Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 3

Massive Rewrite

So, I did a massive rewrite that I hope will answer both the POV concerns and the cleanup/stylistic concerns. I want to state off two things:

1. I tried SUPER hard to make this REALLY REALLY neutral.

---

You failed miserably ! Starting with the simple fact that 20 cases out of 110 million members is not "numerous cases" . Once again, the whole issue is a non-issue for about 5 million members of BSA and the "policies" are never mentioned in any Scouting literature or training materials used at the unit level.

Also the main issues are folks not agreeing to the Scout Oath and "Avowed or known" homosexuals in leadership positions. Keeping your sex life and political activism out of Scouting has been the rule for for years for all adult leaders whatever their preference.

I vote for a revert. --GCW50 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what exactly do you object to most of all? Is it the extent to which the controversy's covered:-- i.e. the current version makes the issue seem like more of a deal than it is? That talking about in this much depth is inherently biased because it's not really that big of a deal? Or just that the current version has a systemic bias? I definitely wouldn't object to advertising this on POV-check or RFC to get a lot more eyeballs on it. LIke your own accent, your own bias is generally invisible to you, and if you wrote about a subject or care about it, it's almost impossible for you to figure out if it's biased.

Regarding your specific concern about "numerous"-- granted, there have only been 20 or so law suits, but we have to believe that for every case where someone was expelled but did not in fact sue. I looked really hard to see if BSA publishes any statistics for how many people have been expelled under the policy, but I don't think there's any net counting.

I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how large of a population we're talking about here. According to Demographics of sexual orientation, something between 1% and 10% of Americans are homosexual. So, let's take the most conservative figure (1%) and also assume that homosexual and scouting interest are independent (which is unlikely-- it seems like gays might either be MORE interested or LESS interested than hetereosexuals). But, very very roughly, we're looking at a population of about about 50,000 people who are either in BSA right now in violation of the policy or would be in BSA if the policy were not in place.

Now, you can totally rip that rough guess apart, because it's totally a bogus statistic, and i'd never ever ever even think for one second of putting anything as heineous and slapshod as that number in the article. But my point it-- we have to believe that the number of people are several orders of magnitude higher than the number of people who've actually filed lawsuits.

I feel like "numerous" is a pretty good guess as how many people have been affected one way or the other, but it is a guess. If people feel it's inapproriate, we could always say "several cases" or so we could also just say "there have been cases".

In defense of "how big an issue it is" and whether this page should really just be a paragraph or two, all I can point to is that the US Supreme Court and two acts of congress have expressed support of the scouts-- this is a national issue that has involved the very highest levels of government, not just a small internal BSA debate. There are many many people who have never wore the uniform or said the oath who are involved in this debate. For better or for worse, the BSA is, in this case, finds itself as the latest battleground in a huge national political debate between two very large and very motivated political groups.

I definitely realize that to the average "scout on the ground" it's not that big a deal, doesn't really come up, and it's most certainly not what Scouting's all about. I myself have was a scout for a period of years after the court battles began, and you know how many times the policies ever came up or were even discuss in my troop: 0. So, I can certainly see how you'd look at this article and feel that by virtue of it's size, it's a making a mountain out of a molehill. In my experience, local troops aren't that "into" the controvery generally-- but that doesn't stop a lot of greater america at large from being very into the controversy, on both sides.

I guess my point is, this is a really big issue, the scouts ARE under attack, and if you want to get a feel for how big an issue it is, don't ask around the troop, ask the Christian Coalition & the ACLU, Fox News & CNN, the Supreme Court and the US Congress.

So that said-- what exactly about the current version is biased?

--Alecmconroy 18:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, why did you remove all of the numerical facts that kept everything in perspective, such as 50 out of x number United way chapters, etc., the number of lawsuits versus total members over time, the exact reasons for UUA badge removal (that were found in the letters on their own website) etc?

Some of us on both sides of the argument have been working hard for a number of months to keep it factual and not POV. Feel free to create your own website if you want a sopabox. Look through the old article and put the deleted facts back in or gets reverted tomorrow.--GCW50 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Regarding: "Look through the old article and put the deleted facts back in or gets reverted tomorrow.". Ordering and threatening aren't, generally nice things to do. Please-- assume good faith-- I assure you, if I was consciously trying to make a soapbox on the issue, for one side or the other, the result would look very different. Please use consensus-- one person had said they felt the old page was POV, I personally feel the new page is an improvement, at least two other people have made comments or substantial edits that make me think they don't want it reverted, and Jagz hasn't gotten a chance to weigh in at all. If there really becomes a strong consensus to revert all my hard work, then we'll have to, cause that's the way it goes. But until it's clear such a consensus exists, please.. don't revert.

2. Regarding your specific concerns about the how many total United Way chapters there were and how many total scouts there had been: sentences like "There have been 110 million members of the BSA over the past 95 years; fewer than two dozen members have ever sued BSA ". I'm glad you asked about it, because those deletions were very conscious ones I had put a lot of thought into. Let me tell you my reasoning, and see what ya'll think.

So, I'll use an example of why I felt including the whole population total in these instances is misleading. Let's say I'm talking about the 2004 US Presidential Election. Suppose I say this:

"Only 60 million Americans (out of the 300 million Americans total) voted to re-elect President Bush."

This sentence is technically true, and it is technically factual, but it is also misleading and unfair to President Bush. The sentence implies that while only 60 million supported the President, the other 240 million didn't vote for him. This is technically true, but it's totally unfair and misleading. The fact is, most American's don't vote, and the majority of those 300 million were "undecided", not "opposed to Bush". And as we know, Bush was, in fact, the most popular candidate. So to say "60 million out of 300 million total supported Bush" is simply very misleading.

In a similar sense, it's also misleading to say "Only two dozen (out of 110 million total) have sued the BSA". Yes, it's technically true, but implicit in that sentence is the idea that the other 109,999,976 members agreed with the policies. But of course, as you know, only a teensy tiny minute percent of the members who disagree would ever sue-- particularly after the court has so strongly upheld BSA's rights to set their own standard. Every legal case-- from Marbury v. Madison to Brown v. Board of Education to Roe v. Wade has just a few litigants to represent whole classes of people. To say "only two dozen out of 110 million" implies there's just few lone nuts out there, about two dozen, who oppose the policy. In reality, a substantial minority (about a third) of BSA opposes the policy, and some chunk of the rest of the nation opposes the policy. So, I feel that to list the number of legal cases as a fraction of the total number of members in all of BSA history is simply very misleading.

The sentence "About 53 of the 1350 local United Way chapters have withdrawn funding" suffered from a similar problem. 50 of the chapters have vocally said they're withdrawing all funding. But that doesn't mean that the other 1300 have vocally said "we're going to continue funding the scouts no matter what". Instead, the other 1300 simply "haven't voted". Do the other 1300 even support the scouts at all? Maybe they've never donated to the scouts and so they can't withdraw funding. Maybe they've cut quietly funding to the scouts but not made a big deal about it. Maybe they've significantly decreased funding the scouts but still donate a little. Or maybe they're still deciding what to do. Or maybe they really have decided to support the scouts all the way and have increased funding. I have no idea what status they are. The 1300 chapters are ones that "haven't voted" as far as we know. So, I feel that listing how many have withdrawn all funding as a fraction of the total chapters is misleading.

However, with the United Way issue, we do have one secondary problem. When we talk about how many people have sued, we all know exactly what a person is and about how big they are. But when you hear "United Way Chapter"-- we don't know how big that is. So, to solve that problem, I explicity listed a few "Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle" so that the reader could get a feel for a chapter-- that is, a chapter is "roughly city-sized". I had also wanted to figure out the total dollar amount that used to be contributed by those chapters and compare it to the BSA's total contributions, so that people could get a feel for how much money we're talking about, but I couldn't find a source on that.

3. About the Unitarian emblem. What exactly do you disagree with about the current version. 171.64.22.113 made some really excellent contributions to that section and I'm embarassed that my original version didn't have those things in there, and I think the contribution significantly helps that section to NPOV.

I couldn't really get factually and verifiably feel for why exactly the emblem was canceled. The initial letter from BSA makes it seem like it was just a bureaucratic thing-- the current version hadn't been approved, so it gets cancelled, and once you re-submit, it'll get approved again. The follow-up letters lead one to the conclusion was not the fact that they hadn't submitted it for approval, but that the real problem was that the unitarians were directly preaching to their children some positions that were contrary to the established values of Scouting.

What this section really needs is an official statement from BSA on their side of the issue, but I can't find one anywhere on their website. All we have are a few scattered letters from one employee of BSA which state a few different reasons. The closest thing we have is this quote from a letter from a BSA employee to the Unitarians:

Your letter goes on to say the following: "The new edition of Religion in Life will be available from the UUA Bookstore this summer. Along with each copy , the Association will separately provide a letter from me, along with resources appropriate to dealing with issues of homophobia and religious discrimination." Unfortunately, this simply reopens the entire issue of using boys as a venue to air your differences with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America.

We could quote this directly, but that seems a tad unfair to BSA to take one of their inter-organizational letters and quote it directly as if it were an official policy piece. Instead, the current version just states that it was this revelation that ended discussions, and leave the BSA's reasoning left up to the readers. All and all, I'm not totally pleased with how this section turned out. I didn't want to delete it from the article outright, but the lack of a good official BSA press release on it makes it hard to do the subject justice.

Maybe we should email BSA and ask them directly for an official statement we could quote.

Input from all on all these issues greatly appreciated.

-Alecmconroy 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

---

2. I worked really hard on this, so please, even if you don't like parts, don't just like revert the whole think outright, or it'll give me an aneurysm.

Umm, despite it's different structure, almost everything's still there, more or less, just summarized a tad and moved around. As Jagz speculated it could, the page did, in fact, fit within the recommended maximum article size. Part of the way this brevity was accomplished was:

• I cut down the "Membership Inflation Scandal" to one sentence-- just a passing mention.
• I didn't mention the "Girls in Scouting" thing at all-- a few of the advocacy groups mention it, but I didn't really find any discussion of it in mainstream media, so I went ahead and ommitted it.
• I didn't mention those two scoutmasters that were arrested (one for murder, one for child porn), and I didn't mention anything to do with the sex abuse or that one lawsuit where someone's suing BSA directly for abuse. Maybe I'm biased, but I just don't see it as truly a problem with the organization-- it seems like any group is going to have a few bad apples.
• I didn't fully get into the on-going "Controversy About Governmental Support"-- I mentioned it, quickly summarized both sides, and linked to the two biggest cases that are involved. Although I did mention the two relevant acts of congress earlier in the article (in the "Support from Government" section), I didn't explicity re-introduce them in them in this section. I didn't get into the curret injuction that's in place, I didn't mention the relevant legal precidents, I didn't really "dig my teeth into it"- I sorta blew past it pretty quickly and only gave a really brief and super informal discussion of the whole "Is it special access or is it equal access" issue. On the one hand, this is justified on the grounds that anything we write now will quickly become dated as those two big cases are decided, appealed, argued, and redecided, and "Wikipedia is not a news agency". On the other hand, it's a big issue, and if anyone felt we really need to get into the legal nitty-gritty of it, sacrificing brevity for the sake of thoroughness, i couldn't totally disagree.

I included a gazillion references inline-- I don't feel most of the links are "needed", as in, someone should really go and visit them, but they are there as references. If we feel that some things are "sufficiently-commonly-known" that we can remove the cites. We also could use a formal reference section, instead of just using the inline style.

I generally used the term "gay" instead of "homosexual"-- Harvard and APA style manuals make me. If you didn't know that, then you probably haven't had to attend a very liberal liberal arts college in the last decade, and if so, I envy you.

What else... PLEASE don't hate me, I went ahead and removed the definitions section since it was so stylistically odd to just have page from the BSA glossary stuck in the article like that. I tried to explicitly make the prose un-ambiguous. So, for example, since "leader" can refer to either adult or youths, I've tried to explicitly use the terms "adult leader" and "youth leader", rather than just lumping them together as "leaders". I think that should help the confusing around that term. I _think_ normal people know what packs and troops are.

I may have gone overboard in giving the background in the "Boy Scouts of America's Position": Baden-Powell, how long and how essential religion has been to the program, and then quoting verbatim the official statements on "Morally Straight" and "Duty to God". Maybe this was overkill, but I wanted it to be crystal clear that scouts didn't just wake up one day in 1981 and decide "We hate gays and atheists, let's kick 'em out". Rather, this was a continuation of the core values of the organization going back to 1910 and the only reason it never came up before 1981 was that there weren't test cases where people sued. At the same time, I realize that that entire section could have been summarized in one paragraph that says "BSA regards homosexuality as immoral, and feels a "duty to god" is essential". But like I said, better to go overboard on explaining the position than having people come away from the article thinking it was some random or arbitrary decision.

Umm... I said that there aren't any pending lawsuits in which people are still trying to actually get a court to directly order BSA to admit them. In all the research i've done, I didn't come across any, but at the same time, I couldn't find any source that explicitly said this is so. But it is true right that since BSA v. Dale, this is a matter of settled law, and since then, the opponents of Scouting have pretty much given up on this, right (well, on that TACTIC I should say-- they're still doing the other stuff obvious). Does anyone know of any cases?

Does anyone know of any openly gay scouts who have been allowed to stay in scouting? My own interpretation of BSA legal policy is that "Morally Straight" doesn't include homosexuality, and if a scout doesn't obey the Scout Law, then he's not a scout, period. But the current wording is ambiguous, and it leaves the minute possiblity that there might be some lone openly-gay scout out there who is so low-ranked and un-ambitious that he in no way whatsoever qualifies as a leader and therefore has been allowed to serve. I'm skeptical, but it's still a possiblity, so I wrote it into the article.

Lastly, I worked really hard to give it that "neutral encyclopedia tone"-- the one that never just says X, but always says "BSA has said X, Critics have said Y. So-and-so alleges X, etc." So, please, everyone, genuinely let's try our hardest to actually BE neutral, and not use this article as a soapbox for an issue we all care about so dearly.

(and I should say-- I'm absolutely not accusing anyone of having done that, I'm not secretly pointing at some one or some side and wagging my finger-- I'm just saying, let's us and try really hard to genuinely keep it 'neutralish' and "encyclopedia-sounding.)

Anyway, I really hope everyone likes it a lot and I hope everyone thinks it's at least an improvement on the old version. --Alecmconroy 08:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read the new article yet. Why is the table of contents not showing on the top of the Talk page?--Jagz 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article changed again to add in the quote from the BS vs. Dale decision that was taken from the BSA's own policies and mentioned that homosexuals may not be members. It's the most unambiguous source we have for the BSA prohibiting gay members, and I don't believe it was ever disowned by the BSA. Ken Arromdee 19:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it says that scouts must be morally straight in "*thought*, word, and deed". This seems to indicate that the limitation applies to non-avowed homosexuals. Ken Arromdee 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Which quote? Is this is? it's from their 1991 policy: “The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.”-Alecmconroy 20:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's an older quote, but it's not as if the BSA ever said "the policy prohibiting members is now rescinded". Their newer policy is just silent about it, so it's still their latest word on the subject of gay members. Ken Arromdee 06:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. The article seems, once again, to have had all traces of the ban on gay members removed. The only argument even close to a rationale I've seen for this is that the newer policy only mentions leaders but not members. However, despite this:

• the older policy does prohibit gay members, and the BSA has never disavowed this policy or otherwise claimed it doesn't apply

• the rest of the article is meaningless if the policy doesn't prohibit gay members. For instance, "Some have interpreted the National Council's policy as requiring that local councils actively inquire about their members' sexual orientation". This clearly implies a ban on gay members (not just leaders). Or "seven Cub Scout packs announced they would admit gays in violation of the national policy". Unless Cub Scouts are directly admitted as leaders rather than as members, this implies that gay members violate the policy.

• The requirement that members accept Scouting's "values and beliefs", which include a belief that homosexual conduct is wrong, excludes homosexual members (who generally don't believe such conduct is wrong)

• The article itself says "Some people claim that the BSA allows openly gay youths to join or does not expel such youths; however, the BSA's policy of prohibition is clear on this issue." If this statement is true, then the BSA's policy prohibits gay members (since youths join as members and only become leaders later)

• Even if the policy only limited leaders, the distinction between members and leaders is not what a non-Scout would immediately think of upon seeing those words. To a non-Scout, "only leaders are restricted" misleadingly implies that the prohibition only applies to a small subset of Scouts. Most non-Scouts would consider a restriction on "leaders", when all Scouts are expected to become leaders, to be a restriction on (in the vernacular, non-Scouting sense) members.

Many of these points were once in the article in various forms but have been gradually edited out, and I'm tired of editing them back in. How can this get fixed for good? Ken Arromdee 05:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Had all traces of gay banning removed? The first sentence of the article states "The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the most prominent Scouting organization in the United States (U.S.), has certain highly controversial policies which prohibit gays and atheists from participation in their organization. So, can you be more specific? ..because that opening statement is pretty bold and quick to the point of the issue. --Naha|^(talk) 05:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Boy Scouts bans gay leaders and members. The references to members keep getting removed, leaving us with a misleading statement that says only that the Scouts ban gay leaders. Ken Arromdee 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the section in the article titled, "Official position on homosexuality".

Currently that section says "Official position on homosexuality: The Boy Scouts of America's position is that known or avowed homosexuals cannot participate as Scouters (as registered BSA adult member salaried empolyees or adult volunteers), Scouts (youth members) , or charter hosts" - which should suit you fine.

Yeah, it does. Someone put it back in at 17:45, March 29, three hours after my comment and less than an hour before yours. Ken Arromdee 05:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to keep people from vandalising a page or continuely sticking their POV in it outside of getting the page locked by admins, which means we, who make good edits to the article, would also not be able to edit it. So its kind of a win-lose situation. There is, however, a way to get it locked from unregistered users being able to edit it though, that may cut out some of the problems. Feel free to request it, I'd support it. --Naha|^(talk) 18:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Idea for Controversies about BSA article

How about if the main article was changed to just a couple of introductory paragraphs with a link to the old article and a link to the new (rewritten) article? The old article could be modified to make it pro-BSA and the new article modified to make it anti-BSA. By presenting both points of view, we should be able to achieve NPOV.--Jagz 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're describing is called a Wikipedia:POV fork, and supposedly it's "naughty" for the reasons expressed in that article. hehe. I personally think there's a lot of merit to the "This is what side 1 thinks", "This is what side 2 thinks" style of writing has a of merit, and I tried to do it in this article: "BSA's position, Critic's position, Critics of the Critics position", but I'm inferring you feel the current version than admirable explaining BSA's side? -Alecmconroy 02:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Inline Cites

Nahallac Silverwinds, incredible job on all those inline citations! you're my hero.

Jagz, I think the table of contents onlys show up after there's several different headings. Maybe this post will bring in back. -Alecmconroy 18:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I like fixing things and making them pretty :P --Naha|^(talk) 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitions

For consistency, please use the following definitions when editing the article. These definitions are based on The Language of Scouting:

• Adult- A person 18 years of age and up, male or female.
• Charter- BSA authorization for an organization to use the Scouting program.
• Chartered organization- A religious, civic, fraternal, educational, or other community-based organization that has applied for and received a charter to use the Scouting program.[1]
• Commissioner- A commissioned Scouter who works with packs, troops, teams, and Venturing crews to help the units succeed.
• Committee- A local chartered organization has a unit committee, composed of volunteers, to administer the affairs of each unit it operates.
• Council- An administrative body chartered to be responsible for Scouting in a designated geographic territory.
• Leader- All Scouters are classified as leaders regardless of position held (Scoutmaster, troop committee member, etc.). A leader is also a Scout in a leadership position (Assistant Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, etc.). Every youth advancing to the Star, Life, or Eagle rank must serve in a leadership position. ("Leader" is commonly used to refer to a registered adult, however, in this article, "leader" refers to a youth or an adult as discussed above.)
• Member- A youth or adult who is registered with BSA.
• Pack- A group made up of several Tiger Cub, Cub Scout, and Webelos Scout dens, including their families and leaders. (For boys younger than Boy Scouts.)
• Professional- A salaried employee.
• Scout- A registered youth member of a Boy Scout troop, synonymous with "Boy Scout".
• Scouter- A registered adult member of the BSA.
• Scoutmaster- A volunteer Scouter, 21 or older, appointed by the chartered organization to lead a Boy Scout troop.
• Troop- The unit that conducts Boy Scouting for the chartered organization.
• Unit- The entity that conducts Scouting for the chartered organization; it consists of registered youth members and registered adult volunteer members. A unit may be a pack, troop, team, crew, or ship. Its affairs are administered by the unit committee, which is appointed by the chartered organization.
• Volunteer- Individual who donates service, time, or funds to support the program of the BSA.
• Youth- A boy or young man, 10 or older (additional rules apply to minimum age) to 17 years old (under age 18).

Note: Venturing is a BSA program for young men and women who are 14 through 21 years of age. Some of the definitions above do not apply to the Venturing program.

--Jagz 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I went ahead and put the page up on RFC to get more eyeballs on the page.

So for anyone just joining our program already in progress: There was an old version of the page, here. Some people felt it was POV, too Pro-Boy Scouts of America. Some feel the current version is POV, too anti-Boy Scouts of America.

So, the questions we're looking at are:

1. Which version is better, old or new?
2. How can the article be made more neutral?
3. How can the article be improved in general?

--Alecmconroy 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

OLD: I'm not an editor of this article but visiting from the RFC. The old article appeared to me to be neutral and should have been the starting point to make incremental changes to reach a consenus around neutrality in the usual way. The replacement article is irredeemably biased against the Boy Scouts. patsw 19:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, talk, don't revert

GCW50,

I tried very hard to make a neutral article. I tried very hard to explain in detail why I made some of the choices I have, and see other people's opinons on the specific cases you've raised. I put up a request for comments to get more opinions on it. If we need to, we can go to mediation for this, but after all the time I put into trying to improve the old article, I feel very strongly that the improvements should not be reverted in the absence of a strong consensus.

Please, reply the above discussion regarding the United Way statistics. Please, don't revert wholesale again. Let people come to the site via the RFC and be able to weigh in the new versions.

I'll only make this one revert to make my objection, but i won't revert-war. If you rever again, we can go forward in the dispute resolution process. Right now, you're the only person who's suggested that the new version is so attrocious that it should be deleted in its entirety.

-22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-Alecmconroy 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

GCW50,

The job done re-vamping this article was (in my opinion, of course) superb. I feel that it is extremly neutral. Wording in a few places could, perhaps, be tweaked but a complete revert is very far from anything remotely related to "necessary."

Assuming good faith, as pointed out above, is very important here and on all obviously well-intentioned edits. I don't know User:Alecmconroy from Adam, but I looked around really hard after reading comments on this talk page and I couldn't find any soapboxes!

Wikipedians try to work together to create the best articles possible. When disagreements arise, instead of telling someone they "failed miserably" in their editing, and that you will "revert again tomorrow" if x and y are not changed to your liking is not acceptable behavior. Please provide here, in detail, changes that you think should be made to the article and allow time for response and discussion before reverting the entire article. These comments should include, if possible, citations to your own sources if applicable.

Trust me, if someone provides incorrect or non-factual information in an article, they DO want to know about it so it can be fixed - but letting them know by flaming them is not the best way to get them to work with you. Constructive criticisim is the way to go.

Wikipedia is really easy to "do" if everyone works together and assumes good faith! I promise! --Naha|^(talk) 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Violence and other controversies

If we feel there are other controversies worth mentioning, they should probably be in a separate section at the end of the article, so that it's clear that they're totally unrelated to the "big" gay/atheist controversy.

As for the violence controversy, I ommitted it during the re-write because i'm skeptical that it's really notable-- one report of some bullying and a few lone scoutmasters condoning it that happened at some scout camp twenty years ago. Is it part of a larger on-going problem throughout scouting, or really was it just an isolated event that almost no one remembers. I don't know. I mean-- if it was a big enough incident that it was being talked about on CNN at the time, and "No history of the controversy of the boy scouts would be complete without mentioning this incident", then i guess it would be notable.

In any case, if we include it, we should source it. I did a few googles but couldn't come up with anything (other than the wikipedia mirrors and forks of course). -Alecmconroy 09:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was an eye witness to the incident. It occurred in the summer of 1986 at Goshen and involved troop 1802. The scout was pretty much beat half to death by three other boys and had to go to the hospital. The people that beat him went to juvi-hall. I saw similar incidents in my 5-6 years of Scouting where kids would get beat up on camping trips (but nothing as bad as Goshen). If I ever have kids, I will keep them out of Scouting for that very reason. -Husnock 17:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The controversies presented in this article should be current or recently resolved controversies. Also, just because the BSA has a problem, doesn't necessarily make it a controversy.--Jagz 02:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The constant removal of the information about the 1986 beating by certian users strikes me as article ownership. The incident happened and, even twenty years later, the kind of attitude that allowed such violence has affected present BSA policies to prevent future occurences. Blatant removal of an entire section of the article would only be justified if it was proven factually inaccurate. Violence in the scouts is an issue, it should be in the article. I hope certain users discuss this instead of simply removing the material over and over again. -Husnock 02:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Why would we include only current controversies? Just because something happened a long time ago doesn't make it unworthy of documentation. By that standard, we should delete all the history articles from Wikipedia because they aren't "current." If something has been a noteable controversy within the organization it doesn't matter when it occured. I'm not pointing at any particular situation/mishaps/controversy - just in general. We don't discount something because of when it happened ..I can't even fathom that. --Naha|^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to concur with Jagz and the anonymous user. There's a couple of problems with the violence section. For one-- does an isolated incident that happened twenty years ago qualify as notable? Secondly, does that act of violence have any relevance to this article-- there are many many isolate acts of violence among youth each year-- what does this one have to do with the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America. Just because it happened at scout camp doesn't mean it's "about" the Boy Scouts. Lastly, it's not really a "controversy" so much as it's just a very regrettable thing that happened-- for example, six people were accidently killed at the 2005 Jamboree-- a horrible thing, but it's not a "controversy" and so it probably doesn't belong on this article. For all these reasons, I think that even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that all of the events you describe actually happened, I still don't think the event qualifies for inclusion on this page.

But, there's a whole second problem with the paragraph. At the moment, the events you describe don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability-- there aren't any published sources that I can find that describe the material, and using your own personal recollections of the material would violate Wikipedia:No original research prohibition of using unpublished editor-provided eyewitness accounts.

Now, that second objection it's as important to me as the first arguments-- I don't doubt the events you describe happen, and I'm not trying to say you fabricated the whole thing-- on the contrary, such behavior problems are endemic to high-schools across the country. But, it's just that if we started letting everyone include their own personal recollections directly into the articles and didn't require verifiability, we'd wind up with a lot of problems. Now, if the violence section was really important and essential to the article, I'm sure we could find a way to verify it-- there's gotta be court documents, for example, and probably a press mention somewhere or other from back when in happened. But, as of this moment, the section doesn't isn't verifiable.

But setting aside the verifiability issue for the moment-- Do you really feel this inicident is an actual controvery about the scouts? It seems to me, it's not a controvery, just a problem they had one day twenty years ago. They punished the offenders, they reprimanded the scouts, and they instituted new policies to help prevent it. No controversy-- just a thing that happened once.

To use a different example, I saw a really bad fight once when I was college. Two guys in the dorms got drunk and fought each other, police got called. Bad scene. But if you go to the article on my university you won't find any discussion of this incident, because-- people fight all the time. What does that incident have to do with my university? Yeah, they were both students, and yeah, it took place on university property, and yes, the university expelled the students and increased funding for campus police-- but what does it really have to do with my univesity?

-Alecmconroy 10:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A good solution would probably be to start up a new article, called something like "Violence in the Boy Scouts", giving a history of incidents in the organization. There was at least one case I saw on a documentary where somone went into a BSA camp and killed a scout (back in the 60s). The guy was a serial child killer who got caught years later. Then there was the beating I saw and I'm sure, back in 1930s Scouting could get pretty rough. The mentality from thsoe days (or so my grandfather used to tell me) was that a boy had to "take care of himself" and I imagine the BSA of the 30s encouraged that (but I dont know for sure). So, if the info needs to be removed from this article, thats fine. We can start another article, and if still there are problems we can go down VfD road. If such an article was VfDed that would pretty much be the end of the issue. -Husnock 13:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are probably several current BSA problems that could best be covered in a separate article. It's important to distinguish a problem from a controversy.--Jagz 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to cover violence in the Boy Scouts in a separate article but it was attacked and nominated for deletion less than 24 hours after its creation. As such, I fully intend to reinstate the violence and hazing section in this article. Since specific examples are being frowned upon, I will cite articles and other primary sources about the action of hazing, and how it has gotten into several groups, the Boy Scouts among them. -Husnock 15:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you establish it as a documented current controversy then it can probably stay in this article. If it is a recently resolved controversy then maybe it can stay. Otherwise you should find another forum. This article doesn't cover racial segregation and other controversies from years ago. I'm sorry but I was a Scout for 7 years in two different regions of the country and worked as a Scout summer camp staff member several times but can not relate to your section on violence. Sounds like you were traumatized. I saw a guy almost cut their thumb off with a hatchet during a Camporee event but I'm not writing an article about the dangers of Scouting.--Jagz 16:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder

Scout, Scouting, Scout master, Scout troop ..and basically all instances of the word "Scout" as they pertains to the context of this project are CAPATALIZED. While this is a talk page, and grammar isn't quite as important as it is in article space, some of the people who have commented on this page using the word "Scout" spelled "scout" are the same ones who have consistantly not capitalized the word correctly in article space. I know this because I've corrected dozens of instances of the word in various articles, hehe. Please check your capitalization of the word before you click "save page" when editing articles. Thanks! --Naha|^(talk) 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Naha,

I'm really new here so I don't know if this has been covered elsewhere, but the source of the capitalization rules is the BSA itself, and it has an interest (mainly because of trademark law) in making terms like "scout" and "scouting" into proper nouns rather than generic terms. In the context of this project, this rule above is probably pretty safe, since we're only referring to members and programs of the BSA. However, the terms should probably not be capitalized if they are referring to the scouting movement or scouting programs in general, rather than BSA members or programs. I know it's nitpicky, but there are legal cases being fought about this issue even as we speak. --packanimal 00:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See The Language of Scouting. Also see Scouting.--Jagz 01:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

packanimal, these are for all areas of Scouting, not just BSA. --Naha|^(talk) 04:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've been cleaning up the footnotes: the works and titles did not match in most instances. I am updating the access dates as I update the titles.

• Footnote 5 is a bad link: anyone have any idea on this?

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• F5 is fixed- thanks. Next problem: there are 45 references, but only 43 footnotes. There must be some in-line links that will have to be rooted out. My head hurts. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• And some of the footnotes are out of order, so the numbers don't match. This is tedious. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
• OK: The footnotes are fixed for now. Two notes were referenced twice, so I simply duplicated the footnotes with a different reference tag. I want to look at the new footnote system using Cite.php [[2]] that will help with these types of issues, but I'm going to try it on something shorter first. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Controversies

Not surprisingly, all references to enrollment scandals, abuse scandals, and other issues including removal of volunteers criticizing or questioning paid staff on finances, enrollment claims and property sales are regularly removed from this site. BSA's Chief Scout Executive has one of the highest compensation packages of all non-profit CEO's - $915,000 in 2004 (from Guidestar.org) despite continuing drops in membership. The head of Youth Protection efforts was assested and pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in 2005. A CDC report was highly critical of BSA's National Jamboree during the summer of 2005 where hundreds fell ill from heat exhaustion. Questions have been raised concerning the unusually high number of Scouts killed in accidents in 2005 as well.

This was added to article by 69.124.137.249 on 17:01, 11 March 2006 and moved here where it belongs by --Bduke 07:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Page organization and headings

The page looks pretty well-organized, but I find the headings verbose. The TOC is a little overwhelming - it should give an overview at a glance, but with the headings the way they are, you have to actually read the whole thing to understand what's going on. --Smack (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Manual Contents

Like it less. Let it be done automatically. Why do you think it should be done manually? --Bduke 22:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Smack suggested that the current headings were overly verbose, so this was a way to trim the TOC down. I'm kinda ambivalent about it too. -Alecmconroy

Governmental vs Government

To me, it feels like fingernails on a chalkboard when I read "governmental entities" and "governmental support". Isn't "government entities" and "government support" more common usage? While the "als" are technically correct, they just don't sound like American English. --Habap 19:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native speaker of American English and they sound just fine and normal to me /shrug. --Naha|^(talk) 04:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unitarian-Universalist Conflict

I have a concern about a few bits in this section. I've put in a bit about the Cubs and the Boy Scouts often (always?) having separate awards and also that the BSA withdrew recognition for both UU awards. I wasn't sure whether to add that the Girl Scouts also participate in the Religious Emblem programs. I did add 'Boy' in one place so as not to imply that Girl Scouts cannot wear the UU award on their uniform (they can)

1. There is the statement that

"The UUSO had no official connection with the UUA and in fact was created through the BSA's Religious Relationships Committee as a means of circumventing the UUA."

The first part is true; however, is the second? My own gut feeling is it was initiated by some UU scouters not by the Religious Emblem program committee, but, that is only a feeling and could be changed by some evidence. If there is no evidence, the second part of the statement should be chopped.

2. Also the statement "Curiously, the BSA does not mention this program on its official website" should probably also be dropped. It is possible that no one has bothered to update the page.

I will note that the UUSO did participate in the 2005 Jamboree UU 2005 Jamboree service and information for the award was handed out there and formally unveiled then (I have a couple of cites for that). The BSA list of religious emblems web page was last updated in June 2005 before the Jamboree.

3. And "while Boy Scouts could not wear the Religious Emblem Square Knot on their uniform, many wore their UU Religious Emblem as a "temporary badge," in compliance with the BSA's Insignia Guide."

Evidence? I've heard of Boy Scouts not being able to wear the medal but are wearing the knot (which only apparently indicates that that an emblem has been earned not which religion)

4. Do we want to include external links to both UU programs?

• UUA religious award program
• Unitarian Universalists Scouters Org religious award program

5. Given the size this section has gotten, perhaps a separate article on the Religious Emblem program should be written. Said article won't mention the controversies in depth but would refer back to this article and this article refers to the religious emblem article for details on the program.

6. Are there reasons why info about the refusal to recognize the Wiccan award should not be included in this article?--Erp 23:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we should cut the allegation that the UUSO "in fact was created through the BSA's Religious Relationships Committee as a means of circumventing the UUA." Very anti-BSA, and pure conjecture as far as I can tell.

I tend to think we should deleted the entire paragraph that discusess the UUSO. It's simply too much reporting on a current event. As far I can tell, the BSA has never said it approved a program with them, the UUA doesn't know what's going on, and PRAY just made a wild announcement that turned out (so far) to be false. Our getting into this relatively trivial can of worms isn't worth it-- it's reporting that there was a false report.

More thoughts later.

--Alecmconroy 01:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a false report. PRAY does co-ordinate most of the religious emblems for the BSA and it did announce it in an official newsletter. I've also seen a couple of announcements that it was officially unveiled at the 2005 jamboree (for instance the Capital Area Council chaplain newsletter) The UUSO web page claims to have their emblem recognized by the BSA (and that web page has been updated recently). PRAY has not corrected their announcement. The Detroit Council Religious Relations Committee reports it. If the emblem is not recognized, I'm surprised the BSA has not yet issued a denial as it is showing up on council web pages.

Homosexual employees

My understanding is that they cannot legally ban employees based on sexual orientation, so that, at the very least, they do not officially ban them. I have not changed the top section which speaks about what has happened and does not state the official position. I could, of course, be wrong about the official position.... --Habap 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Reverted without discussion. I found a link about it. I thought it had been James Dale that was asked by Ron Carroll (the National Capital Area Council's Council Executive at the time) why he didn't just apply for employment, but it was Roland Pool, a DC-area man denied adult membership in the BSA.

Some weeks before, at the end of yet another day of long and detailed testimony, Pool found himself on the Metro with Ron Carroll, who had just that afternoon testified that the Boy Scouts probably would have welcomed Pool as a volunteer if he had just kept his homosexuality a secret. Carroll was heading back to Bethesda, Pool to Woodley Park, and so for a few stops the two men made awkward small talk. Then, just as Pool was getting to his stop, he says, Carroll surprised him by asking him if, given all his scouting experience, he had ever thought about joining the Boy Scouts as a professional staff member. Carroll doesn't remember asking that, but Pool does, vividly, though he was so surprised that he doesn't remember his reply.[3]

So, though I thought it was a rumor I remembered, this seems to support the idea that the policy does not include denying employment, which would be a violation of laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation. --Habap 19:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BSA policy on employment:

"With respect to positions limited to professional Scouters or, because of their close relationship to the mission of Scouting, positions limited to registered members of the Boy Scouts of America, acceptance of the Declaration of Religious Principle, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law is required. Accordingly, in the exercise of its constitutional right to bring the values of Scouting to youth members, Boy Scouts of America will not employ atheists, agnostics, known or avowed homosexuals, or others as professional Scouters or in other capacities in which such employment would tend to interfere with its mission of reinforcing the values of the Scout Oath and the Scout Law in young people."[4]

I stand corrected. --Habap 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

BSA membership size

BSA records show that the number of Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts had dropped by about 14% (as of end of 2007) since the Dale Decision in 2000.[108][112] It is unclear why membership had dropped and whether the membership policy controversy has had an effect on membership levels.

During the same time period, membership increased in other youth organizations, such as the Girl Scouts of the USA and the BSA's Learning for Life program

The table shows Scouting membership through 2008. According to the Learning for Life Annual Participation Summary, LfL participants dropped by 24.9% for youth and 32.7% for adults from 2007 to 2008. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit the text at the time I made the table because I didn't have up-to-date figures on the other organizations. I think the GSUSA may also have had a drop in the last couple of years, no idea about Campfire. I must admit the LFL figures do some interesting jumping though the records I found on a quick search only go back to 2005. A drop of 25% is huge, I wonder if they lost some big school districts?--Erp (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

Conservapedia on their news page considers this a "smear article". Apparently giving BOTH sides of the controversy is, in their eyes, a smear. Alloco1 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And, what does an opinion written on a website for humorous purposes matter here? Should we quote from another joke site, liberapedia as well?? --217.91.40.206 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I removed that inaccurate news item two days ago? Contrary to Alloco1's post, there is nothing wrong with giving both sides of the controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia NPOV criteria don't apply to the selection of article titles. This article would surely fail that test. The most common form of bias in journalism is the spin or implied messages of the title, and a lopsided choice of which angles to cover/emphasize. Just as writing a "Lives Ruined by Overtaxation" article instead of a "Taxation" article would exhibit bias, even if the former article was accurately written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neutrality is a requirement for article titles, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. But what is non-neutral about this title? It seems pretty neutral to me. Nobody can deny that there are "controversies" regarding BSA membership policies, regardless of what side of any controversy one may be on. (As for the text of the article, I would agree that in some ways it is not neutral enough, but I don't really have the time to wade into these issues at the moment.) Neutron (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I should have clarified that I meant subject selection, not how the subject is worded. I checked your link and it looks like the Wiki NPOV standard only applies to the choice of words. I think that my biased hypothetical example would still meet the Wikipedis standards and your criteria that you described. A loophole they exploited to get this political piece put in as an "article" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't think there should be an article on this subject at all? It is a notable subject. As I said before, the text of the article is a different subject. If it's not neutral, that can be remedied through editing. It seems to me that the alternative to having this be a separate article is to have these subjects covered in the main BSA article, which I take it has been tried before, resulting in much unhappiness. There is never going to be a perfect solution for controversial subjects, we just have to make the articles as neutral as possible. And by the way, please sign your posts, you are making SineBot work too hard.  :) Neutron (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Or he wants no controversies described at all in Wikipedia. --Erp (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, all I can say is "good luck."  :) Neutron (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a suggestion to rename the article? Or soem relevant improvement? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I Think the title is neutral, it merely refers to BSA membership controversies. The title makes no judgment about it, as it does not say "people excluded by" or anything like that. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fine for an article to cover controversies where the controversial viewpoints are identified as such. This article does not do that. This badly flawed article is gaming the system to try to fool casual readers into believing that the view of those on one side of the controversy are "fact". In addition to that fundamental issue, it cites unreliable "references" throughout which are such things as self-statements by anti-scout web-sites, and continually attaches references to statements which do not support the statements. Many of the statments are not only unsupported, they are false. Except by massive deletions, it would take hundreds of hours to fix this article by the normal Wikipedia methods, which nobody is going to do, and thus also a part of their "gaming the system"

I submit that this article should be deleted and moved to the editorial section of some political publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.246.121 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is duly noted, thank you for making it known. -- Banjeboi 20:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Illegal Aliens

"In 2004, the BSA removed restrictions on certain volunteer positions previously restricted to citizens, although it never required proof of residency or citizenship when the restrictions were in place."

The BSA requires a social security number, valid drivers liscence (or state id card), and a background check prior to letting any adult work with children. Unless someone can confirm this from a reliable source, of which it should documented, this is not justifible to remain in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.213.27 (talk • contribs)

From the cited Chicago Tribune article:

To avoid questions about Immigration status, Colón and other recruiters emphasize that a Social Security number or other government ID isn't required when they carry out mandatory screening of volunteers that is designed to protect children from potential predators. Neither do they ask the Scouts about their Immigration papers.[5]

I don't understand this either, but I think the Chicago Tribune is a reliable source, but it is the only source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I mean that isn't calling them 'Illegal Aliens' like having a section titled:"Position on Niggers"? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardly, compare Alien (law) to Nigger. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we've bumped into a language issue here. In most parts of the English speaking world the word alien almost exclusively means someone or something wierd, fictional and from outer space. To call another person an alien would generally be seen as an insult. It's an American idiosyncrasy to also use the term for people/humans who are not American citizens. I note that IAmTheCoinMan, like myself, does not live in the USA. Ain't language wonderful? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be a language issue, but I think that you mis-characterize it. See [6], [7], [8], [9]. For some parts of the world outside of the U.S., see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Google books: [15]. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the language issue might be between "Legal English" and "everyday English". Legally "alien" means someone not of the citizenship of the country in question so an American as far as New Zealand law is concerned would be an alien and possibly an alien living illegally in New Zealand. Note that as far as the US is concerned aliens might be living outside the US, might be legal permanent residents in the US ("green card holders"), might be legal temporary visitors in the US (e.g., tourists), might be legal temporary residents (students on F1 visas, temporary workers on H1 visas, etc or spouses or minor children of the same), might have diplomatic status, or might be illegally living in the country. Children who are not US citizens who live in the US can join the BSA (assuming they are the right age, sex, aren't honest atheists and possibly aren't a honest gay/lesbian). They also have the option of being lone scouts of their home nation's WOSM scouting organization or, if they live near the Canadian Embassy in DC, joining the Canadian troop based there (non-Canadians other than US citizens can join). Or joining a non-WOSM scouting or scouting like organization. The question here is the status of adult volunteers.--Erp (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course by "Legal English" "illegal aliens is correct. Terms are also defined by their common usage. In that context, it is the more traditional and more negative sounding terms to refr to person who are in this country illegally. Depending on the speaker / writer's view point on the matter, they choose from a full spectrum of more or less negative sounding terms, the other end of the spectrum being "undocumented immigrants" causing other to quip that drug dealers would then become "undocumented pharmacists"

So there are no restrictions in this area on youth or adults. The adult leader application (for youth protection purposes) asks the common identification questions. As a by-product of such, persons here illegally would have a hard time answering those quesitons, thus making it difficult (and sometimes impossible) for someone here illegally to become an adult leader. Is there a "Membership Controversy" here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph on openly gay youth

Chopped the intro sentence "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members though they are forbidden from holding youth leadership positions."

I don't think we actually know this, do we? Excluding, of course, the trivial case where the scouts don't reveal their orientation. Are there any openly gay boy scouts? There are now many openly gay high school students-- are any of them in the boy scouts?

I genuinely ask--I don't know what the answer is, and a reliable source on the answer would be great for the article too.

I know there are a lot of "Former Openly-Gay Scouts",but I don't think I've ever read or heard of one who was actual scout for any major period of time after being openly gay.

Short of that, I think we have to leave the question of openly-gay scouts open. The 2004 wording is ambiguous and while it could be interpreted as reopening the door to "non-leadership openly-gay scouts", ultimately that's just us speculating that the wording indicates a policy shift. What's needed is:

• A clarification from BSA national
• A reliable source reporting a policy shift
• Reliable sources reporting the existence of openly gay scouts who are allowed to participate in a non-leader capacity.
• Reliable sources reporting the existence of scouts whose outing resulting in loss of membership.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good standard, but by that standard, about 2/3 of this entire article would be erased, including the entire homosexual and atheist sections. So you applied it in a biased manner; you used that standard to remove one of the few correct statements in that section, but not to remove all of the incorrect and misleading statements in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.93.38 (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The "References" aren't even References for the main (false) assertions.

This articles fails to provide any references for it's main (and false) assertion that Scouting bans homosexual YOUTH from membership. (vs. homosexual activist adults from leadership positions) If you follow the "references" given to support that statement, you will find that they don't! The obvious choice would be to cite any National Scout policy, rule etc. to that effect, and the article has not done so, mostly because such does not exist.

This needs major surgery to even remain as an article, much less be a featured article. This is just politics disguised as an article.

See Political correctness 68.10.122.214 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article does cite an official BSA document banning youth from leadership positions who engage in 'homosexual conduct'. All scouts working on Star, Life, or Eagle have to serve in leadership positions. We could reword to state that homosexual youth are officially forbidden from fulfilling the requirements of Star, Life, or Eagle by not being permitted to hold any leadership positions. Unofficially of course troops either force them out regardless of rank or ignore official regs and allow them to hold leadership positions and become Star, Life, and Eagle. Also you are concentrating on only one point of the article; it also covers the status of atheists as well as adult members. --Erp (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Political correctess, I know. But that does not mean Wikipedia has to state an opinion, much less define what and how political correctness should apply. Remember when in every Soviet encyclopedia all the articles were formulated like everything in socialism is good, and everything else is pure evil? I'm afraid more and more Wikipedia articles are transforming to that style. Wikipedia is not meant to be a "Guide to liberalism", and is not meant to state whether someting is good or evil. Our job should be to present all the mainstream views, and let the reader decide whether it's good or bad, based on the sources we link to. And our job is not to shovel down the throat of the reader that a specific political viewpoint is above everything else. --217.91.40.206 (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been active in scouting for > 45 years and can tell you that this article is absolutely deceptive, and, on the subject of homosexuality in Scouts blatantly wrong. And it continuously uses reference "bluffs" after statements, relying on the fact that few will investigate enough to see that the cited references do not support the statements as claimed. Even the 16:49 post above is factually wrong. Banning from leadership positions is only from Adult and near-adult leadership positions, not from the ones that the 16:49 poster described.

First Wikipedia is describing both sides, it needs to report views of the various sides as well as facts. Given some of the other comments those oppose to the BSA position find the article just as biased the other way. The ideal is to be descriptive and neutral (admittedly on controversial issues that can be difficult). Second if the BSA official web site on legal issues is wrong--"As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."[16]--it is not a matter for Wikipedia but one that should be taken up with the BSA. I agree that the wording should be changed slightly in the header of the article.--Erp (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I did some more searching, but have found no cases where youth membership was revoked because they were homosexuals, but that does not mean it has not happened. The BSA position is clear that homosexual youth may not hold leadership positions.[17] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The BSA position is also clear that all Scouts are expected to eventually take leadership positions. If homosexual youth cannot hold leadership positions, and all youth members are expected to take leadership positions, then it is only logical to conclude that no avowed homosexual can be a youth member of BSA. (Cwgmpls (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

What you are stating is in fact OR. No youth is required to take a leadership position. So by BSAs policies a homosexual youth can be a member. If a youth wants to advance they need to take on a leadership role, but that role doesn't have to be a position that actually leads other people. Based on my interpretation of the rules which would also be OR a troop could put a homosexual scout into one of these positions and not violate the policies. Marauder40 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. "As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions."[18](Cwgmpls (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

First off do not edit other people's statements or insert things in the middle of their statements. There is a difference between expected and required. I was a scoutmaster of a scout troop for many years and we had scouts that never advanced beyond First Class. There is no requirement that they work on advancement it is just a suggestion. You are trying to draw parallels where they aren't there. Just because a scout is expected to hold a leadership position it doesn't make it a requirement. Marauder40 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Scout is required to hold a leadership position in order to participate beyond the rank of First Class. If you want to argue that a gay boy is welcome to join Scouts, but is not eligible advance through the ranks, I suppose you would be right, except for the problem that a gay boy can't fulfill the Joining Requirements to begin with (see below). But prohibiting someone from advancing through the ranks is hardly full membership in Scouting as most people understand it, and presenting it as membership is misleading.(Cwgmpls (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

A person can join and participate in all the camping trips and everything they want without advancing past First Class. As such they are still members of the organization. Very much similar to the Girl Scouts. As a male adult I cannot be the equivalent of a Scoutmaster in that program, but I can still participate in the activities with my daughter. That still makes me a member of the program but I don't get to particpate in everything. Just because it might not seem fair, doesn't mean it isn't allowed and/or legal. Marauder40 (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention that a person isn't required to have a leadership position but a "position of responsability". According to my interpretation of the rules a homosexual scout could probably be a scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, or maybe even instructor and still fit within the guidelines. All acceptable positions for Eagle. Whether those roles and how the scout shows leadership for Eagle would be up to the individual Board of Reviews. Marauder40 (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article about your opinion. This is an article about BSA policy. If you can find where it is stated that a boy can become an Eagle Scout without holding a youth leadership position, the citation would be welcome.(Cwgmpls (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

This isn't an article about your opinion either and I wasn't proposing changes to the article. Adding that a homosexual cannot go above first class without it being explicitly stated by BSA is your opinion. The official requirements state "4.While a Life Scout, serve actively for a period of 6 months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility". Where I was stating my opinion is that the guidelines talk about leadership position vs. position of responseability. Based on the stated BSA official position it seems to be a grey area as to whether a openly gay person would be allowed to be a scribe, librarian, historian, etc. Those are more positions of responsability vs. leadership positions. Also a grey area is that the Eagle project requires a scout to show leadership, can a scout do that without being in a leadership position during the project? BSA does not explicity state either way. Marauder40 (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the joining requirements referred to on the BSA Youth Application Form require a youth to agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law when they join BSA.[19][20] BSA policy is clear that an avowed homosexual is not capable of living by the Scout Oath and Law.[21] Homosexual youth are effectively barred from youth membership in BSA at the point of application for membership. The statement that "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members" is false and misleading.(Cwgmpls (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

The problem is that nobody expects an 11 year old to a) know everything about his sexuality b) be able to sign a legally binding document. Yes he signs that he will live by the Scout Oath and Law. Nobody expects that he knew for a fact he was a homosexual. But if someone of legal age signs the same application "knowing" they are a homosexual, then there MAY be an issue. Of course that is also OR. Marauder40 (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Application for Boy Scouts does not end at age 11; a boy can apply up until the age of 18. The form is signed by the boy's parents, not by the boy. Nobody, including BSA, can determine when a boy knows he is gay. But if a youth does know he is gay, the Joining Requirements referred to in the BSA Youth Application bar him from membership in BSA. The statement that "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members" is false and misleading.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

It depends on what you are talking about, if a person is an openly gay person, is of legal age (which varies state to state) and joins scouting knowing the policies, then scouting MAY have a problem with it. The case that is being brought up here is the scout that joined either not knowing or wasn't openly gay at the time. Those scouts are permitted in the program. Marauder40 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The legal age of a youth applicant is not relevant. Since youth applicants must be under 18, none of them are of legal age. If a youth applicant knows he is gay, he cannot meet the Joining Requirements listed in the Boy Scout Handbook, and referred to on the Application Form. A known homosexual cannot successfully apply for youth membership. The statement that "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members" is false and misleading.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

The statement does not say "Homosexuals may apply to be youth members of the organization." It says "can be youth members". That statement is true. A homosexual can be a youth member. An openly homosexual youth MAY have a problem entering the program, just like any youth that is openly going against what that troop and chartering organization consider may be in violation of the Scout Law and promise.Marauder40 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

How does a homosexual become a youth member without fulfilling the Joining Requirements referred to on the Youth Application form, and stated in the Boy Scout Handbook?(Cwgmpls (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

His parents sign the forms and when he is asked whether he agrees to live by his understanding of the scout oath and law he says yes. Pretty easy. Marauder40 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please cite where it is stated that a boy can follow his own understanding of the Scout Oath and Law. The BSA has clearly stated what the Scout Oath and Law says about homosexuality.[22] BSA also clearly states that it does not allow local interpretation, or consideration on an individual basis.[23] According to BSA, following one's own understanding of the Scout Oath and Law is not acceptable. (Cwgmpls (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

You are assuming an awful lot in a hypothetical situation. If a potential scout is openly gay and so much so that he has to affirm it when joining an organization. If the same scout knows that BSA declairs that a homosexual scout can not abide by the Scout Oath and Law and the scout still wants to be a member of the program, then they probably shouldn't become a member. But there are lots of cases that are less to the extreme. The only time it becomes an issue is if the scout makes it an issue. Your average scout that joins scouting only has to have his parents fill out the application then sometime during the process has to agree to live by their understanding of the scout oath and law. The troop committee, and chartering organization have the authority to either allow or not allow the kid to join.Marauder40 (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. A Scout is obligated to the BSA's understanding of the Scout Oath and Law, not to his own personal understanding. Yes, this rarely becomes an issue. But we are talking about official BSA policy, not how often it becomes an issue. BSA policy is that gays can not be members. Whether it becomes an issue frequently or rarely is not relevant -- it is still official BSA policy.(Cwgmpls (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

[outdent]Pure and simple if a scout can agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law as he understands it at the time, he can become a scout. If he is old enough to know and understand that BSA has said that a person that is openly homosexual cannot live by the Scout Oath and Law and he still says yes, that is between him and whatever he believes in. If he says no he cannot abide by it, he can't be a member. That still doesn't change the fact that youth that are currently members and realize they are homosexual can still be members, thus homosexuals can be members of scouting, the statement is true.Marauder40 (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It has already been established that BSA does not allow for individual interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. A Boy Scout who acknowledges he is gay and recites the Scout Oath is either lying or unaware of what the Scout Oath means. Either way, BSA believes he is not capable of fulfilling his obligations stated in the Scout Oath and Law, and therefore he shouldn't be a member. Does it happen often? No, it is very, very rare. But it is BSA policy all the same. To say homosexuals have been members, whether through dishonesty or ignorance, does not change the fact that BSA policy states that avowed homosexuals are not qualified for membership, either as youth or as adults.(Cwgmpls (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

I think you misunderstand what I mean when I said "a scout agrees to live by the Scout Oath and Law as he understands it." What I mean is that you have to expect a different understanding of the Scout Oath and Law from a 11 year old, then you expect from a 14 year old, then you expect from a 17 1/2 year old. He cannot agree to something he doesn't know about. Also, unless things have changing since I was very active, it isn't usually part of the program for a leader to mention sexual issues when explaining the Scout Oath and Law to a new scout. So unless the potential scout knew about the issue beforehand it wouldn't have been brought up. Yes, scouting has an interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law, but the scout at the time of membership application is agreeing to abide by it as he understands it. If he violates scouting's understanding or the troops understanding at a later time that is up to scouting, the troop or the chartering organization to deal with at a later time.Marauder40 (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay then. We are in agreement that the statement in the first paragraph would more accurately read: "Homosexuals, though not atheists, can be youth members, as long as they aren't fully aware of the official meaning of the Scout Oath", since that is what you are saying. Do you want to make the change, or should I?

This is an article about BSA official policy. This should state official BSA policy, taken directly from BSA sources like this. This article should not be based on what some adults think some 11-year-olds understand the Scout Oath to mean.(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

You can be sure that if there were even one obscure example of such, this article would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

The issue is not what BSA does as a matter of practice. The issue is what BSA's stated positions are. When BSA argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for its right of free association to bar gays and atheists from its club, it did so on the basis of its stated values, not on the basis of its actions in practice. BSA's stated values are clear -- it feels gays, atheists and agnostics are unable to uphold the Scout Oath and Law, and it bars them from membership, both as youth and as adults.[24][25](Cwgmpls (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

It would be useful if people signed and dated their comments. Examples need to be documented and we don't seem to have one for formal permanent revocation of a youth's membership. Chris Strobel of Stockton, CA seems to have had his membership revoked at age 16 but that was prior to 1991 and no firm date or evidence beyond newspaper stories. In August 1999 a 16 year old eagle scout applied for a scout camp job in Rhode Island, he was asked whether he was gay during the interview and he answered yes and was turned down until it was pointed out that Rhode Island prohibited job discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, BSA national heard about it and said he could have neither the job nor be a scout, but eventually back down.[26] Both of these are also prior to the current national policy allowing gay youth members as long as they don't hold youth leadership positions. --Erp (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's known that BSA considers homosexuality to be bad and openly-gay youth are not allowed to fully participate in the program. The official statements are ambiguous as precisely what level of exclusion BSA national thinks should be applied to openly-gay youth. While it's clear BSA national doesn't want any openly gay youth in BSA, it's ambiguous as to whether BSA national feels that should be expelled outright or just allowed limited participation as a (pardon the pun) second-class scout, carefully excluded from any of the leadership portions of the program. I expect this ambiguity is intentional-- openly gay individuals aren't exactly welcome in a lot of conservative US religions, but few churches go so far as to prohibit openly-gay individuals from attending service.

So, if it's unclear whether the extent of exclusion openly-gay youth is total, partial, or minimal, that's not unexpected. It's unclear because it's mean to be unclear. Since BSA national doesn't deal with individual scouts, it's unclear whether their view is that an openly-gay youth is totally welcome to participate so long as they accept second-class status, whether the youth should be harassed or shamed into renunciation or resignation, or whether they should be outright expelled. I'd guess that like any organization, different individuals have different answers and the official language is a compromise between those views. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Factual information about BSA policies and about actual BSA practices related to those policies would be useful content for an encyclopedia (e.g. Wikipedia) article. Practically everything that Cwgmpls has said in this exchange is personal hypothetical derivations with a spin/slant in a particular direction. So are many of the statements is that section of the article. Such personal derivations are not suitable content for a wikipedia article, particularly when such derivations are disputed / controversial. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How to Fix This Article

This article (and the tidbits of factual, informative content scattered through it) holds promise for covering and informing in an area where misconception is the norm. Unfortunately, the article as a whole does more reinforcement of misconceptions than dispelling of them. And it is a total mess regarding being loaded with violations of 5 or 6 major Wikipedia standards. In addition to that, the title is vague enough to seem to include/non Wikipedia areas. Every viewpoint, opinion, etc. could be called a "membership controversy", but Wikipedia is not about being a soapbox for arguments opinions via. inclusion of those arguments and opinions as "material" either directly or through spin on the article.

Setting aside the possibility of deleting it and starting it over, a starting point for fixing it would be a new first section defining it's scope, limiting it to factual areas which I think would be:

1. Membership related policies and actions by the BSA where such have caused significant disputes and controversies. 2. BRIEF NPOV summary of the opinions of each "side" (where such is clear) where a significant dispute or controversy exists 3. In addition to #1, as accurate and NPOV as possible description of the De Facto "MO" of the BSA in the above areas.

With a strong focus on what is current. Coverage of anything older than about 15 years would be limited to brief, succinct factual summaries of significant events or mileposts.

If there is a consensus at each stage the steps would be:

1. Consensus on the above concept 2. In the discussion section, I'd draft an opening paragraph that implements the above. 3. Move it to the article 4. The rest of the article evolve (by everybody) to comply with the above scope and Wikipedia standards.

I barely have time to do the above, and certainly not to fight a battle on it. This would lift the cloud that is over the article vs. it remaining and getting more marginalized and eventually being replaced by more useful and factual coverage of the topic elsewhere. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you have shown clearly what the problems of this article actually are. You need to be much more explicit. I also disagree that there should be a strong focus on what is current. An encyclopedia should cover the history of an organization and not just the current situation. When there was controversy in the past, the criticism and the defense should be outlined and if the controversy has gone away the reasons for this should be stated. I am an outsider who has followed the controversy on atheists and homosexuals for a long time. People get heated about it. Nevertheless, I think this article does a pretty good job. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What could be more explicit than the huge list of defects listed in this discussion section?

I think I agree with you on the "history" part. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I also don't see anything particularly defective about the current incarnation. It has been through the GA and FA processes and independent Wikipedians thought it was one of Wikipedia's best. That's not to say they're right, that's not to say it's perfect, that's not to say it hasn't changed since that time.

In other words, what Bduke said. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no point "fixing" something unless we can define the problem that needs to be fixed. That there are misconceptions about BSA (no doubt true) is not a reason to not mention them. The fact that there ARE misconceptions is, in fact, part of this story. HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Then the article should dispel the misconceptions rather than repeat them. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Well, it should repeat them, then explain the truth, with references. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably true for noteworthy misconceptions (i.e. those held by many) but they should identified as such or, more NPOV speaking, identified as assertions. This article presents the misconceptions as being facts.

There are so many people cleverly and not-so-cleverly manipulating this article to be an innacurate tool for their resentment for BSA (most deriving from BSA's having won homosexual and atheist court cases, rather than it's actual practices in these areas ) that I don't think that it will ever be fixed. It is probably doomed to being marginalized as being merely such, replaced by more informative, objective coverage of this topic elsewhere in Wikipedia. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please give explicit examples of misconceptions? The BSA does not allow homosexual leaders. That is a fact. It is controversial because people have questioned it and it is gone to court. It is also controversial because many other Scouting organisations, such as the Scout Association in the UK and Scouts Australia do allow homosexual leaders. If you are just asking for sources for various statements, point them out or better, search for sources and add them. Saying that people are manipulating this article is not acting in good faith. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the discussed general scope flaws, here's a few examples (of many) Unlike the "homosexual" section, you provided an accurate summary of the situation when you said "The BSA does not allow homosexual leaders." And, in fact, the only actions of any type (rejections, expulsions, or otherwise) taken by BSA were against avowed homosexuals in adult and paid leader positions. The last 2 paragraphs of that section are chock full of false innuendo & personal derivations by the writers. For example, the last paragraph implies prohibition of MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. Even if it were corrected to AVOWED homosexuals, it would still be false innuendo because there is no exclusion from MEMBERSHIP either in policy or in practice. And, in the second to the last paragraph one of those false derivations gives reference #19 to support itself when in fact that reference #19 refutes that derivation. So, somebody who reads the article without actually checking the reference (a common practice) will be misled by the false derivation. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the one problematic statement in the section. The BSA itself states that gays are barred from youth leadership roles (which effectively forbids them at a minimum from becoming Eagle scouts which requires youth leadership and probably a couple of ranks below that) as well as adult leadership roles. The sentence about firing the adult who went to a gay resort does feel a bit abrupt and may need to be rewritten to fit in nicely as an example. --Erp (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement "BSA does require agreement with the Scout Oath and Law on its application form, effectively barring homosexuals from membership." is not problematic. It is fact. The BSA Youth Application form clearly states that on must "Secure a copy of the Boy Scout Handbook and complete the joining requirements as listed." [27]. The BSA Joining Requirements clearly state that an applicant must "Understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath or Promise, Law, motto, and slogan, and the Outdoor Code." [28] BSA is very clear that a homosexual person cannot fulfill Scout Oath and Law: "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed." [29]. Also, the BSA does not allow one to apply under one's own understanding of the Scout Oath. "Boy Scouts believes it is important to have national uniformity of values." [30]. BSA is clear that only one understanding of the Scout Oath is valid, and it is an understanding that homosexual conduct is not "morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed". No other understanding of the Scout Oath is permitted. A homosexual person cannot state that they understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law, which is a requirement for membership. It is impossible for a person who knows they are homosexual to fulfill the requirements for youth membership to the BSA. (Cwgmpls (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

The statement is "problematic" on multiple levels because the statement is OR. The reference you gave at no point mentions the application form. You are trying to combine different statements to come up with your own statement which is OR. If you are trying to reference a statement, you can either place the actual statement from the morals clause, or paraphrase it. You can't add a statement you claim is referenced and put up your own OR. The other problem is you are trying to make a blanket statement of all "membership" when in effect you are actually only addressing joining requirements. As the policy states BSA recognizes that people may have joined before it became an issue to them, so homosexuals can be members. Marauder40 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll fix my references to include the application form.(Cwgmpls (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Just adding the application form as a reference to the statement will not help. You are trying to say fact A plus fact B = fact C where fact C is not stated anywhere. This is OR, on WP you can only state the facts, you can allow the reader to draw their own conclusion but you cannot create your own conclusions. The entire statement is listed lower in the article. If you want to add a statement to that section (not the lead) containing a quote from the application you can, but your statement as written is still "problematic". Marauder40 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Scouts don't just agree to the Scout Oath when they apply for membership, they must also agree to the Scout Oath at every Scout meeting and at every Board of Review for the next rank. Even if a Scout didn't think he was gay when he joined, if he decides he is gay later, according to the BSA, he will not be able to fulfill the obligations of the Scout Oath from that point forward. "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed." [31](Cwgmpls (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

But BSA specifically addresses that issue. A scout that determines he is homosexual as a member is allowed to continue in scouting just not in a leadership position. They are still a member of the program. Depending on your reading of the statement of leadership position vs. position of responsability they can even still advance. BSA does not kick out youth members that determine they are gay. You can say what you will about the role they take on but you still can not add OR to the article. Marauder40 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

BSA specifically addresses leadership. BSA also specifically addresses the Scout Oath and what it means to all Scouts. BSA requires youth to adhere to the Scout Oath to maintain their membership.[32] BSA also states that homosexuals cannot fulfill the Scout Oath.[33] This clearly prohibits a known homosexual from both applying for as well as maintaining membership. If you have a citation that states that known homosexuals can be members, but not leaders, please provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgmpls (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the policy says "As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position." It does not say that the youth member is no longer a member or needs to be removed. It specifically says that they cannot hold a leadership position. You say BSA requires "youth to adhere to the Scout Oath to maintain their membership" that depends on if BSA, the troop, or the chartering organization determine the Scout is in flagrant violation of the Scout Oath and law and start the process to remove the scout. Nowhere in the policy does it say that this is required for a youth member. It is clear from the policy that an avowed homosexual youth can be a member, just not a leader. What you keep trying to say is OR and is not stated by BSA. Marauder40 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Understanding and agreement with the Scout Oath is required when a Scout joins, at every meeting when the Oath is recited, and and at every rank throughout the Scout's membership [34] A Scout can not in good faith know he is gay and at the same time understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

[outdent]If he knows that he is gay and he feels he cannot live by the Scout Oath then he can remove himself from the program. But BSA does not require it. BSA realizes that at times everyone will have problems living up to the Scout Oath and Law. If a youth scout is caught shoplifting (no I am not saying that homosexuality = shoplifting just using an example) the troop and/or BSA could ask the scout to step down from leadership positions and continue in the troop. If the same scout is caught again, they may start procedures from removing him from scouting or continue the previous sanction. No matter what it is a known violation of the Scout Oath and Law. The scout can still be a member, just might not be in the same role as before. BSA (and the troops) has policies for people that flagrantly violate those policies. BSA has only said that an avowed homosexual youth needs to be removed from a leadership position it hasn't said they need to be removed from the program. What you keep trying to says isn't what BSA or the policies say.Marauder40 (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"...membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting's values and beliefs."[35] Of course a gay Scout could lie and say he agrees with the Scout Oath in order to remain a member. He can also lie and say he is not gay and become a Scout leader. But just because he can do it doesn't mean he is in compliance with BSA policy. This is an article about BSA policy. The fact that some people bend or break BSA policy, and get away with it, does not change what the policy is.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

This isn't about people that bend or break the policies. BSA has only said that a youth that is an avowed homosexual cannot be in a leadership position. To say anything other then that is OR. Trying to combine policies on Scout Oath and Law with the policies on homosexuals is OR. You can only go by scoutings statements or actions, you have not provided any proof that a youth scout cannot be a member only your own OR that draws parallels. A scout that realizes they are a homosexual can stay in the program. If he doesn't feel like he can say the Scout Oath and Law he can refrain from saying it or he can remove himself from the program. BSA doesn't say that he has to. BSA stated what is required by the National program. The point is, you cannot add anything to the article based on OR. Unless you have something that says that a youth avowed homosexual cannot be a member you cannot put it in the article. Marauder40 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The requirement to agree with and live by the Scout Oath *is* a BSA statement. Read any BSA rank requirement.[36]. It is impossible for a gay youth to fulfill his obligations as a Scout.[37]. These *are* BSA statements. I couldn't make this stuff up.(Cwgmpls (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

There is no membership requirement to advance. When I was Scoutmaster I had 17 1/2 year old First Class scouts. You can participate as a member in scouting without advancing. As I said you are trying to invent statements that don't exist, thus it is OR. Unless you can find something that says a homosexual youth cannot be a member of the program, you cannot add it. Marauder40 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's true, to limit gay people in Scouting to only positions where advancement is impossible is surely a controversial position. In fact, in my opinion, it's just plain silly. Some here are desperately trying to defend BSA by denying what it is, rather than acknowledge the realities that should be documented in a place like this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]You need to remember that WP is a place for facts and things like OR, opinion, and interpretation of various rules does not belong. We are supposed to allow the user to read the facts for themselves and interprete it the way they want. The policies are listed, people can judge the facts the way they want. Any additions to the policies or what BSA actually believes needs to be sourced. Marauder40 (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is not actually about the policies of BSA. It's about the controversies surrounding those policies. That means that it's valid for it to describe "problems" created by those policies, whether you think the relevant interpretations are reasonable or not. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that people keep trying to state that BSAs policies are this and that. There is no policy that says homosexual scouts cannot be members. To state otherwise is a lie and OR. Just because it is a contraversy page doesn't allow you state lies or add OR, you can list things as misinterpretations of the rules and things like that but it you try to say scouting does this or scouting does that then you need to be sure scouting actually says that. Even the misinterpretations of the rules need sources. Just because an editor might misinterprete the rules doesn't mean anyone in mainstream has. Can you find a source for somewhere where a homosexual youth was removed from the program just for being a openly homosexual youth? Then insert it. Unless you have it or an actual policy from BSA that says you can't be an openly homosexual youth member then what is being added is OR. Marauder40 (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an Eagle Scout and I don't take being accused of lying lightly. Which of my statements is a lie? That the Scout Oath prohibits homosexual behavior, or that a boy must understand and agree with the Scout Oath when he joins BSA?(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

The statement you keep trying to insert is a lie or a misunderstanding "BSA does require agreement with the Scout Oath and Law on its application form, effectively barring homosexuals from membership" is not correct. There are homosexuals in scouting and there are out homosexuals in Scouting. As I have been trying to say all along the wording of the statement is wrong. It does not reflect that actual policies of BSA. You are trying to draw parallels where they don't exist. But I see this conversation is going nowhere. No matter what you need to have a properly referenced NPOV factually correct statement to add it. As it stands it is none of that. Marauder40 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Secure a copy of the Boy Scout Handbook and complete the joining requirements as listed." BSA Youth Application form, Joining Requirements, Boy Scout Troop, point 3. [38] "Understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath or Promise, Law, motto, and slogan, and the Outdoor Code." Boy Scout Handbook, Joining Requirements, point 7.[39] "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed." BSA National Council, "Morally Straight", Policies, points 1 and 3 [40](Cwgmpls (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

[outdent]You have only sourced the first part of the statement, you still have nothing to source the second part of the statement "effectively barring homosexuals from membership." You are trying to draw parallels where they don't exist. There is nothing stating that anywhere in the documentation and BSA itself even states differently that current members only need to be removed from leadership positions. Instead of sticking with a statement that is incorrect, why don't you try to rewrite it in a way that reflects the facts. Not interpretation of the facts. Marauder40 (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

An avowed homosexual has to agree that homosexual behavior is inconsistent with the Scout Oath, and they have to agree to live by that teaching. An avowed homosexual has to lie to fulfill the joining requirements on the BSA Youth Application Form. An avowed homosexual also agrees to tell the truth when they join. Requiring someone to lie in order to join effectively bars them from membership.(Cwgmpls (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Not only can gay scouts not advance -- they can't join. One of the requirements for joining is to "Understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath"[41], and the Scout Oath clearly bars homosexual behavior.[42] That is my original point. A Scout must agree to the Scout Oath when they join the BSA, which effectively bars homosexuals from membership.(Cwgmpls (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Two terms in the policy ("leadership" and "avowed") are open to interpretation. The de-facto situation (via interpretation of those over millions of memberships) is that BSA has only barred homosexual activists, and only from adult and near-adult leadership roles. Of course, this article obscures this reality and implies otherwise. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No-one can know what personal pressure has been applied to every homosexual or atheist member of BSA. Clearly there is an official anti-homosexual attitude, at least for "adult and near-adult leadership roles". How much such a policy has extended to unofficial pressure on those in other positions can never been known. I'm sure that in such a large organisation the personal (akbeit "unofficial") pressures would have been pretty strong in some cases. It's not really helpful in defending BSA to say that it's OK to be gay, so long as you aren't in an important position, and you don't make a fuss about it. Obviously such policies don't apply to non-gay people. So it's clearly discriminatory. Coming, as I do, from a Scouting body where homosexuality is simply not an issue, the BSA policy is clearly conroversial, especially when viewing Scouting from a global perspective. HiLo48 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The BSA itself states "As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position" (in ref 19). Does explicitly say youth leadership roles that all scouts are expected to eventually take. Doesn't say anything about being an activist (in fact from the reading a straight teen who openly supports legal recognition of same-sex marriage or changing the BSA policy on homosexuals can be a patrol leader, but, a teen who admits to others he is homosexual even if he has never had sex with someone else can't be a patrol leader). I think the paragraph is fairly clear in laying out the BSA policy with evidence.--Erp (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You lumped two very different situations (homosexual and atheist)together; such would make a mess out of any discussion of either. While nobody can claim to know the intent of the the millions of people that make up BSA, or claim that all of their intents are the same, I think that the facts in my previous paragraph indicate that the experience in Scouting as a whole (regarding homosexuality) is the same as you describe in your Scouting body.

If one understands that the main battle in the USA regarding homosexuality is really that of being for or against societal normalization of homosexuality. (and not for or against hatred or or persecution of people simply for practicing it) then I think one can understand the Scout position. If they failed to bar adult homosexual activists from leadership positions, they would be weighing in on the side of "for". Sort of like if you had club to promote vegetarianism. They probably would not bar a meat-eater from membership, but a person who says "I'm a meat eater and proud of it" would certainly not end up in a leadership role. This shows the distinction between actions intending to say "homosexuality is not OK" and actions intended to punish people for merely practicing it. I think that BSA's actions are similar to this and show the intent to do the former, and not intent to do the latter, and, in fact, the intent to minimize the latter as much as possible without violating the former. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)75.24.138.102 (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the situation I was discussing in BSA is not "the same as (I) describe in (my) Scouting body". That's the issue. BSA is on the extreme of policies for Scouting bodies. It IS controversial within Scouting. Doesn't mean it can't choose to be that way. But it does mean it's going to attract criticism. And that's what the article is about. Not whether it's right or wrong, but whether it's controversial. If you sit on the extreme in a global sense, it's controversial. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on extensive experience in Scouting, one thing that I learned and can tell you is that your Scouting Unit (and all of the others like it ) IS Scouting. Responding to both ERP's and HiLo48's recent posts,you make several valid points, but my point is that actual practice is also significant. For example here is a derivation which is opposite the actual practice. It's against the law to go 1 mph over the speed limit, it is the position of goernmental agencies that speeder should be caught, it's a reality that 99% of people oven go 1 mph over the speed limit. It's the law that 3 times = no license. Therefore it is the position of the government that 99% of all drivers should be banned from driving, a "defensible" but incorrect derivation that is contrary to actual practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right to point out a distinction between BSA policy and BSA practice. But this is an article about policy, not practice. BSA policy is very clear: "Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members" [43], "Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law" [44], and "Boy Scouts believes it is important to have national uniformity of values." [45]. Yes, if you look carefully, you will find that most BSA units do not adhere perfectly to BSA policies, just like most drivers do not adhere perfectly to the posted speed limit. But imperfect drivers do not negate the posted speed limit. Likewise, imperfect units do not negate official BSA policy. This is an article about BSA policy -- it says so in the first sentence. If you want to write an article about BSA practice, perhaps we should start a new article? (Cwgmpls (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

The article would be better if it were what you said it is....limited to policies, but it is "....membership controversies" which is much broader and vaguer, which is what allowed the problems of this article to occur. Knowing that it's near-impossible to rename an Wikipedia article, I had suggested a scope definition paragraph which would, in essence, do that, making it "BSA Membership Policies and Practices in areas where such have garnered significant controversy." So, for different reasons than you suggested, maybe a new article is the only way to cover such objectively, which, I think, is what most readers of this article are seeking. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)75.24.138.102 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You keep referring to "the problems of this article". What, exactly, are the problems of this article? I think it reads pretty well as a statement of policy and the controversies that policy has caused. The only problem I can see is that some units do not adhere strictly to BSA membership policies, which leads some people to believe BSA allows gays and/or atheists as members, when official BSA policy excludes them from membership. A statement to that effect would be fine. But I don't think anyone is surprised to hear that some units don't strictly follow BSA rules -- that happens in any organization.(Cwgmpls (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, we're going in circles......y'all wore me down. I think I'm signing off. Wish y'all the best, despite the disagreement on this article. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)