delete?] 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
:::You put no citations at all in the edits I reverted. Anyone may plainly see that by checking the article history. You still don't seem to understand what a citation is. I urge you again to review ]. ]\<sup>]</sup> 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*Here we go around in circles, circles.... ] 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
If you revert again without giving a reason, I will consider that conclusive proof of bad faith.] 01:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to put up or shut up. Why is this "important" and what are the "examples". --] 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gadget850 and Rlevse are correct...this is just going around in circles and you can't prove your case. Stop wasting everyone's time. Bad faith? You must be looking in the mirror when you said that one and there is no requirement for Rlevse, nor anyone, to repeat something that's been said many times already. ] 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your "case" to prove. Insulting me at the very same time as accusing me of not acting in good faith is incredibly hypocritical. There has been no valid reason for the deletion presented, I have refuted all the alleged reasons, and no attempt to counter those refutations have been made. As it clear that, for quite some time now, the efforts to assume good faith have been unilateral on my part, and you have utterly refused to particpate in my attempts at good faith discussion, the "Assume Good Faith" portion of this discussion is over.] 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
*You still didn't cite a source, and I've reverted you again. If you don't modify your behavior, there will be no alternative to viewing your behavior as vandalism. ]\<sup>]</sup> 07:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"You put no citations at all in the edits I reverted. Anyone may plainly see that by checking the article history." That is an utter lie. Until you apologize, I will automatically assume every one of your actions to be in bad faith.] 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
::I want to assume good faith but you are making it very difficult. I will try one more time, as perhaps we are not communicating well. When I say you put no citation in the edits I reverted, what I mean is you did not quote any expert or footnote any source that makes the claim you wish to include. Therefore, it is an unsourced statement. If you somehow think that you did include a citation, then please explain what the word "citation" means to you - because I'm not seeing one in your edits. ]\<sup>]</sup> 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you've redefined "cite" to suit your needs. A cite is a reference to a source. Saying that there are unsourced statements and saying there are no cites are completely different statements. Even with your ridiculous redefintion, you are incorrect. I wish to include the claim that the BSA claimed to be a religious organization, and I presented a cite supporting that claim.] 08:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
::No, I'm using "cite" in the same way as our policy, ]. You put no source for your claim in either of the edits I reverted. Once again, you must be prepared to cite a source, not your opinion. ]\<sup>]</sup> 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
:Hi Heqwm. I was one of the contributes to the membership controversy article. Let me take a stab as saying why your last edits are getting reverted. It's not that the point you're trying to make is wrong: "BSA is a religious organization in one case, but not in another, and therefore hypocritical". That might be a valid point to make. The problem is it's not up to us, as Misplaced Pages editors, to make be making points. So, when you've been accused of original research, what've you done is take known facts and put them together to form a novel argument. That's a natural thing to do, but its something we should try to avoid, because then we're editorializing rather than reporting. What you'd be wanting here, instead, is a major source to make the same argument you're making, and then Misplaced Pages just has to report on that source-- not present it. It's an easy misunderstanding to have: Making a novel argument while citing pieces of evidence to support that argument ISN'T the same as "citing a source for that argument". But if you had such a source, if that source was reliable, and you could cite than source, then your edit would no longer be Original Research.

:The other issue at hand, however, is that edits have to comply with Neutral Point of View. This is a complex thing, but one of the immediate flags that something probably not NPOV is when I can read the contribution and immediately known what the editor in question feels about an issue. If something is truly written from the NPOV, I should have a very hard time figuring out what your point is just from reading your edits. The difference between informative and persuasive writing. Both have their place, but we should be trying as hard as possible to tell ALL sides of the story, and not to persuade our readers. And your edits are pretty clearly trying to make an argument rather than just report on an argument.

:There are other problems as well. The hypocrisy you accuse BSA of is just a small part of the ongoing controversy, and that controversy is itself just a small part of the BSA. So, even if your edits could comply with the OR policy, and even if we could reword them in compliance with the NPOV policy-- I think having this much f space on the main article devoted to the hypocrisy argument would be giving it undue weight. IF we can find a good source that points out the discrepancy with the arguments made in the San Diego case and the earlier arguments made in the explusion cases, it might be worth a sentence, but it still is just one small portion of the issue that's sort of a side point. There isn't a controversy because people believe the policies are hypocritical. There is a controversy because people believe the policies are morally wrong.

:Lastly, and honestly somewhat irrelevantly since my own personal views on the merit of your argument are totally irrelevant to whether it should be included, but i'll say it anyway-- the observation you make doesn't NECESSARILY mean the BSA is being hypocritical or dishonest. Lawyers routinely make all kinds of crazy, self-contradictory arguments in the course of doing their job. There's an old law school joke they mention where a lawyer makes the argument "My client is innocent because he never owned a gun like the one that was used in the murder. And secondly, I can prove he sold that gun to someone else a month before the murder occurred". This sort of thing happens all the time. The BSA could try to argue, for example, that is a "religious organization" under the definition used in Freedom to Associate law, but NOT a "religious organization" for the purposes of "Establishment Clause" law. For example, suppose I have an informal bible study group, but not one that is registered as a Non-profit with the IRS. My groupd would be a "religious organization" under the purposes of first amendment law, but the very same group would NOT be a "religious organization" under tax law.

:Anyway, if you want this aspect covered, you should look around for the biggest name you can find who talks about the discrepancy between the BSA's claim to being a religious organization in some cases, but not in others-- if it's a big deal, maybe it'd merit an observation in the membership controversy page, but I'm skeptical. In any case, I really wouldn't stress over it-- we do an extensive coverage of the whole controversy over there, and it's quite a good, mature page that I think does an excellent job of discussing the whole ball of wax.

:--] 11:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
::Alecmconroy-Excellent summation of the situation. I don't think anyone could have said it better. ] 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"No, I'm using "cite" in the same way as our policy, WP:CITE." You yet to present any explanation for how that page supports your claim. Simply posting a lin over and over again saying "Look! This proves I'm right" is incredibly rude. And no I see that you have deleted the POV tag, once again simply declaring me to be wrong without giving any explanation how.

"So, when you've been accused of original research, what've you done is take known facts and put them together to form a novel argument." No, I haven't. It's hardly a "novel" argument to mention that saying X and saying not X is contradictory. Now, I could apply this standard to the rest of the article. Do you want me to do that, or do you want to drop this line of argument? It's one or the other.

"If something is truly written from the NPOV, I should have a very hard time figuring out what your point is just from reading your edits." This completely ignores what "NPOV" means. It means that the ''article'' should be written from an NPOV, not that all edits should be from a NPOV. Furthermore, the question of who made an edit is ultimately irrelevant to whether it's NPOV. You need to make a convincing argument for why the EDIT is not NPOV, not keep making ad hominem attacks. And, again, the hypocrisy of this line of argument is flagrantly obvious. Do you have ''any'' trouble figuring out the point of view of the people that have ''deleted'' my edits? Hmmm?

"The hypocrisy you accuse BSA of is just a small part of the ongoing controversy". You are wrong on two counts. First, it is not small. Second, it is only tangentially part of the controversies. While the lies were ''prompted'' by the controversy, they are an important issue regarding the group as a whole. I have already made these arguments, and I think that it is rude for you to ignore them, and to refuse to answer my multiple choice question. And once again, hypocrisy. You people say that they belong in the other article, but when I put them there they get deleted.

"I think having this much f space on the main article devoted to the hypocrisy argument would be giving it undue weight." Undue space? There is an entire section devoted to praising "good turns" of the BSA, are there are multiple references throughout the article to the BSA's alleged "values". And you are complaining about four sentences that mention that one of the most prominent features of the BSA's image is false?

" Lawyers routinely make all kinds of crazy, self-contradictory arguments in the course of doing their job." Yes, and when was the last time you heard someone use the phrase "He's a real lawyer" as a term of phrase? The BSA have a reputation of being above such... nonstandard... ethics. I think that it is therefore important to comment on the validity of that reputation.{{unsigned2|11:31, 2006 October 8 |Heqwm }}
:If you want to apply the <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> tag, then you must follow the proceedure at ]. Specicially, you need to "... on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute ". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Otherwise, the tag will continue to be removed. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
:Also, you still don't seem to have read ]. It says
:<blockquote>If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source...The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. ] such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing ]: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Misplaced Pages is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for ].</blockquote>
:You simply did not provide any citation in the material which I reverted. Calling me a liar is not going to change that fact, although it may get you banned from Misplaced Pages for making personal attacks. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you want to apply the <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> tag, then you must follow the proceedure at ]." I don't agree with that interpretation, but fine. "You simply did not provide any citation in the material which I reverted." Yes, I did, and continuing to lie won't change that fact. If you don't want people to call you on your lies, then don't lie. Threatening to get me banned for pointing out your lie simply compounds your error. You are being completely unreasonable.] 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Heqwm, I reviewed the edits again and they prove once again you are mistaken:
:The first time I reverted you, the change you made said "While the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness, in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values." There is no source stated in your edit at all.
:The second time, your change said "As the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness that causes many people to accept their claims uncritically, it is important to not that in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values." Once again, you cite no source at all.
:Neither one of your edits mentions either website that you later mentioned. That is exactly what I said above, "First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites." My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I lied. ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

----
Heqwm: Given the text of the edits, I have made the presumption that you previously made edits as ], so this has been going on for over a month. Much of this was already discussed (see ]) and went in circles then, just as this dialog has.

Errors in your points have been explained politely and reasonably. We have pointed you towards policies. You have shown a complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate your position based upon the input of others.

To me, it is obvious that there is going to be NO resolution by logical discourse, and I am no longer willing to continue in this manner. I feel that you are not acting in good faith, and that compromise is no longer a solution. I will no longer respond to you as I will not allow you to disrupt my contributions. -] 21:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
----

Hmm, perhaps you did not lie, but rather are simply incredibly unobservant. Here's a link that shows that I mentioned the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America&oldid=80172408#_note-16

No errors in my points have been explained, politely or otherwise. It's really quite rude to simply declare some to be unwilling to listen to reason simply because they don't agree with you. It's quite clear that by "listen to reason", you mean "do what I say", and by "moderate your position", you mean "completely abandon you position". You have made absolutely '''no''' effort to get me to "moderate" my position: your position is simply that my edits should be deleted in their entirety, rather than "moderated". "Compromise"? What a load of bullshit. You haven't made any effort to compromise. You started slinging around accusations of bad faith as soon as I didn't kowtow to your decrees.] 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV Dispute ==
The complete refusal to allow any mention of the BSA's dishonesty or hateful actions constitutes a deviation from NPOV.{{unsigned2|12:36, 2006 October 8|Heqwm}}
:You need to provide a lot more than a sentence <s>fragment</s>. The policy says "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." ]\<sup>]</sup> 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sentence fragment"? Huh? It's a complete sentence. The article as a whole is not NPOV because unflattering facts are deleted. It can be improved by allowing those facts. This seems rather self-explanatory.] 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, it was not a fragment, I misread it. However, it certainly does not qualify as "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." ]\<sup>]</sup> 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To date, there have been no successful attempts to document a BSA policy of dishonesty. However, if sourced, I would recommend that such a reference be included and treated in the same way as other controversies. I am not sure what "hateful actions" Heqwm is referring to, but it seems that there has been ample opportunity for discussion of positive and negative aspects of the BSA, noting a subsection and related separate article on the member controversy. I feel confident that the casual Misplaced Pages reader would get a balanced overall perspective on the BSA from reading this article and related sub-articles. The POV tag can be removed. --] 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:I agree. --] 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

==Mediation cabal case==
Heqwm has filed a request for mediation at ]. ]\<sup>]</sup> 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

:Heqwm has not responded to a mediator's offer to mediate, yet today he reinserted tags and the Pulliam piece without discussion, so the following two subsections: Fact tags on refs and Pulliam.] 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
===Fact tags on refs===
Inserting fact tags on sentences that already have valid refs is clearly POV and disruptive. ] 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:Clearly a troll trying to be disruptive. The pre-existing refs were valid and there's no reason to re-tag them with a fact tag.] 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that once again my opponents are resorting to personal attacks. None of the claims that I tagged had valid cites.] 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

===Pulliam===
Setting aside the issue of whether this belongs in the article at all, it clearly does not belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. ] 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
:Agree. ] 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to say that the BSA teaches good citizinship, you should also mention that in fact, they teach bad citizenship by example. Giving more prominence to the former than the latter is misleading and not NPOV]

Latest revision as of 17:35, 10 November 2024

Former good articleBoy Scouts of America was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
February 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewDemoted
August 29, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 15, 2004, February 8, 2010, February 8, 2011, February 8, 2014, February 8, 2019, February 8, 2022, and February 8, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconScouting High‑importance
WikiProject iconBoy Scouts of America is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was the project's Portal collaboration of the month (November 2006).
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Styles: This is an article about the Boy Scouts of America. In addition to standard style guides, the Language of Scouting is also used.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

GA Reassessment

Boy Scouts of America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Numerous unreferenced sections, including the entirety of the "Groups and divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Meeting of the minds

@Graywalls: The last few days, you have been all over the BSA related articles:

Then there's this: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents

I'm not sure what to ask here, but clearly you've decided to focus on scouting articles, and you seem to be taking a lot of unilateral actions on long-established articles. I'm going to bring in @Jergen, Btphelps, and North8000: to see if they can help focus this discussion. --evrik  04:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik:, After some digging following the Big Sur thing, I've come across sufficient proof to show btphelps have a strong COI with Béla H. Bánáthy and White Stag and a probable WP:UPE as well as I've started working on it once I've identified their insertion of Whitestag.org sources into various articles. They've been asked to answer on their page. We have a WP:OUTING policy, so I can not discuss the proof on Misplaced Pages Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks. --evrik  21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other ones but for this one you deleted long standing material core material on the basis of which wiki formatting method was used. And then are claiming that a consensus is needed to retain long standing material. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have changed the article back. --evrik  21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
per the comments above, look at Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America. --evrik  00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik  03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For ease of finding it, now Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined) -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Age Range for Cub Scouts in Infobox

Since Cub Scouts membership is based on current grade of the Scout, rather than their age, would it make more sense in the Info Box to list a wider age range than just 5-10, or to instead list K-5th Grade? I was 4 when I started Kindergarten, so based on what's listed here, I couldn't join in Kindergarten which I know is not correct. Additionally, there are some 5th graders that turn 11 before bridging over to Scouts BSA, so perhaps a wider age range is appropriate? Tostie14 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Info boxes always need to be over-abbreviated. I think that giving a general idea based on ages is good even if imperfect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Organization name change in the lead

Nice work! IMO eventually there should be a section on this for two reasons. Would allow putting more on this important news than can fit in the lead. Also the lead should be a summary of what is in the body of the article and I don't see where this is in the body of the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This information needs to be described in detail in its own section in the article and summarised in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


Clarity on name change

Based on recent edits which I had to revert, it would be good to summarize.

  • The name of the overall organization will officially change from "Boy Scouts of America" to "Scouting America" in 2025. But they are informally starting to use the new name now.
  • The name of the flagship program within the organization (roughly speaking the main one serving 11-15 year olds, technically approx 10-18) changed from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts BSA" in 2019 and there is no additional change to this announced and they specifically said that the announced change does not affect this.

IMO we should not move/rename the article until new name change is official in 2025.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories: