Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Religion

Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Religion

I have been working a draft on the religious issues. Even if the content gets folded back in in a manner similar to the current article, I think it makes it easier to work it as a separate issue. It is still rough and has a lot of primary sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of scholarly quality work!! My strongest suggestion be to clearly define it's title and scope. This is in essence a "BSA position on religion" article/section. In reality, I think that BSA position on Religion/Homosexuality/Gender should be a separate article, this being 1/3 of it. This should be considered, though contrary to my draft proposed roadmap above. But in my proposed "roadmap" above, I think that your article would replace the "Position on atheists and agnostics" section with a slightly broader "Position on Religion" section. If so, I would recommend making sure that everything Wikipedian from the current section is included in it. North8000 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon review, I think that you have already incorporated everything from the "Position on Atheists & Agnostics" section into your new section North8000 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

One more note on your "Primary Sources". If there isn't an exception in the "primary source" guideline for cases where the statement is clearly a matter of fact that is clearly defined by the primary source, there should be. If the question is "What is the first sentence in the book War and Peace, in that special narrow case, citing the primary source (the first page of the book) should be sufficient. And, in that rare narrow case, a secondary source (a third party statement of what is on that page) would be both unnecessary and less reliable/accurate. There are a few cases in your draft which are analagous. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

We would have to look carefully at splitting the article. I'm not really in favor of it, as there is a lot in common with the issues and a lot of the reactions and litigation involves multiple issues. Splitting would also me that sections common across the articles would change in wonderful ways. It does make it easier to draft, as there is a focus on a specific issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe leave it unsplit and develop really good coverage in THIS article per the compromise in my roadmap draft. This leaves you free to do exactly as you say in your "focus" statement, albeit in a section of an article rather than an article. Splitting later could still be a possibility. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if some of this could be incorporated in the Religion in Scouting article (an article that may need some serious work of its own). --Erp (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it right that the archiving robot removed the current "Feature Article Review" status?

Is it right that the archiving robot removed the current "Feature Article Review" status / template from the discussion section. (and, apparently, it's SOP to not show it in the article)

Who is controlling what the robots do to this?

North8000 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The archiving bot didn't do it. The bot that was took control when the FAR was over did it. If you look on the right side of the Talk page you will see a box that talk about this being a former FA and the article milestones. Everything was done the way it was supposed to be. Marauder40 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and info.. I missed all of that. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Swan Song - Parting Suggestions for Fixing this article

I'm giving up on attempts to help fix this article. The last straw was when I looked back 5 YEARS in the discussion archive and saw this:

"LETS STICK TO FACTS - Until someone can give me the name of a Scout in a non-leadership position who was removed from BSA for being openly homosexual, the fact remains that BSA policy as written on it's own page proscribes known and avowed homosexuals from LEADERSHIP positions not general boy membership! I'll probably be waiting for a long time as there never has been any."

FIVE YEARS later, nobody has named a single one, those who want this article to remain "as is" have made sure that the false innuendo and derivations (OR) has stayed in, and the factual material of the actual BSA policies in this area has been kept out. As recently as 2 months ago, this had only the preamble from the actual policy in there, leaving out the operative part of the policy, and even with the small corrections that have been put in there (which someone will presumably take back out) it still lack's the context of the BSA heading for the policy which is as a leadership policy. Also, as recently as 2 months ago (and presumably again 2 months from now), there were unsupported (& false) statements contained in implied premises of wording in this section.

And folks controlling this article have simultaneously argued that BSA policies in this areas should only be covered in this article (by stomping out a new article covering it) and that those policies should not be covered in this article. (I.E. that they should not be factually actually covered anywhere)

Nevertheless, here are my parting suggestions which is an update of my previous proposal.

Deal With Scope Issues

The title is overall a little vague, but such is life. Normal structure would dictate that all content meets both of the qualifiers which it defines:

"Membership" qualifier in title

"Membership" implicitly that means: "restrictions on eligibility for membership". In practice the article expands this to "restrictions on eligibility for membership and leadership positions".

"Controversies" Qualifier in Title

In reality the article has expanded this qualifier into three areas

1. Controversies

This is within the proper scope of the article

2. The object of the controversies

The core of this is the three "Position on......" sections. These sections are highly POV content forks from the main BSA article. They also violate Wiki standards "criticism of" type articles. The example in the above preface is an indicative "tip of the iceberg" with the problems in those sections. After 5 years of instability, there has been no improvement in these sections. These "position on" sections (and anything else like them) should be deleted from this article, covered elsewhere, and referred to by this article. Trying to cover these in a highly POV content fork has been a failure, a highly POV content fork, and violatres scope standards for "criticism of" article.

3. Covering (selected) other organizations for comparison purposes

This is basically the whole "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" This section basically SELECTS other Scout organizations with policies more liberal than BSA and then compares BSA to them. Fine if the purpose of Wikipedia was to convert readers to the opinions of those on one side of the controversy, but such should obviously not be in Wikipedia. Such comparisons are only appropriate when they are referenced coverage of the controversy, e.g. covering a group on one side of the controversy invoking such comparisons. Solution: remove that section, and put back in only content per the latter criteria.

Deal with "Reference Bluffs"

These are cases where the reference number given for a statement either does not support the statement, or refutes the statement. Wherever these are the only references given for a contested statement, remove the statement and the reference (if not used elsewhere). To put the statement back in, one would need a cite that supports it.

Deal with pervasive POV wording.

Pervasive POV contented has to date evaded removal by inclusion in areas other than direct statements. Start by looking for these false / unsupported statements "hidden" in the following areas: Implied premises of sentences, implications of cause-effect, implications of relevance of juxtaposed facts, pervasive "undue weight" situations.

Location and Organization of coverage of litigation

Coverage of litigation has numerous organizational issues. Even within the "litigation" section, half the litigation is "filed" under one system (by subject) the other half is "filed" under a different system (active vs. inactive)("inactive" apparently is a not-so-useful term meaning "Resolved" litigation.) And then some other other sections which need this material just badly duplicate it either sparsely/badly duplicate it. And other sections which need it (the BSA choice to fight something in court is certainly very germane to "Position on....." sections) don't have it or a reference to it. Solution: Put all litigation into the litigation section under categories germane the the article (probably by issue: gender/homosexuality/atheism/agnosticism or alternately categorized by membership/leadership/access to facilities) Put the case names first for quick finding, and then other section of this article that "need" this litigation will say the case name and refer to the litigaiton section.

"Reaction to NonDiscrimination Policies" Section

I suspect that this title was a sort of a typo. The logicians who figure out the title realize that nothing the section (or even the overall article) matches the title. Solution: Move everything in the section to more appropriate places elsewhere in this article, and delete this title.

Resolve Heavy use of extremely POV Editorial & "Attack" Websites as References for content asserted to be factual.

The most common example is heavy use of the "www.BSADiscrimination.org" web site as a reference for factual material. Such references could be used objectively as examples of the controversies, but not as sources of factual material. Following a reference to these usually leads to an op-ed piece or "rant" with some apparent facts blended into it.

Resolve coverage imbalance in coverage of stated reasons for positions

Generally, in this article coverage of opposition to BSA policies includes quotes or summaries of what the opposer said to support (give a basis for) their position, while coverage of groups supporting BSA policies has no quotes or summaries of what the supporter said (give a basis for) their position.

These are just parting suggestions, I don't plan to monitor this article any longer. Good luck to anyone and everyone who tries to fix it. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody should start fixing this mess. 99.141.252.19 (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you have something valuable to contribute, you have every right to join in yourself. It would be wise to register yourself as a user on Wikipedia so that your contributions can be clearly identified and sensible discussions can proceed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be tilting at windmills. There is a group who makes sure that this article remains the POV witch hunt that it is. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

North - while you see a conspiracy, I see an anonymous IP (potential) editor who chose to go no further, despite my encouragement. That's been the choice of that editor himself, nobody else. You too should be encouraging others. I'm not part of any "group". I don't think one even exists here. That more people, possibly with their own POVs, opposes your POV than you might find comfortable, it doesn't imply that it's a coordinated campaign. That's pretty hard to do here. HiLo48 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48. I never said (and don't think) anything related to "conspiracy" and "coordinated", and so you caricaturing/changing my statement. My POV is that this article is a POV witch hunt. No doubt that you are right that a majority of those "in the room" would disagree. From what I can see over its 5 year history, lots of people have tried to fix the article and in the end they all gave up and left. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

North8000, you see "tilting at windmills" and a "witch hunt". I also see as HiLo puts it an editor that wants to "improve" the article but wants other people to do the work for them. Anyone that wants to edit the article should be bold and do it. But they need to make sure that their edits are NPOV, referenced and well thought out with no original research or syn or they will be reverted. Obviously you have people from both "sides" of the issue watching this article and every edit will be gone over with a fine tooth comb by both "sides". But you need to have a thick skin and stick up for any edits that you make also realizing that you might not be right. As HiLo also suggest an IP editor should get an account or if they have one already use it because as you know IP edits tend to be more suspect then "normal" edits and it makes it easier to discuss contraveries with an actual account.Marauder40 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Marauder40, of course you are right regarding what should be done. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

North - Apologies if I misrepresented your position. I was picking up on your comment that "There is a group...." That implied to me that you think people are working together against what you see as fair.

I'll be open on this issue and challenge you to challenge me. As a Scout elsewhere in the world, I personally believe BSA has some very unfortunate policies, particularly in the God and gay areas, but also on the girls front too. I strongly wish it would change those policies, but I know it's not Wikipedia's job to present those views for me. That discussion is for elsewhere. I try very hard to avoid presenting my POV here. It's your job to watch that I (and others) don't do it, and call me on it as soon as you see any evidence of it. The same applies to any other editors. We all need to keep our POV out of the article. Now that things have cooled down it may be a good time to tackle what you see as the real problems in the article. Please don't give up. Make Wikipedia work. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48. Thanks for those words, you are a big person to say them.

What I've learned since then is that a person who knows the wp rules can delete their choice of about 90% of what's in Wikipedia. This would include about 90% of what's in this article, and 90% of anything that I would add. Which leaves contentious articles in bad shape long term. I printed and put on my wall a writing from the discussion section of the (contentious) British Isles article:

".....appears to be the usual case of people in contentious articles who hold the most extreme views (generally a very small minority in the real world debate) seeking to tilt the article in their direction, whilst a number of less partial editors and admins attempt repeatedly to sooth the argument and keep the article impartial. In most of these articles I've observed, the end result is a rather shallow article, fluctuating content between one end and the other and lots of hard-working people getting more and more fed up and eventually throwing their hands up and quitting. It's a basic, basic weakness in the Wikipedia model that the persistent nature of the dogmatic will tend to win out over the well-meaning and sensible: result: a deceased article with little fizz or depth. Personally I don't believe this can ever be resolved in the Wikipedia model, no matter how much bureacracy is thrown at it. Clearly some other model will eventually emerge but it won't be the same as this one. In the meantime, editing or attempting to edit highly controversial articles appears to be a hobby for the time-rich! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)"

Maybe with this article we could show that it doesn't always have to be that way? North8000 (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a try. I'll start with article organizational issues rather than POV issues. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You think the British Isles article has problems like that you should see articles that deal with religion. I use to monitor the Catholic Church page until it got way out of hand. Now the people that control the page are more concerned about size issues then anything else, wittle things down until it is totally neutered and only allow things in that show the organization from a particular POV. They say this and that belong in sub-articles then people complain the sub-articles are to big and don't allow it there. People that disagree with their POV are pushed aside, or even blocked for doing the same exact things people on the other "side" are doing. I am more and more understanding why WP isn't allowed for reference in most academic arenas. Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I haven't seen the worst of them! I think that there are two situations (or fuels) on articles in contentious areas. One is where the persons want the content to serve / further their goals. The other is where the article merely provides the venue/boxing ring for opponents, and their content goals are secondary. Much could be improved with changes in the policies, but I think that articles in contentious areas will continue to have problems. Maybe we could get a little group here committed to an accurate, quality, informative article (even where they have different viewpoints) and civility and have this rise above that.North8000 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"See Also" internal links at the beginning of many sections

This is very unusual, and WP style guidleines have "see also" as an appendix section. I'm assuming that those should be turned into internl links from the content text or moved to an appendix. (?) North8000 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the "See Also" you are referring to that is supposed to be an appendix is the "See Also" section that usually appears at the end of most articles. That is usually for subjects that are linked to the article but not specifically mentioned in the article. The items you are listing as "See also" are usually called "Main article" or "Further Information". They are used when there is a sub-article that contains more information then is required in this article. Usually when they are used the sub-article is just summarized in this article and the link point them there. The "See also"s in this article should probably be changed to either "Main article" tags or "Further Information" tags. Items that should be changed to "Main article" are the ones that actually have a direct scouting relationship (i.e. the court cases or XXXX in Scouting articles). The ones that probably should be changed to "Further Information" are the ones that don't really have a direct scouting link. Some probably should be totally dropped like IMHO the link to Single-sex education. Marauder40 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Need to evaluate what is relevant and work it into the content. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that one of these (discrimination) has several problems. But most of these just seem weak...typically about one of the thoughts or words used in the section (especially to be at the beginning of the section)North8000 (talk) 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

See my last few edits. I removed one that was a case about religious test for public office and worked another into the text. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed or integrated a couple more. Marauder40 (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I've been on a hiatus for 5 days (on a beach with no internet) but plan to work more on this soon. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Workspace for Review of References

I'm not in favor of going 100% by the book for the source criteria in WP:VER, but many of the ones used here fail by hundreds of miles in the context that they are used...basically using editorial/opinion/"rant" (primarily) web sites as sources of factual material. The use of these should be limited to illustrating the viewpoints of one side or another of a controversy. I was thinking that a start would be listing the ones of this type. To avoid too huge of changes, I'm proposing a "loose" / narrow review of only websites and on-line material, and where the cited material itself is clearly an opinion piece (i.e. not trying to evaluate the source). These are listed in order of appearance, only a few are numbered because the number can shift with additions or deletions. Dead Links and links with other such simple issues are also noted. Except for a few specialty situations, this reviewed the references, NOT the use of the references.

Moved / archived the full list to Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/References review. The following copy will be pared down and tagged into action items. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Then the "Action item" List was completed 5/21/10. Archived this also at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/References review. Now the list below will be only open action items. With an attempt to keep the numbers updated as they shift. North8000 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• "BSA's Policy on Homosexuals" "BSADiscrimination.org" website used as a cite for factual material. This page has issues beyond the usual BSADiscrimination.org issues. Including being (possibly deliberately) out of date. The newest material on the page is 17 years old, (current policies were set in 2004) the rest is older than that. But this is the only reference supporting one statement / fact / quote that many folks would consider key. REPLACE TEXT AND REFERENCE WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR
• Jackson, Derrick..... Not reliable (& wrong) due to age, obsolete info. But used 3 times in places dependent on it. LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE
• "Alternative Youth Groups" BSA Discrimination.org web page. Updated in 2009 and still left out one of the largest on the cited type ...BSA's LFL LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE, THEN DELETE.
• "BSA and Girls In Scouting" BSADiscrimination.org web page. Terribly biased with huge omissions, omitting about 90% of the topic/cases/situations LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE, THEN DELETE
• "Alexander, Frist....." Link sort of dead. Two quotes depend on it. TRY TO REPLACE
• "Boy Scouts of America Membership...." Badly Biased, Badly Outdated Web page of an advocacy group used 7 times as a reference for factual matters. LFL numbers ommitted from summaries. LEAVE FOR NOW. TRY TO REPLACE, THEN DELETE

North8000 (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/References review. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of good work! And more in-depth review/analysis than what I was doing. And then what I started has an advantage of being easier to match up with / look up from the article. I might move this into the bottom of the page that you showed, and still finish it just to get an overview and see where any glaring issues are. Then take out any with really severe issues (including dead).

Also curious about the overall nature / context of uses for bsadiscrimination.org. It wouldn't pass a test of reliability under wp:ver, but maybe a gentler standard should be used. As a source for saying what the one viewpoint is is where it's on the most solid ground. When it comes to facts, there is reliability problem. A typical web page there consists of what appears to be some real facts, combined with biased coverage (with ommissions and some deceptive wording) combined with opinion statements. The quandary is what happens if the article is heavily dependent on them for cites on factual areas. North8000 (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed bsadiscrimination.org at some point. There is no information on who runs the site, no information on how they verify information, no evidence that they have permission to reprint newspaper articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this article uses them as a reference about 15 times, with 12 distinct references. North8000 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll sort of "archive" the full list above by collapsing it or moving it to the /References Review "page", then make a copy and pare it down to planned action items. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Last Three Sentences In "position on homosexuality" section

These are quite mixed up and confusing and do not align with the (only) reference, which is itself an opinion piece. (This also uses current tense to apply to 2001 positions, which were prior to the current 2004 policy, but the discussion is not explicitly about the area that changed) BSA's policy with respect to homosexuals in leadership positions IS, essentially, a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy and so, saying that the council adopted a "don't ask don't tell" policy and implying that such is different from BSA is confusing / misleading. The reference describes that a council adopted a policy not to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and then (whether it be their words or the writer's) sought to take the "edge" off it's conflict with the national policy by some type of "don't ask don't tell" wording. The writer essentially said that that adopted non-discrimination policy was simply in conflict with the BSA policy. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My first concern is whether that last paragraph is correct. I recall discussions about it and believe it is. The Council was trying to say it did not discriminate but also tried to indicate that they did not disagree with the BSA policy. I think your concern is more about sources. I would also say that 2001 is just as relevant as current. The 2004 changes were not that big a change. --Bduke (Discussion) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have any big concern here. It's just that the paragraph is kind of mixed up & confusing. The (sole) source doesn't help much because it is comment about (rather than coverage of) the story.

I'm traveling this week and so my comments will be sparodic.

North8000 (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the mistake in the wording is saying that the crux of the policy was "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and implication that THAT may be at odds with BSA. I think that in reality the crux of the council's policy is no discrimination based on homosexuality, and that THAT is what some (including the writer in the reference) say is violation of BSA's policy. I think that the little that is in the reference supports that. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the scope of the 2004 changes is for another conversation. It's not directly involved in this paragraph. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Workspace on this paragraph:

Potential info sources / additional references:

• http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=19043 Re: Cradle of Liberty Council adding homosexuality to non-discrimination 2003 (T1)Desc: May 23rd 2003 World Net Daily article
• http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/10023-1.html Re: Minuteman Council (T2) August 1st 2001 AP article "Boston Boy Scouts Allow Gay Leaders"
• http://www.fact-index.com/b/bo/boy_scouts_of_america.html (brief mention that Minuteman council and Old Colony Council of Massachusetts did this) (T3) fact-index.com BSA summary
• http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=159&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport This has the most content of any of the references, including the one in the article. This has the actual discussed policy and the statements they made. (T4) August 8th 2001 CultureAndFamily.org article

North8000 (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan to replace those 3-1/2 sentences with something like the following (after references are added):

Various BSA national and council policies either prohibit or mandate discrimination. Some types of discrimination, such as prohibiting child molesters from becoming leaders are widely accepted. Others, such as discrimination against racial minorities are widely rejected and prohibited by BSA policies. Where neither is the case, they are the subject of controversy. Non-discrimination policies can be either vague or specific & operative. The latter typically enumerate protected classes and attributes which may not be discriminated against. (T1)(T2)(T3)(24)(t4)

BSA local councils and Scouting units are required to adhere to National Council policies as a condition of their charters. (23) At least three local scout councils added “sexual orientation” to the enumerated protected classes or attributes; two in 1991 and one in 1993. (T1)(T2)(T3)(24)(t4) All three made statements that these changes were not in conflict with BSA national policy. In at least two of these cases, controversy ensued from both “sides” of the issue. (T2)(T3)(24)(t4) Those advocating liberalization of policies said that these did not represent true changes or that true changes did not occur. (28) Those against liberalization said that these changes were indeed in conflict with BSA national policy and needed to be rescinded. (24)(T3) (24)(29) At least one of these councils reversed the change (29), and it appears that the others did the same. None of their websites currently contain non-discrimination policies with enumerated protected classes. North8000 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Starting to add references. Numbered the ones above for this purpose. North8000 (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) All done North8000 (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Scouting sex abuse cases - material should be moved here

Have look at the article Scouting sex abuse cases, particularly my last comment on the Talk page. Most of the material in that article is not part of a global list of sex abuse cases, but is about the BSA and its particular problems. Does anyone have a problem with it being moved here? HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That material is outside the scope of membership controversies. Are you suggesting a change to the scope and title of this article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No. You're probably right. It doesn't fit with the current name, and to change that would only introduce more complexity. But the material I'm referring to is exclusively about BSA. It makes the current Sex abuse article far too US-centric. Maybe a new article is needed. I will look down that path. HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Recap of Still-Open Items from May 2010 Reference Review

The Open Reference Problems / Action Items are those that will be harder to fix. Five fail wp:VER reference criteria by a mile and one is dead. Three are the "BSADiscrimination.org" web site which has numerous issues discussed above. However, all of these remaining ones have significant content dependent on them and I did not feel comfortable simply deleting them.

• "BSA's Policy on Homosexuals" "BSADiscrimination.org" website used as a cite for factual material. This page has issues beyond the usual BSADiscrimination.org issues. Including being (possibly deliberately) out of date. The newest material on the page is 17 years old, (current policies were set in 2004) the rest is older than that. But this is the only reference supporting one statement / fact / quote that many folks would consider key. REPLACE TEXT AND REFERENCE WITH SOMETHING SIMILAR
• Jackson, Derrick..... Not reliable (& wrong) due to age, obsolete info. But used 3 times in places dependent on it. LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE
• "Alternative Youth Groups" BSA Discrimination.org web page. Updated in 2009 and still left out one of the largest on the cited type ...BSA's LFL. LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE, THEN DELETE.
• "BSA and Girls In Scouting" BSADiscrimination.org web page. Terribly biased with huge omissions, omitting about 90% of the topic/cases/situations LEAVE FOR NOW, EVENTUALLY REPLACE, THEN DELETE
• "Alexander, Frist....." Link sort of dead. Two quotes depend on it. TRY TO REPLACE
• "Boy Scouts of America Membership...." Badly Biased, Badly Outdated Web page of an advocacy group used 7 times as a reference for factual matters. LFL numbers ommitted from summaries. LEAVE FOR NOW. TRY TO REPLACE, THEN DELETE

Again, the full list and list of action items is "archived" at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/References review. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Copied this list to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies/References_review on June 10th 2010, to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies/References_review. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

On the membership numbers table, I'm inclined to drop the Learning for Life numbers from the table since (a) it is not part of the traditional program and (b) the numbers are approximate only at least for the school programs (judging by comments in the BSA talk page). If there are separate numbers for the Explorers program since individuals (not schools) sign up for it, those might be appropriate. Remember the controversies are about the traditional programs and the BSA is very firm that the traditional programs are separate from the LFL programs. I would judge the Explorers to be an alternative youth program that could be mentioned but not the school based LFL since it is in-school. --Erp (talk) 05:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, that section is fundamentally OR and should be dropped or totally re-written, it implies (but never sources or establishes) a connection between numbers and policies, notwithstanding it's half-hearted disclaimer. And trying to double cover membership numbers here (vs. referencing another article that does a better job at them) is probably not a good idea. I agree that numbers that come from estimates (as it appears that non-exploring LFL numbers do) and of people with just some type of participation (vs. joining) are pretty shaky. It might be sort of bias to deal with just the LFL numbers issue in that section without dealing with it's bigger problems. I think that your thought of, in essence, confining numbers given to those where individuals sign up, (with maybe just a note regarding vaguer non-exploring LFL numbers) is a good one.

On a general note, any discussion or wording that purports to be about "BSA" should be about (all of) BSA, and any wording about a subset of that (e.g. traditional programs) should say that. My only goal here is accuracy and clarity and all of the other Wiki standards that lead to NPOV, not any particular "side". North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to keep it visibleNorth8000 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I Plan to Eliminate the "Reaction to Nondiscrimination Policies" and retain any material unique to it

I don't even know what this title means, and each of it's three paragraphs is a topic covered more thoroughly elsewhere in the article.

• The first paragraph (United way) is a couple of statements on two topics covered thoroughly elsewhere in the article, with no unique material, and would get dropped.
• The second paragraph has some good material that is currently only here, but on subjects where the main coverage is elsewhere in the article. That would all get retained and moved into the main coverage of those topics.
• The third (last) paragraph (on the Dale case) would get merged into an expansion of the Dale case coverage in the litigation section.

Step one would be to duplicate any unique material into the appropriate sections. Step 2 would be to delete the section. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of the first major section is cover BSA's policies/actions all in one section. So, in addition to issue the statements it has, BSA has also undertaken a separate 'hands-on' stance when dealing with local non-discriminatory policies.

It isn't at all obvious that one would automatically flow from the other. That is, we could imagine an organization that, at the national level, disapproved of gay membership, but which allowed local-level councils to implement that as they saw fit.

That BSA actively precluded the adoption of non-discriminatory implementations is an additional 'controversy'. (For example, it would have been less controversial for some if BSA had expressed pro forma disapproval of homosexuality without taking that additional step.

I'd say, move United Way to funding, move dale to litigation, but keep the response to local councils in there-- that's in some ways the 'capstone' to the first section-- the policies aren't just theoretical or statements of opinion by BSA National, they're true policies that local councils are ordered to implement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alecmconroy. I really didn't have any strong opinion about this section, other than "I don't even know what this title means, and each of it's three paragraphs is a topic covered more thoroughly elsewhere in the article. " But now I see that if we move the other two sections out as you suggested, the title would them make sense for the content. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks! Sounds like a plan. North8000 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

When trying to more the first paragraph, I found that both of its topics are covered more thoroughly elsewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletions done by IP without notice or discussion

I reverted mass deletions that were done by an IP without notice or discussion. Many severe problems in those changes, possibly some good ideas. Please discuss such mass deletions before doing. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC) (I reinserted this note after I accidentally deleted it)

A couple of the issues involved are good to talk about here.

Introduction Wording to Non-Discrimination Policy Section

I don't know if it sounds wacky or not, but felt that something like my "controversial vs. non-controversial" discrimination, and "enumerated protected classes" introduction wording was important to provide clarity as to what a non-discrimination policy with respect to sexual orientation actual was/is. Any thoughts on this?

Terminology

The terminology question regarding homosexuality as come up several times. Setting the most extreme views and verbal tactics from both sides aside, the underlying culture war is between those for and against general societal acceptance of homosexuality as a norm. I feel that the choice of terms should strive to be neutral on the underlying topic. I think that the term "homosexual" is the most middle-of-the-road on this. I think that more negative (not repeated here)terms or more positive terms (e.g. gay) referring to this represent "weighing in" on one side or the other on the main dispute. While it may not be the preferred term for folks with strong feelings on either side of the issue, it is a term that is not widely rejected by folks on either side of the issue, and also the term most widely used in legal and policy documents when they refer to persons of that particular sexual orientation. Any thoughts on this? North8000 (talk)

The BSA specifically uses the term homosexual. Gay can ambiguously mean male homosexual, as in Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with both. 'Homosexual' is probably the best for this article since it's BSA's term and since lesbians are affected also. If people aren't offended by it, no problem. If it is offensive, that's an informative reflection of BSA's choice to use the term in defining their stance. Either way, we shouldn't substitute our own term preferences over BSA's. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to keep it visible North8000 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Atheists/Agnostics not allowed; Buddhists are???

As a Buddhist I would like to point out that while most of the world looks at Buddhism as a religion, it is at its core non-theistic, and has been since its inception. The Buddha spoke of unhelpful questions and among them are questions such as "Is there a god?", "What is the nature of an afterlife?", "What is eternity?"

'Unhelpful' in this context refers to not helping us on the path to freedom; freedom, ultimately, from clinging and striving. The central point of Buddhism. It could be argued: the only point of Buddhism.

While this hasn't stopped many in the years since from practicing Buddhism in a religious manner, it is a basic misunderstanding of this philosophy to ascribe theistic beliefs to what is ultimately a very personal and beautiful system of thought. And let's be clear, that's ultimately what Buddhism is -- a philosophy and a psychology. What it is not is a religion. And what it does not concern itself with are gods and goddesses.

My question as relates to the article is this: do the Boy Scouts officially welcome Buddhist while at the same time denying membership to agnostics? And if so, how do they justify this contradictory policy? I wonder if anyone in the know can shed some light onto this.

And while we're at it, just how many practicing Buddhist and Muslims does the Boy Scouts have in its registry? Does anyone have the numbers? Just how homogeneous is this organization? It seems a relevant point to this article.

68.206.127.30 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)mdmullins

The BSA does not specifically address the issue of theism and Buddhism. The BSA is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement, and they do address the issue.[1] The BSA has a formal relationship with the Buddhist Churches of America.[2][3] I know the BCA does not represent all Buddhists in the US, but it is the only national Buddhist organization I am aware of, and the BSA only makes formal relationships with national organizations. The BCA relationship is recognized through their National Buddhist Committee on Scouting,[4] which provides the information on religious emblems programs. This does not mean that no other Buddhist group may charter a Scout unit, but they may not be tracked as such.

The BSA does not gather information on individual member religion, but it does track the chartered organizations. The are 61 units chartered to Buddhist organizations and 89 to Muslim organizations.[5][6] Not all members of those units may be of that religion, and the are probably many of those religions who belong to units chartered to other organizations.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP user does indeed raise a relevant point that WOSM should be considering, but it is not something that we, as wikipedians should be considering. Nevertheless it does point to the fact that the religious policy of WOSM and many individual associations is inconsistent and a rather poorly thought out compromise to keep as many people in the tent as possible. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been considering how this relates to the article. I have had this discussion before in other contexts, but I don't see that is has ever risen to the point of a controversy, nor am I aware of any discussion in other reliable sources. There is some discussion at Religion in Scouting; see also World Buddhist Scout Brotherhood. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it is not an issue directly for wikipedia, but I would suggest that the inconsistency is likely to mean that sources could be in conflict. You may be right that there is little discussion in reliable sources, but there certainly has been discussion about it. I think B-P's rather confused view of what is an acceptable religion is mentioned in Jeal. He wanted the Buddhist countries in the British empire to be in and he wanted to keep out the left thinking free thinkers in the UK who rejected God, so we got this confused situation we have now. Mind, this discussion should probably be at Talk:Scouting not here. One BSA issue that I have heard discussed might be relevant is that the Buddhist group you mention above is influenced by Japanese Buddhism and does have a notion of God, while other groups based on Buddhism in Thailand and Burma do not have the same idea of God (or even no idea of God), but are less represented. Another idea I have heard is that Buddhists want to avoid conflict so do not make a fuss, but are actually unhappy with the strong BSA anti-atheist position. These could surface in reliable sources at any time. We should be conscious of what issues might arise. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Buddhism seems as diverse as Christianity in teachings and lineages, but except for the BCA, they do not seem to form denominations, which is a problem in BSA relationships. There is no evidence that the BSA has issues with Buddhism, but there is anecdotal evidence that some Buddhists may have issues with BSA policies. I don't see enough reliable sources to add anything to the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Buddhists and their beliefs is not something that is an issue in the Boy Scouts of America at this time though I could imagine some troop leaders having problems (but those same leaders might have problems with boys who are Hindu or some other religion the leaders are unfamiliar with) when a controversy arises it will be a matter for this article. In the world organization it is not an issue at all (the emphasis there is not in a belief in a God but more spiritual values for which 'duty to God' is a shorthand, Buddhist majority countries use 'duty to religion' instead of 'duty to God' and Britain allows an alternative promise for Buddhists). The Buddhists could end up where the Unitarian Universalists are but not yet. --Erp (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you would like a very un-wikipedian, unofficial, but (I believe) accurate answer (i.e. just for your personal understanding of the situation, not for the article), (from a 50 year BSA scouter, 40 years as an unwilling atheist), the only way that anyone has ever had any official collisions with the BSA on this issue is when they go high profile about being an atheist or refuse to recite BSA items due to having the word "God" in them, or refuse to sign the application on those grounds. A person with a non-theistic belief set that appears spiritual would have an even easier time, unless their beliefs compel them to do the above types of refusals, or they went high profile about not believing in any deity.

This is with respect to having official collisions with BSA. Doubtless there are situations where the policies as written have additional subtler influences, particularly situations at the at the individual unit level where religion has a higher profile in the unit. But in my 50 diverse years in Scouting, I have never even heard of someone being asked what their religion / belief set is, much less heard of a review of a belief set to see whether or not it is theistic. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From a Wikipedia standpoint, if we could ever find a reliable source that has studied and summarized actual BSA actions in this area, such an overview on actual practices would be a very informative addition to the article. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to discuss the issues themselves, but I can not resist here. The phrase "refuse to recite BSA items due to having the word "God" in them" is amazing. An item? This is the Scout Promise you are talking about. In the US, you even call it an Oath. This is serious stuff. I am an atheist. A Scout is honest. I can not make the Scout Promise if it has the word God in it. It is not "just not reciting an item". So, since 1970, my activity in the movement I love has been on the fringes. The critics are taking Scouting seriously. They are not out to cause trouble. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I used the word "item" to be vague and cover the other possibilities. On your other points, I would disagree with some, agree with some, and say that one is more complex than you make it out to be. I would be happy to discuss, but I don't think that this is the place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please email me. I have email enabled. I do not think you do. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Haven't figured out Wikipedia email yet, but I will. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of my reference addition by Ckatz.

Ckatz I have to admit that you are right regarding BornGay / procon.org being overall a reliable source. I just wanted to explain why I used them in the first place. One the one point were I used them (which was the detail-adding edit I made a few minutes before) they had much more credible details in the wording on that one sentence where the more mainstream source had an obvious problem where leaving out the detailed description caused the generalization to be misleading and wrong. And, this being an old story, they were the only source I could find which went into more detail. North8000 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-discrimination policy wording needs clarification in a few areas

Some widely supported policies mandate discrimination (e.g. not allowing child molesters to be leaders or 8 year olds to get driver's licenses, or 11 year old boys to join the Girl Scouts.), in other cases it is tacitly expected (they won't let me play professional football because I'm no good at it) Some nondiscrimination policies are vague motherhood-and-apple-pie statements without "teeth" of operative wording. For the above reasons the ones that do have teeth always enumerate the protected classes or attributes.

This article uses the term "nondiscrimination policies" a lot, without clarification. In some of those uses such ambiguity is not an issue, e.g. where the word does not purport to be self-defining. In other cases, use of the term without clarification is clearly misleading, where the word is used as being self-defining. I think that in the latter cases it should be clarified. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you be specific about where it is unclear? It's hard to know with the broad brush there. --Habap (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"World Organization of Scouting Movement programs" section

This section has an "OR" tag on it right now. At first glance one might think a "Whit is this doing in THIS article?" tag would be in order, but I believe that it's sort of good in there. I think that a section giving WOSM's policies in that area, beig an umbrella organization is appropriate. Then it goes one to described policies of a few orgs within WOSM, and then some that are not in WOSM (which I think are confusingly misplaced in the WOSM section) I guess that picking selected organizations to list is inherently OR, and in this case, all of those picked in the first section were those with policies more liberal than BSA. Ideally there would be an objective expert source that has done this overview / analysis, but so far it's not here. Barring winning the lottery and finding that, I guess a few ideas are:

1. Rename the section to "Policies of similar organizations and the World Organization of Scouting Movement"
2. Delete the whole section
3. Strip out all example organizations and just leave in the top level WOSM stuff
4. Add one or two examples of organizations which have policies more stringent than BSA (for balance)
5. Remove the OR tag

North8000 (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been about 5 weeks since I put up the question, with no comments. Here's my thoughts/plan:

For structural purposes, split the section into "World Organization of Scouting Movement" and "Comparable organizations". Implicitly, these titles mean policies/stances etc. of those on the topic of this article.

To the existing 99% OR material here I would add a bit of balancing OR. Basically saying that in the counties where homosexuality is illegal or where there are religious states, such would not be expected to be seen in Scout policies due to being redundant or a moot point. I'd draft it here and run it up the flag pole before putting it in.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I made some copy-edits. If you can find a citation for the paragraph on values, that would reduce the level of OR here. I would also recommend adding one or two organizations with either similar or more restrictive policies for balance, since the opening paragraph states that such exist. --Habap (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. As a sidebar, I occurred to me that an organization tends to often not have policies when such would be redundant to laws or some overwhelming consensus in the society. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note on Quality of References

Since I just reverted deletion of a reference, I wanted to mention that during the reference review process there were many many in this article where I had to "hold my nose" as I put them in / left them in. (main work is at [[7]] Generally speaking these were cases where both of the following were true:

• Seemed reliable on the fact at hand, with those sentences being reporting of facts rather than conjuring up stuff.
• Could not find anything better.

If we took all of these out, we would sort of 50% gut the activist / critic side of the article. Not sure I did the right thing, but wanted to explain it. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Membership numbers

Does anyone have the 2010 membership numbers? Are they out yet? 68.27.169.172 (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes— see the Boy Scouts of America infobox. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the table but haven't gone back and checked the 2009 numbers against the annual report and updated its reference (now checked).--Erp (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Erp. This data is very appreciated. The numbers appear to be fairly consistent with previous trends. 107.25.88.117 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

How often do BSA Membership Policies Change, and How Are Changes Communicated?

I notice that the citation for the 2004 "Youth Leadership" policy, http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp, no longer contains the policy stated in the Wikipedia article. Is the 2004 "Youth Leadership" policy still in place, or has it changed? Cwgmpls (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Good observation and question; I don't know if it has changed. I do remember that it was spelled out at that page, and so there has clearly been a disappearance.

Not that it matters for content, but my take on it was that the homosexual leader policy never did get distributed, nor did it have any mechanism for general enforcement.....that it is/was just something they only enforced as a special initiative in a handful of special higher profile cases. I never found any examples beyond the handful of cases that are described in this article.

This contrasts with the atheist policy. There it is somewhat communicated via the application, and if one refuses to sign it they don't get in. I think that all of the atheist cases arose from refusal to sign the application.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass it off as another attempt by BSA to obfuscate its membership policy regarding homosexuals. When recruiting for new members or donations, BSA likes to promote its diversity, but when trying to kick out an unwanted gay member, BSA has a long history of pulling out obscure membership position statements when they are needed in court. This pattern can be seen in any analysis of the BSA vs. James Dale decision. I guess the same pattern continues to this day. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with some of that. From all of the research (including organizations who are vigilant about finding and publicizing any such things) it appears that they have never rejected or kicked out a member for being gay except when they were also a leader of some type, and also high profile about it. And that was like 3-4 people out of the 20,000,000 or so that came through Scouts in the period. This is not to imply OK/not OK, just to help with my 2 cents on an understanding of the situation. My guess is that it started out as unspoken (don't forget, 40 years ago, such a rejection by any organization would generally be considered to be acceptable, no policy needed). Then in the court cases they had to say it was existing policy and did as you described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's safe to assume that, despite the unannounced removal of the 2004 policy from the bsalegal website, nothing has changed. A simplified statement at http://www.bsalegal.org/litigation-222.asp reads "Scouts are required... not to be openly homosexual." Despite the clumsy grammar, the policy seems unchanged: Scouts cannot be gay. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to learn more. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked old versions of that morally straight page. The entire "policy" section was there before and has been removed. But the policy on atheists remains and is as stringent as ever. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, the policy statement on the website in question is gone, but the policy against gays in leadership is unchanged and in place. A person can still piece together the policy from other sources. The BSA seems to have an aversion to stating their policy on gay membership clearly in one place. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the policy or stance against avowed homosexuals in leadership positions was previously explicitly stated, and there is no indication that it has changed, except that it disappeared, while the policy against atheist members remains in that same place. We have a dilemma in the article that we are saying that such a policy exists but have no source for that statement. I think we should leave it as is while we try to learn/figure out/ find sources. In the meantime, if necessary we could refer to the deleted page (use Time Machine or other web archive) and say "as of 2010 date", according to....., the policy was stated as....... North8000 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Substantially re-edited North8000 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who put the now-vanished policy and its cite in, and now this section has just been linked in a similar exchange at the main BSA article, it is really worrying me and on my mind that we have this huge statement in there on a controversial topic with no cite for it. The only thing even close that I could find is what Cwgmpls referred to above, which in full is: "The cases challenged Scouting's right to set standards for membership, principally that Scouts are required to believe in God, be male, and not to be openly homosexual" which is is actually a description of the nature of standards which the cases challenged the Scout's rights on rather than a statement of policy. It is clear that it is not a statement of policy, because it says "be male", whereas Scouts allows and recruits girls to be members in it's older youth programs. Ditto for "believe in God", which, if it was interpreted as a policy statement, would conflict with the actual policy statement. I tried writing to bsalegal.org but it glitches out after you complete the contact form. I think I need to dial back the statement to say something along the lines of "as of 2010 stated policy was ......". North8000 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) (signed later)

I put the qualifier in there. Basically that it was bsalegal.org circa 2010 and then removed. Made no further comment.

I did a Google search of BSALegal— there is no longer a policy on homosexuality. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a lot of searching and found nothing. So right now we have no source that such a policy currently exists. Also no recent news about any change. Looks like there was an October 2010 case (multiple sources) where a unit told an adult they didn't want him to be a leader due to being openly homosexual and due to policy. And the "building use" court case which doesn't help. Other than that, pretty much everything on the web regarding it is is OLD, plus...... What really gives me the willies is that a whole lot of what is on the web is just quotes of what we wrote/write in this article! ! North8000 (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lest it disappear down the memory hole, the Policies published on BSALegal.org's "Morally Straight" Cases page from 2006-09-20 through 2010-02-06, then deleted on or before 2010-02-13:

● Volunteer Adult Leadership

Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. Scouting’s position with respect to homosexual conduct accords with the moral positions of many millions of Americans and with religious denominations to which a majority of Americans belong. Because of these views, Boy Scouts of America believes that a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys.

● 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.

● Youth Leadership

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. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting’s values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. 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.

If BSA had had a change of heart about this matter, then we should expect that rather than hiding its policies, it would be announcing and distributing new policies. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to establish communication on the with bsalegal.org (at least as background info if not a source) but so far no luck. My educated guess (given that the other policies such on atheists ARE listed there) is that there is no longer a policy. But we can't state something either way about current policy without a source. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I see three possibilities:

1. The BSA no longer has an Employment policy, or a Youth Leadership policy, or a Volunteer Adult Leadership policy.
2. The BSA has altered those policies.
3. The BSA has not altered those policies.

If it were the case that BSA had removed "a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model" from their Volunteer Adult Leadership policies, this BSALegal.org page, which previously affirmed that policy and still cites court cases arguing for that policy, should now clarify that it isn't their policy anymore. It doesn't.

We should also expect this page to apprise members of their policy revision, if there were one. They aren't.

The BSA simply stopped stating publically what their policies on homosexuals are.

This page is not how we should expect it to look, if your "educated guess" were correct. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My educated guess was really a sidebar for conversation only. I didn't and wouldn't put anything in based on it, and I didn't say anything about putting anything in based on it. I thought that that was clear, but it seems to have confused matters, so I think I should abstain from that. So now it boils down to the main track of what I said. Doubly so on this "minefield" topic, we need to make sure that whatever we say (explicitly or implicity) is fully supported by a reliable source. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What we say explicitly should be fully supported by a reliable source. But I don't think, frex, the Moon landing hoax article should refrain from saying "More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers—would have had to keep the secret." lest we "say implicitly" that the moon landing is not a hoax by stating truths which support that conclusion. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Using your analogy, I think that we have already done that here. The only thing that we have refrained from saying or implying is that they currently have a policy regarding that. And if were to get into OR and try to draw the most likely conclusion on that specific question from the evidence, I think it would be that that they don't. But we aren't doing that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

We agree about the impropriety of Wikipedia making a statement about what BSA's current policy is. Our disagreement about what the most likely conclusion as to what their current policy is, is moot. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamboree moving from military base to BSA-owned land

Rather old news, but future Jamborees will no longer be held at Fort A.P. Hill but on land owned by the BSA as explained here.

This should be mentioned in the section on Jamboree lawsuits.Brian Westley (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That article is well out of date— Goshen fell through and the BSA purchased land in West Virginia for the Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve where the next jamboree will be held. The lawsuit was settled well before the decision to move the jamboree, but a short statement should be OK. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how we can put it into this particular article without non-sourced implying of cause and effect. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's just to say that it makes it a moot point. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

bsa discrimination.org

This is a self-published website with spotty editorial oversight. From [8] " Some of the material presented on this site contains opinions, arguments and conclusions on the subject of BSA's exclusionary membership requirements. The owner of this site wishes to inform readers that some of the views expressed in such articles are not necessarily the owner's views. The owner only takes responsibility for the opinions expressed in the three Reviews of BSA's position on "Homosexuality, Atheists and Girls." This violates WP:QS. Also I am not convinced this website has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." bsa discrimination.org should be replaced with better sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are well taken. They are questionable (actually, not a wp:rs) . We did a reference review (see [[9]] ) most recently by me and took some of theirs out, and left some in for particular reasons. Not saying I was right, just made some judgment calls. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Linking "avowed" [homosexual] to "Coming out" article

CJ Withers linked "avowed" [homosexual] to WP's "coming out" article; North8000 reverted saying "There is no sourcing to indicate that BSA uses that as a definition of avowed, and such appears implausible."
I restored the link with the comment that the 'dictionary definition of avowed is clear: "acknowledged; declared"'; North8000 reverted saying "The issue is that you are making an unsourced statement on what the BSA definition is."

Language works on the basis of communication based on a common understanding of the definition of words and phrases as provided by dictionaries. A definition of "avowed" is "acknowledged; declared" [in this case as homosexual], and "coming out" is "an acknowledgment of one's homosexuality, either to oneself or publicly." These meanings are consonant, and a claim that the BSA may have some other definition of "avowed" is speculative, unsourced, original research. AV3000 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

First as a second sidebar, that policy seems to have disappeared early in 2010 so we may be discussing a moot point. That said, you sort of reversed the discussion. The point is that linking "avowed" in the article to "coming out" is a baseless and unsourced implication that BSA considers merely "coming out" to be "avowed" for the purposes of the policy.

I would also be happy to discuss the sidebar comment that it is also implausible, but that is just a sidebar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is changing what the BSA states. Not once were their words altered. Moreover, the link was correct as "avowed" in the case of LGBT people, i.e. homosexual people and others, means "have come out" or "out". Please read the definition of "avow" at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/avow so that you can see it is the identical notion. If there are disagreements with the dictionary, take it up with them because I will not discuss what the dictionary explains in plain English. Nonetheless, I am open to linking "avowed homosexual" to coming out, since the coming out article contains "gay" meaning homosexual.--CJ Withers (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You do not get to put your own unsourced constructions like this into Wikipedia, doubly so for a creative two stage construction as yours is (BSA interpretation of "avowed" for applying the (possible) policy is that same as the dictionary, and then, even weaker, that every type of "coming out" counts as avowed. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

North8000, I have no idea what you mean by "revers[ing] the discussion." You have not responded to my detailed walkthrough of why it is appropriate to link two consonant well-defined terms, which is the entire point of linking. (You also appear to be edit-warring, for which you have previously been warned.) I expect this issue will need to move on to dispute resolution. AV3000 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Either way, I'm fine with getting more eyes on this. There are numerous problems with your construction, but I have resisted going there (even though I would very much LIKE to) because it would confuse the core issue. Which is, again, You do not get to put your own unsourced constructions like this into Wikipedia, doubly so for a creative two stage construction as yours is (BSA interpretation of "avowed" for applying the (possible) policy is that same as the dictionary, and then, even weaker, that every type of "coming out" counts as avowed.

So, while I feel that your construction is faulty, I am not debating it, my core point is that it IS a construction; unsourced syntheses/OR which does not get to go into Wikipedea. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warrng on this new insertion that you want to make North8000 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with North. The BSA uses the term "avowed". It is difficult enough to see what exactly they mean by this term, but there is no source, that I know of, that says it means "Coming out". Therefore to link the two together is OR, and therefore the link should be removed, not only on this article, but on several others where it has been added. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both North and Bduke on this issue. To link the two terms is original research. WP also is very clear that it isn't a dictionary, so just because avowed links to Coming out, doesn't make the two synonymous. Marauder40 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to keep all discussion here, I am cross-posting a comment made to my talk page:

Please stop adding links to coming out until this has been further discussed. I see no evidence that the BSA links these two terms. In fact they seem to prefer "avowed" because it is more of a weasel word than "coming out". --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I put that on your talk page because you have making this link on several articles, not just here. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the article is _on the BSA membership controversies_ _on Wikipedia_ and not _BY the BSA_. Reference & evidence = dictionary (link provided further above). Whether the BSA would like to link identical notions or not is irrelevant. --CJ Withers (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the BSA uses the term "avowed" and seems to use it after much thought. They do not, I think, use the term "coming out" and that might too be deliberate. Therefore to make that link may be confusing what the BSA is saying, leading people to think that any form of "coming out" gets you kicked out of the BSA. So, I think it really does need a source that shows the BSA uses the term "coming out" in the same sense as "avowed". The consensus is going against you, so please stop adding that link across a range of articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition of "avowed" as used by BSA is not as elusive as we are making it out to be. BSA policies are drafted by the BSA National Council, which is made up of volunteers representing various chartered organizations. These chartered organizations are primarily the LDS, Methodist, and Catholic churches. These churches, combined, charter most of the BSA program is the U.S.. These chartered organizations have very clear, public definitions of the meaning of "avowed". At http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1324, the United Methodist Church defines "avowed" as "a person [who] openly acknowledges to a [person of authority] that the person is a practicing homosexual." There word "avowed" is clearly defined by BSA's chartered organizations. I don't really see any mystery here. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is making a statement about BSA's meaning of "avowed" is for the purposes of that (present or past) policy. You have just given a personal derivation of that answer (E.G. that if Methodists are a part of the council then the Methodist definition must be the answer.) Even if there was no flaw in that logic, it would still be wp:or/synthesis. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition the UMC's definition is for 'self-avowed practicing homosexual' not 'avowed homosexual' and the declaration has to be made to a church authority. --Erp (talk) 04:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Avowed" is a synonym for "open". We have source for this, see http://www.scouting.org/media/PressReleases/2012/20120607.aspx

In April, a single individual submitted a resolution asking the Boy Scouts to consider amending its policy on not granting membership to open or avowed homosexuals.

The BSA policy is: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”

--В и к и T 10:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Verbose

The article is ver bose. Most of the first part makes one point, concerning three restrictions of the BSA, and it makes it over and over. This is not good encyclopedic style. Someone should edit it down. I am not WP:BOLD enough, I'm afraid. David Spector (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be right. Changes would have to be made carefully. One other complexity which is that there is no sourcing indicating that there is currently ANY homosexuality-related policy. So, not being sure what to do, we have tweaked it bit but basically left in the material from abut ~2 years ago when there was sourced indication of such a then-current policy. North8000 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I second North8000's observation. The verbosity is necessitated by the fact that BSA has no single, comprehensive official statement regarding the membership of atheists or homosexuals. If there were a single, comprehensive, official statement, this article could simply cite it and be done. But lacking a clear statement from BSA, we are left with trying to discern BSA membership policy by citing a list of case examples. Listing example after example makes the article verbose, but lacking a clear statement of membership policies from BSA, what other way to we have to describe and document BSA policy? Cwgmpls (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, they do have one on atheists.....in regular scouting they can't be members or leaders. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two known cases where a youth who was expelled for atheism was reinstated. There are known instances where adults had their membership revoked. See Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Religion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Just recapping, they do have a place for written policies. It has a policy on atheists but not on homosexuals. Two years ago it had policies on both. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing membership policy regarding homosexuality is back again

The membership policy regarding homosexuality that famously disappeared in 2010 is back now, in a revised form, at http://www.scouting.org/media/PressReleases/2012/20120607.aspx I guess now someone can take a stab at removing reference to the old policy in Wikipedia and putting the new policy in its place? Cwgmpls (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it this is more stringent than the old one, which seems implausible.

There was also a newspaper story where they said this regarding leadership positions. Maybe we should take at least a few days to see what we can gather and then start revising. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The exact same wording for this "new policy" can be found at http://www.bsalegal.org/news-releases.asp, which may be a more reputable source since it is the BSA site set up explicitly for legal issues that confront Scouting. Cwgmpls (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the curious things about the new policy is that the statement "Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program." directly contradicts BSA testimony given to the Supreme Court in 2000 that BSA "teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight." How can BSA assert that homosexuality must only be discussed outside of its program and at the same time assert that BSA teaches that homosexuality is immoral? Of course, the Court predicted this sort of internal contradiction when it stated that the law "does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue". But even if the Court gives BSA a pass on making inconsistent statements, shouldn't somebody call out the BSA on the directly opposing assertions that they are making? There may not be a legal requirement for BSA to be Trustworthy, but most Scouts care deeply about that value. Cwgmpls (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This may seem off scope for this talk page but maybe not. I think that there are several factors confusing this. There is another even more core quandary which is that while they make this statement, I believe that they have never excluded or kicked out anybody based on (avowed) homosexuality except in adult leadership roles, and the big cases have involved BSA employees. My theory is that they say it that way (potentially excluding even kids) primarily to preserve their legal rights. And secondarily to placate the most conservative elements, especially the LDS which is a major player. So actual history, plus all of the recent secondary sources basically all say exclusion of avowed homosexuals from leadership roles, while the primary source says exclusion from membership. But the primary source is by definition the policy. And a note elsewhere makes note that most exclusions based on any of those policies (including atheism) have been in cases of people "testing" the policies (i.e. making a point)....while they can't say it, I think that that is the ACTUAL in-practice policy. My own case is an example; I'm in the group (atheists) who is even more expressly prohibited (even more so than avowed homosexuals) and I've been a member for over 50 years with zero issues, and nobody has ever asked. I think that if we want to provide really informative coverage we'd try to summarize all of this from all of the sources. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I just came across this and have been curious to know for some time to exactly who BSA's policy on "avowed" homosexuals apply: Is it just employees? Is it just adult leaders? Or is it everyone, including the scouts - i.e. does it mean that LGBT kids can be expelled? The article here says that its for 'leadership roles' only, but the BSA news release says 'members' as well - what is meant by 'members'? --Scientiom (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My best attempt at an answer (which is only that) was in the paragraph which, as of this writing, is just before your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Please remember that this is not a forum. We are here to discuss how this fits into the article.

From the articles and BSA site, two events happened:

• A BSA volunteer presented submitted a resolution allowing for units to determine local policies on homosexuals.
• An online petition was presented during the annual BSA meeting.

Media reports indicated that the BSA was reviewing their policies, but the BSA has responded that there is no current review: the resolution and petition will go before a committee which will then decide if there is to be a review. The BSA also stated that there have been a number of resolutions since the Dale decision in 2000.

As best I see it, there have been no real changes: a short-lived flurry of media reports and a response from the BSA. The only significant event is the updated policy on BSALegal (run by Bork Communication Group which "helps corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation")

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment above - this article says one thing but the policy posted by the BSA seems to be larger in breadth, at least officially. This article says the policy only applies to those in leadership roles, but the news release says that it applies to 'members' as well - what does this mean? Does it apply to scouts as well? The article should clarify this. --Scientiom (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we knew the answer and it was sourcable, we'd love to do that. Absent that, we can just report the sourced specifics, as Gadget850 noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In the context of Scouting, there is really no distinction between "leader" and "member". Boy Scouts is a boy-led organization (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/TheBuildingBlocksofScouting.aspx). All boys are expected to serve as leaders as they move up through the ranks of Boy Scouts. So a policy that bars gays from leadership position would also bar gays from general membership beyond the first couple years of Scouting. Of course, this is a moot point since the most recent policy clarification clearly bars gays from any membership, not just from leadership positions. Cwgmpls (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Their updated policy is pretty clear:

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

So, the policy applies to all members, not just to those in leadership roles. Article should be updated to reflect this.--В и к и T 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That appears to be an official press release. And it was re-posted at BSALegal.org. I'm thinking we should put it in, attributed in detail. I.E. "June 7, 2012 press release stated......." type wording. (?) And what branches of BSA does this apply to? North8000 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It applies to the traditional Scouting program: Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing. None of the 3G issues apply to Learning for Life/Exploring. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So to clarify, basically openly gay or bisexual kids can't join those three mentioned programs (at least officially anyway)? And what's '3G' by the way? --Scientiom (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As I read it, it applies to both adults and youth who are openly gay. How much this is enforced or ignored at the unit level has been discussed on several Scouting forums, but there are no reliable sources. 3G = God, Gays and Girls, subjects that are banned from some of the major forums. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that somebody sort of did that already. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The summary of the 2012 press release reads good. Couldn't the rest of the "Position on homosexuality" section now be deleted and replaced with this summary of the press release? The 2012 press release, together with the 2000 court decision, constitute a clear statement of BSA's current policy regarding gay membership. Is this a summary of current BSA policy, or a history article? If it is supposed to be a summary of current policy, and not a history article, we really don't need all the text prior to the 2012 press release. Cwgmpls (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think history is good, especially with how confusing this is, at least for a while. Just a year ago the stated policy was exclusion of avowed from leadership roles, and we covered the previous position which was more stringent. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

To: Bmclaughlin9 and 112..... on your insertion I agree. I missed that he is a BSA board member. So it's fine with me unless others disagree. North8000 (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)