Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 4

Title Change Recommended

The people at Featured Article Candidates have recommend we change the title to make it clear that this page doesn't cover earlier controversies like Scout's history of racial segregation, their exclusion of women leaders, and membership controversies, and instead make it clear to the reader that this article centers on the gay/atheist exclusion issue and its aftermath. So, what are some good titles that do this?

• Recent Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America
• Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America 1980-Present
• Boy Scouts of America and Gays and Atheists
• Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America
• Gays and Atheists in the Boy Scouts of America
• Gays, Atheists, and the Boy Scouts of America
• Boy Scouts of America and Alleged Discrimination
• Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

Any other ideas? Any opinions? -Alecmconroy 04:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we should go along entirely with the people at Featured Article Candidates and I think we should call it "Recent Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America". Thus while not talking about earlier controversies, it can deal with other recent controversies such as whether membership numbers are accurate. --Bduke 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also probably shouldn't say "The People at FAC" implying that they are a huge body all in agreement. Two people, and I may not be summarizing their views accurately, so I encourage everyone to read the FAC discussion directly too.

My own thought is that this article is big enough as it is and the membership controvery is sufficiently separate from the main "gay / atheist" that it and other issues should be split off somewhere else. And if were For example, if the membership controversies's covered in depth, why not the sexual abuse controversy, and why not the high-paid-officials controversy, and why not the excluding girls controversy. Then we end up with a giant page that has to be split into sections based on issue.

So instead of adding to this one and then off those additions, let's just call this one the page about the gay/atheist thing, retitle it, and then start a new page or pages for the other issues.--Alecmconroy

How about the title BSA Membership Controversies?--Jagz 18:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Jagz! I love it-- I think this might be the one.--Alecmconroy 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Although, that title isn't bad! --Naha|^(talk) 18:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this going to cover issues with girls under 14 who want to be members? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably not, on the grounds that the girls issue isn't sufficiently controversial.--Alecmconroy 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the current title. --Naha|^(talk) 05:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of girls is highly controversial, it's just not as politically charged as sexuality and religion. it is also NOT limited to girls under 14 as girls over 14 can not earn ranks, meritbadges, or get into the OA. I think there should be a section on this. Besides, it IS A MEMBERSHIP ISSUE and clearly falls within the scope of this article. Rlevse 15:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The girls issue may heat up (and add interesting things to the gay & atheist debate), as at least one newpaper article and one BSA council website reveal that the new "soccer and scouting" program aimed at getting hispanic boys into cub scouts also allows girls as part of Learning for Life: article Greater Yosemite Council Brian Westley 04:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Several people have suggested a topically-based splittling. So, I propose:

1. This page be moved to Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America, since it covers that topic well, but doesn't go into depth about the other controversies.
2. If interest about the other issues (gender, segregation, membership, salaries, violence) is sufficient, then other pages can be created to discuss them. Such as Boy Scouts of America and membership reporting.
3. If enough of the controversies pile up that the Boy Scouts of America page can't easily refer to them all, then a clearinghouse page called Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America is (re)created to summarize and link to them all.

Any strong objections to trying out this organization and seeing how we like it? --Alecmconroy 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the title; it doesn't feel neutral. Note it is attitudes towards people holding specific beliefs (or lack thereof) that is in question. I would stick with Controversies or Current Controversies or Current Policy Controversies or Belief Requirement Controversies

I would make the intro paragraph shorter and more neutral

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the most prominent Scouting organization in the United States (U.S.), has certain policies which prohibit gays and non-theists from participation in their organization. Because of these policies, there have been several cases in which both Scouters (adult volunteers) and Scouts (youth members) have been expelled from the BSA or people not employed for being atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals.

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters argue that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics contend that one or both of these policies amount to illegal and/or immoral discrimination. Not all critics oppose both policies. Challenges to the policies have taken three forms:

• Whether the organization has the legal right to have such policies. This has been upheld in the courts.
• Given these policies, whether the organization is legally entitled to all the traditional government support it has received. This is still in the courts but the BSA has lost in the lower courts in several cases.
• Attempts within the BSA to change the policies

Each of these challenges has met responses from the BSA and its supporters.

Whether the Boy Scouts of America should admit girls to to all its traditional programs is not a major current controversy. Women have been allowed into all adult leadership positions since (1988) and into the Venturing (a program for youth 14-21) since 1971 (when it was called Explorers).

Revamp the organization of the article to reflect the structure of the intro

1. The Boy Scouts of America position

2. Litigation over whether holding these policies is legal (since this is mostly settled it is more historical than current)

3. Litigation over government support of BSA activities

4. Other external reaction

4.1 Opposition (this would include United Way funding and other non-court actions)

4.2 Support (this would include resolutions in support, etc)

5. Internal reaction to the policies

5.1 Internal criticism

5.2 Response to internal criticism

6. Effects on the Boy Scouts of America

thoughts?--Erp

---

I love it! I think it add as lot of clarity to put the two litigations together, and I think the breaking it up into three general kinds of issues helps the structure immensely.

A few criticisms-- 1) I wouldn't mention the exclusion of girls in the intro-- intros are more summary of what we do discuss, not talking about what we won't discuss. 2) 3) I might avoid oversimplifying the goverment support debate: Some people say the government CAN'T legally support the BSA at all, some say the governement CAN'T legally NOT support them, and some say it can choose whether ore not to suppport. 4) I wouldn't create seperate section just FOR internal support and criticism-- that sorta implies the internal debate is bigger than it is. This is a SOCIETAL debate more than it is a BSA debate. So I'd lump internal and external support together-- internal support included in support, intenal opposition included in opposition.

Lastly, I might slightly change the wording so that the focus remains on the policies themselves, rather than on the CHALLENGES to the policy. I might say:

The debate surrounding these policies has generally centered on three sorts of questions:

1. Does the BSA have the legal right to mkae such policies. This has been upheld in the courts.
2. What effect, if any, can the policies have on the government support that the BSA has traditionally received-- Can government entities still legally support the BSA despite these policies? Can government entities legallly withold suppport because of the its policies? This is still in the courts but the BSA has lost in the lower courts in several cases.
3. And lastly, are the policies moral?

I'm sleepy, the wording may not be the best, but the idea is that the three questions are: 1. Is it legal to exclude? 2. Is it legal for the goverment to support / not support. 3. Is it moral to exclude?

We might need to use the word moral for the 3rd question, but it's meant to be catch-all for all the people who strongly support the policies and those who oppose the policies.

Lastly, should we ditch (or fork) the issue on the Unitarian emblem and the people being expelled for opposing the polies the policies? getting into them in this article may make the page a little too anti-bsa.

-Alecmconroy 16:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the internal opposition is larger than some perceive. Much of the UU emblem dispute is internal to the BSA since it is dealing with the religious emblems program. Now if the UU had recommended that UU children should not join the Boy Scouts that would be another matter (WELS did that on the grounds that the BSA is too tolerant {WELS would be happy if the BSA was purely secular but they don't believe in their people praying with non-WELS people}). We've also had local units and even councils try to go a different way and be forced to change. One idea is to spin off the details of the UU emblem controversy to a different article, it is long enough, and only mention it in this one. Perhaps a new article on Religious Emblem Controversies with the UU and Wiccan emblems discussed there. Or we could put it as a subsection of the religious emblems article. I would definitely not ditch the people being expelled as it is a relevant fact. --Erp 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and bias

After reading the article, I feel that there is bias present against the homosexual policy in terms of sheer weight of listing opposition to the policy as opposed to support. The article admits there is strong support, but barely offers a paragraph to state as such. I also feel that the introduction to the Unitarian Universalists is biased a little heavily towards them, seeming to summarize the religion but phrasing it in such a way as to hide the objections other religions and organizations have towards them. I feel that this colors the article towards pushing an agenda, which is against policy.

I don't have any contentions with any specific factual claim, but rather that this article isn't fully comprehenive, in that it only details arguments against the policy. Support is listed, but not explained or detailed, suggesting that the reader should dismiss any such support as nonsense in the weight of the opposition. Fieari 21:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been worried that the article may have turned into just one big clearinghouse for for "Things some people hate about the BSA". The unitarian thing is particularly hard to do right because BSA has said almost nothing on the matter-- or at least nothing like a formal presentatinof their point of voice.

So, do you think that the article should get into the how's an whys of many americans support the policies and get into the prevalance of the viewpoint that homosexuality is wrong? The current version sorta says people support the policies, but leaves the precise reasoning unspoken. Anyway, maybe you can help us beef up the "Support for the policies section"-- thoughout working on this article, I've learned how very very hard it is to actually try to write a truly neutral article-- it's so hard to see your own biases. -Alecmconroy 16:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants ideas on how to make the article more pro-BSA or include more information on BSA policies, see the old version of the article here.[1]--Jagz 18:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read this and it does make the BSA sound like cold hearted elitest bastards. Whether they are or not, this article sort of makes the BSA sound like a relgious cult that is openly supported by the government and allowed access to government facilities like schools.
Oh, and this: "In light of the recent debate, there have been many questions about the future of this sort of governmental support for the BSA. Critics of the BSA have sued to prevent governmental entities from granting what they feel is "special" access to the Boy Scouts of America. The BSA, meanwhile, has sued governmental entities for what they see as "preventing equal access" to them." has got to be the funniest thing I have ever read. H2P 14:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, "cult" is a strong word, but they're certainly religious and openly supported by the government and allowed access to government facilities such as schools. As for elitist, they'd certainly agree that they impose strict standards upon their membership. Not sure where we'd look for cold-heartedness. Al 16:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Change to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies?

Shall we? --Alecmconroy 12:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is now going to cover girls seeking membership? [2] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can included it if we want or not. I don't think it qualifies as a "Controversy" (compared to the homosexuality and religion), but if it got a few sentences, that would be fine too-- it is the same basic legal issue. --Alecmconroy 14:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see four issues: the moral principle, the religious principal, equal access to government facilities and inclusion of girls. The first three are heavily inter-twined: there is no real way to separate them, thus membership doesn't work well. Perhaps inclusion: the BSA does not open membership to homosexuals and non-theists, thus some agencies are closing off support to facilities. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the government facilities thing is PART of the membership controversy because it happened 100% as a result of the membership policies. By analogy, Abortion debate has a section on media bias, even though that's TECHNICALLY media criticism debate, not abortion debate. Close enough

I personally will support almost any title that is NPOV and conveys that the epicenter of the article is the gay/atheist thing. BSA membership controversy is the best i've heard so far, but I think almost anything that get the job done will work. I just don't want FAC to claim the page isn't up to criteria because the title is too broad :).-Alecmconroy 00:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Not every issue dealt with is about membership. 140.32.75.175 12:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would work. The section "Conflict with Unitarian-Universalism" could be moved to the Religious Emblems Programs article. I believe everything else is somehow related to a membership issue. Girls membership could be added if there is a current controversy. Another possibility is "Boy Scouts of America membership and leadership controversies". (Some youth members are leaders but all adult members are considered leaders.)--Jagz 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the issue with leaders?

See [3] and [4].--Jagz 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There probably needs to be something added to the article regarding leadership issues and concerns.--Jagz 00:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"Leader" here is a bit of BSA jargon which doesn't have its normal English meaning. In ordinary English, a leader is a person with authority over others; this implies that anything which affects leaders only affects a small subset of the group. A "leader" in the BSA sense is different; all Scouts are expected to become leaders eventually, and a restriction on leaders eventually affects everyone.

Jargon like this seldom belongs in the title of the article, and even the body of the article is better without overusing it. Ken Arromdee 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Article Links

Comments:

• Should the article have a link to this webpage?[5]
• Footnotes 3 and 5 seem to be the same.
• Some of the links within the article (not the Footnotes section) are not working correctly. Check links 42-45 for example.--Jagz 20:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the relevant place, sure.
• Yes. I cleaned up the footnotes some weeks ago: I chose not to fix that at the time as my brain was starting to hurt. It's documented in the last archived talk page. I verified the links, deleted a very few that were dead, converted to the cite web style, cleaned up the titles (most were descriptions, not titles) and changed to the standard font size.
• 42-45 worked for me. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Did you try the links in the Footnotes section or in the main article. Try clicking on the numbers in the main article.--Jagz 00:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah: the note ref for #45 was mis-spelled. The others look OK. Converting the references to cite.php would help resolve this type of issue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I added the wording about the National Scout Jamboree controversy from the old article to the National Scout Jamboree article.[6] Maybe we can include a link to it.--Jagz 22:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I reorganized the article sections. How does it look? I guess the links are messed up now?--Jagz 01:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the great recent edits. I think I fixed the links by converting them to using the ref tag, so hopefully we can reorganize all we want and the order will fix itself. -Alecmconroy 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Chartered organization participation

In the article it says: The Boy Scouts of America's position is that agnostics and atheists, and known or avowed homosexuals cannot participate as Scouters (BSA registered adult member volunteers and salaried employees), Scouts (youth members), or chartered organizations (Scouting unit hosts).

Where can I find the criteria for the participation of chartered organzations?--Jagz 23:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be at the whim of the BSA - when Wiccans wanted to create a religious award for Wicca, the BSA changed the rules so only religions which chartered at least 25 BSA units could have a religious award, and the BSA refuses to allow Wiccans to charter BSA units. The BSA also issued charters to government entities well past the Dale decision, and didn't stop until threatened with legal action by the ACLU - they reportedly sent out a letter to all BSA councils telling them to recharter any government charters. If the BSA had a document that listed specific criteria for a chartering organization, they would have presumably issued a revised document to go along with the letter. Brian Westley 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would't use the term "whim", but it seems like the criteria is very open to interpretation.

From http://www.bsalegal.org/faqs-113.htm

Q. May a group of individuals who openly profess to be homosexuals obtain a unit charter?

A. No. The ability to charter a Cub Scout Pack or Boy Scout Troop is a privilege and not a right. Boy Scouts of America reserves the right to grant or withhold charters upon the basis of the aims and purposes of the Scouting program. -Alecmconroy 09:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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."[7]

Is this BSA policy covered sufficiently in the article?--Jagz 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think this "no gay LEADERS" is just a bit of a public relations subterfuge or other spin. The old policy was "no gays in BSA, period." There's not a single known example of an openly gay scout being allowed to stay a Scout. In many places they reiterate homosexuality is against the Scout Law and Promise, which all scouts must obey. Outside of the BSA's laywer/PR site, the focus is on "morally clean", not on "bad leadership". I think until we hear evidence to the contrary, like a single scout who is a gay non-leader,, the presumption has to be that the effective policy is "homosexuality is wrong, and we do not allow gay scouts".

I think we can see a similar situation if we look at BSAlegal's Duty to God page. Nowhere does it say "Atheists and agnostics are simply not allowed to be scouts"-- instead it dances around with this leadership thing:"Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as adult volunteer leaders.".

The implication is that gays and atheist scouts are welcome, but they can never become leaders. This sounds much less offensive, of course. But they're provably wrong-- gay and atheist scouts simple are not welcome in the organization at all. At least, that's what I think is going on.-Alecmconroy 09:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out in a discussion that's now in the archive, the article already contains references that contradict any claim that only leaders are restricted. For instance, "seven Cub Scout packs announced they would admit gays in violation of the national policy." Since obviously boys are admitted as members, not as leaders, the policy limits members.

Even if it were true, the whole "leaders" thing is misleading. To outsiders, "we only ban leaders" suggests that the ban doesn't apply to most Scouts. This isn't true given the BSA's unusual definition of "leader". Ken Arromdee 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Scouting For All here

I do not support the merge. The Scouting for All page can give more usefull detail than is needed here. --Bduke 09:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Bduke. LARS 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed and everyone who commented was against the merge. The discussion is in the archives. I took to the mergefrom tag off once already.--Jagz 21:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you clearly did not take the 'mergeto' tag off 'Scouting for all'. They go in pairs. I saw it there so added it here. I'll remove both of them. --Bduke 23:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Membership decline

I was reviewing the article and read the section in regards to membership decline and am seeking consensus to add the following points somewhere in that section.

1. Professional staff are responsible for membership development in their respective areas, leading membership numbers to possibly be skewed due to the practice of building numbers at recharter time and allowing memberships to lapse. Thanks to Jagz pointing it out, this is in the article already.
2. While Learning for Life numbers are increasing, this is due to the fact that the Learning for Life division is operated wholly inside public schools, allowing all youth, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, or other factors, to participate in the programs. Same with this.
3. It would appear that in some councils, membership decline is not due entirely to the controversial nature of the Boy Scouts of America's membership policies, but a lack of programming at the Troop, District, and Council levels, which cannot compete with youth sports, school activities, or other demands on the time of young men and women.

Please feel free to leave your comments. KC9CQJ 14:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the old version of the section if you want ideas on what changes to make.[8] --Jagz 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if any research has been done on the declining membership issue. Maybe polls have been taken to find the root cause. Seems like the BSA would have done studies on this. Right now the article only speculates on the reason.--Jagz 16:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

Here we go again. A mix of footnote types (in-line and ref) means that there are two each of notes 1 through 8. I just don't have time to fix it right now. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you put in a footnote?--Jagz 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the notes here use the older Wikipedia:Footnote3 system. I cleaned these up some time back. Recent additions aren't footnotes per se- just a link inserted into the text. The problem with mixing this is that in-line links get a number like [1] just like the footnotes, but the systems get auto-numbered separately. Thus you get two [1] links, but only one of these has a reference in the footnote section. Eventually, all of the footnotes should be converted to the new Cite.php method per Wikipedia:Footnotes. The footnote reference should use a citation template such as {{Cite web}}. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Despite all the controversy over this page, I am really impressed by all the great information and references! Thank you! -MarkBuckles 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

Is this article going to be nominated as a featured article candidate again?--Jagz 19:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe later. I guess the article still has a few rough edges.--Jagz 15:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think for a controversial subject, it's particularly hard to find an article everyone can agree is FAC quality. Not impossible, but a lot harder than say, an article on Baseball.--Alecmconroy 19:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 4 has failed, for the following reason:

(It seems to be in violation of the NPOV policy. A pragraph fraught with this is the second to last paragraph in the "Access to public lands and facilities" section:

One of the issues for many governmental agencies is that for the past two decades, the BSA has asserted that not only is it a private youth organization, but has gone on record describing itself as a religious organization. Not a religion, but an organization that inculcates a religious message to its members. This assertion, coupled with the BSA's public stance on discrimination, has called into question many of its governmental special rights and financing it has received for almost 100 years. Many wonder why the BSA can recruit in the public schools, yet the local Baptist church is denied such access, or why the US Army hosts the BSA's Jamboree, yet provided no financial or logistical assistance when the Catholic Church held their World Youth Day in Denver. As asserted by the BSA, they are equivalent to such religious youth organizations and are thus not subject to anti-discrimination laws.

With its lack of sources, presentation of the counter argument, and use of Weasel Words, I think that this paragraph alone removes it from the GA running.) TonyJoe 00:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Article improvement

If you have any recommendations for improving this article, including specific sections that may need further work, please write your comments and suggestions below.--Jagz 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• Fix the footnotes. The article is now mixed between cite.php and in-line citations. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• While not true in every paragraph, there are several spots where rather than being NPOV, it is rather anti-BSA and even factually inaccurate. For example, in the first para of of the Access to Public Land section, it says only BSA has the right to use public facilities, such as schools (words to that affect anyway). This is not true. For example, using the school example, what about the religious groups that meet in public schools...there are many, yet why is there not an outcry and multiple lawsuits over this? Why do we generally only hear about this stuff re the BSA? This is why I watch but don't edit this article. I will say, this article is much better and more balanced than it was 6 months ago. Rlevse 23:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I've started making changes to the "Access to public and governmental resources" section but it needs more work. We need a lawyer to write this.--Jagz 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Is the "Access to public and governmental resources" section acceptable now?--Jagz 07:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, are there any other problems now other than the in-line citations?--Jagz 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

in responce to "how the boy scouts steal your money"

In responce to the mark metioned in the header:

1. Unfortunitly, the Supreme Court Backs the Boy Scouts on the choosing to accept or not gays and atheists.
2. In My troop, we fully accept and embrace those that are diffrent for any reason; and we have our own interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law. On the Law, it says A scout is revrent and the Oath Says to do my duty to god and my country. Despite being chartered at a Prespertiarian Church (and having to say grace at summer camp), we don't force any spirital/philosophical/religous ideas on anybody. Ideally, revrent to us (our at least me) means being true to what you belive and respecting the belives of others.
3. The article is not the place for that. please, if you must put it on the talk page.
4. If needed, please contact someone with authority in government and/or scouts about what you feel and help change it. Boy Scouts is a great program, even with its flaws, and is changing all the time. One day it may accept all people irregardless of diffrence (as the founder wished), but it won't happen unless people work at it.

I hope you understand my points and I displayed them with out much grammaticall or spelling errors.

This was moved from the Talk page of the Scouting article. In the future please don't move things here as a way of deleting them from other articles.--Jagz 01:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

i think it was just moved due to it being on the wrong article, not so it would be deleted. Bud0011 02:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a posting about BSA specific controversy, not international Scouting. It belongs here, not in Scouting.Rlevse 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're up to.--Jagz 20:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not even worthy of a response. Bud0011 is correct. Rlevse 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AGF --Habap 21:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Land leasing

I can't find a good citation but examples like "Livestock grazing is permitted under a lease agreement between the Forest Service and the non-profit Hector Cooperative Grazing Association " at Green Mountain National Forest web page indicates that non-profits can lease Federal land. A discussion on camps on Federal land is at a American Camp Association website.

"In 2002, H.R. 5316 - The National Forest Organizational Camp Fee Improvement Act - passed in the House of Representatives.

This important legislation affects 320 nonprofit camps in 25 states. These non-profit camps that lease Forest Service land are facing hefty fee increases as land is reappraised after many years. This bill would redefine the category of appraised land that the Forest Service fees are based on from developable land to rural land. It would also redefine the formula for fees to 5% of the appraised value bringing that formula in line with private cabin permits on Forest Service land.

There are many camps and youth groups affected by this bill including Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Easter Seals, diabetes and cancer camps, church camps, municipal camps, YMCA, and 4H.

Unfortunately, it did not pass in Senate. With the commencement of the 108th Congress in 2003, we hope to resurrect the legislation."

Note that this is apparently a case of all groups having equal access to lease land for camps and not preferential treatment for one group. This is in contrast to the Jamboree.--Erp 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the whole section.--Jagz 07:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

How can I find the comments from the peer review? Supposedly they are archived somewhere.--Jagz 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is on it's fifth name- the review was against one of the old names. I fixed the link at the top of the page, but there isn't much to the review. BTW: I used "what links here" to figure it out. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just wanted to say how glad I am that Jagz, Erp, and others are still working hard to polish this article further. If we ever get to good or featured articles, it will be 100% because of these great new edits.

Regarding the sentence "Some local governments have enacted anti-discrimination ordinances and have subsequently moved to discontinue special or equal access to the BSA because of its exclusionary membership policies."-- the problem is this wording gives the meaning that there have in some cases been instances where local governments have denied equal access. I don't know that that's actually objectively true-- for example, to my knowledge, the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act or the Support Our Scouts have ever actually resulted in a withdrawal of funds. I tried a different wording by making it more verbose.

--Alecmconroy 03:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I rewrote it. How does it look now? I try to avoid the word "some". See weasel words.[9]--Jagz 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks awesome! :) thanks. Yeah, I actually love weasel words when properly sourced-- they're a gr eat way to summarize and not trouble the reader with details they don't need to know. People are alyway admonishing me about that. --Alecmconroy 06:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good article

In my opinion this is a good article that will never be recognized as such due to its controversial content.--Jagz 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean good in the generic sense or good in that it has received official GA designation? FYI, for purposes of the WikiProject rating system, only articles with the 'official' GA designation can be given a project GA rating; just as only official FA articles can get a project FA rating. I think the article has improved enough since it last failed GA. I'd suggest it be submitted for GA again. Rlevse 18:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should be renominated as a good article candidate.--Jagz 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, since you didn't do it, I did. I am a GA reviewer and you can't approve your own nominations, and I never vote on Scouting GA nominations anyway so that I can't be accussed of a conflict of interest. Rlevse 10:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixed link styles

I notice the page has again gotten mixed link styles. This would definitely hurt us becoming a featured or good article. most use the ref style, but some are just inline links. When we add a link, lets try to at least put the ref tages around it, like this <ref>[http://google.com]</ref>. If you can use the cite template, even better. --Alecmconroy 19:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, as a GA reviwer, I look for such things. Rlevse 19:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had noted that in the improvements section above. I cleaned this up a few months ago- it took all day and gave me a headache -and someone else did some cleanup a while back. One of the problems I fixed was that many of the references were descriptions of the article and not the actual titles of the linked article. I believe that doing this is POV- if the title of the linked article doesn't stand by itself, then perhaps it isn't a good reference. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If I were the GA reviewer of this, I'd put it on hold for the refs, specifically the way ones like 32 look. I think the content is okay but the format is important to GA also. Rlevse 21:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's put on hold for the refs, I'll learn how to fix them, if it fails, more editing will be required.--Jagz 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Just change the one that are only arrows to match the ones that are properly formatted.Rlevse 03:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixing them is pretty simple, just a little time consuming. You start off with a URL. Go to the URL and get the name of the work (i.e. the name of the website), and the title of the specific page. Also note the day you accessed it and the year you accessed it (i.e. today's date and year). So, I just did one:

url=http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html

title=BSA's Policy on Homosexuals

work=BSA Discrimination

accessdate=July 8

accessyear=2006

Now just put all that information together into one big template:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa_gay_policy.html|title=BSA's Policy on Homosexuals|work=BSA Discrimination|accessdate=July 8|acccessyear=2006}}</ref>

A pain, but not hard.

--Alecmconroy 03:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Truly mind-boggling. They've figured out a way to slow the growth of Wikipedia.--Jagz 05:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More Support for BSA

Originally, I had been pretty content to try to keep a balance between the BSA and its supporters on one side and the opponents on the other. But the more that I think about it, if we we're really gonna shoot for FAC-- maybe we should not count the BSA comments as part of the support, but should beef up the Support For section in order to make it roughly equitable to the Opposition section-- might help to make it more NPOV. So, I've added a few direct quotes from supports-- may add more. -Alecmconroy 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If we get good article status, maybe we should submit for another peer review, specifically asking about the balance of the article.--Jagz 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we need to be mindful of page length.--Jagz 23:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

mmk. I added Bush and Frist and a couple other supporters opinions, so the Support section now appears to take up as much or more space as the Opposition section. When I look back at our failed FAC the two main criticisms were about the title and about an Anti-BSA POV. We've changed the title, cut out some of the criticisms, and added more Support quotes-- so... hopefully it's better.

You're making great edits all the time. When you feel it's good, I'd say you could just go ahead and put it up for a peer review or a FAC and see what happens, rather than waiting for the good article people. Good article evaluation seems to take quite a bit of time, and doesn't seem to have the same level of scrutiny and feedback that peer and FAC do. --Alecmconroy

Before you resubmit to FAC...

I was asked to re-review the article for you. There are a couple of little points you might want to look at before resubmitting. I'd first like to mention that you guys have done a phenominal job of improving the NPOV of the article, as well as its comprehensiveness. Well done there!

Don't let these points nessesarily disuade you from reapplying for GA status. FA requirements are of course much higher than GA ones.

That said, here are some issues that would cause me to object if it were to be a FAC...

• In the lead section, the statement "One dispute involves the Boy Scouts of America's treatment of individuals who have publicly disapproved of their policies." is made, but no where in the article do I find information on this topic. Either remove the statement from the lead, or elaborate in the article.

I removed it.--Jagz 03:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• There are numerous statements that need more inline citations. The FAC standards for citations keep rising, after all; but at any rate, it's a good idea to have facts documented so that an acedemic researcher wanting to use wikipedia can easily locate the source documents, so that he can cite those instead of us. This is part of our job, after all. Furthermore: this is a controversial topic. Heck, controversy is in the article name! In such articles, lots and lots of references are needed to help ensure neutrality.
  • The first section detailing the membership criteria is RIFE with factual statements that could use citations. If these facts all come from the same source, you could link the section to one location, but if the facts are scattered (and I suspect they are) I'd like to see more citations. They may be dry facts, but these dry facts are the basis of the controversy!
  • The "Opposition from within the Scouting movement" needs more referencing too. Again, this is controversial, so back up your claims! I'm tagging unsourced statements that need sourcing.
  • In a number of cases, citations are sortof included in the form of wiki-links to other articles which presumably have citations of their own. For the FA process, however, this is not considered sufficient, since each article is reviewed alone. These should be the easiest tags to fix, since you can probably just go into the linked articles and grab the reference from there.
  • Some of the citations don't support all the statements made. For instance, Since 1981, openly-gay adults have been officially prohibited from joining the Boy Scouts of America. is cited with [10], which says nothing about the date. Remember, what about researchers wanting to cite this info? They can't cite us... where are they going to get the date from?

Good eye. I replaced it with a correct cite. --Alecmconroy 07:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• I understand that the "Admission of girls" section was kindof tacked on at the end, but that's no excuse for weasel words like "some people".

--I added a cite to back it up, but I've left the "some people" because i can't think of a better way to describe them, and picking one random person who feels that way and using their name feels awkward. But if you can think of a better way to word it, please do so :) --Alecmconroy 07:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That about covers it. You might want to consider opportunities to find images to add, but those aren't required for FAs, just reccomended. This is a pretty good article... mostly now it just needs to back up all its facts.

Good luck! Fieari 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

We're going to run out of space before people run out of comments on this article.--Jagz 00:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah-- even though the references technically add space to the file size, we needn't stress about it-- it's not like adding whole new sections to the article. Thanks for all your help-- we are GOING to get this into FAC, I can feel it. :) --Alecmconroy 07:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also should mention that I pulled the images of the 1917 boy scouts, the painting of God, and the random congressman who's trying to overturn don't ask don't tell. The last two struck me as just a little too random, and the 1917 scouts are a little misleading because it might make it seem this issue goes back to then. But, the point I think you were trying to make in adding those images is "Hey, we should have some more images in an article this long" is a great insight-- I've added the "Timeless values" BSA logo, the Scouting for All Logo, and a screenshot of bush at the jamboree. Let me know if you think we should get a couple more. --Alecmconroy 07:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would it would be better if this statement had a citation instead of us interpreting the BSA's new policy:

"The new policy's explicit ban on homosexual leadership may imply that homosexual youth can be members so long as they do not assume leadership roles. Conversely, the policy stated that homosexual conduct is not compliant with the obligations of the Scout Oath and Law, suggesting that homosexuals are not allowed to be Boy Scouts under any circumstances."

Also, is there a problem with Footnote 93?--Jagz 09:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind. That nonsense has been driving me BONKERS trying to find someone other than us talking about it. I personally think the 2004 policy is probably just PR window-dressing-- nothing the BSA has said indicates a shift in policy of any kind. But digging through the archives a lot of the editors felt differently. I've emailed BSA, BSA legal, Hans Zeiger, and ScoutingForAll to ask if they have any opinion the subject or could point me to any better cites. If none of that works... I don't know WHAT to do with 2004 policy. Should we just list it and not commment on it? Should we state that so far, there's no evidence to indicate a shift in policy of any kind? --Alecmconroy 10:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The policy is listed here[11] as a youth leadeship policy and not a youth membership policy. Since the article section is about membership criteria, I think you should delete the 2004 policy. (Also, adult leadership and membership policies are the same since all adults are considered leaders.)--Jagz 00:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Boys who are 10 or 11 can't reliably declare their sexual orientation so the only thing the 2004 policy does is restate that homosexuals are not allowed to serve in leadership positions. It does not change the membership policy. It is just weasel words from a lawyer.--Jagz 03:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the policy interpretation language until a decision is made on what to do. My question is, is the 2004 policy an official BSA policy or just something their legal people came up with to put on the BSA Legal Issues website?--Jagz 20:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A few of the footnotes/references are lacking blue hyperlinks.--Jagz 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I agree with the removing the discussion of the "Youth Leadership" policy. Nowhere in the many court filings or major media reporting has there been any talk of a change in policy. Scouting For All wrote back and said categorically there hasn't been any shift in policy. BSA hasn't responded for comment. The only person I can find that believes non-leader gay youth ARE allowed in BSA was one poster on the archive of this talk page. So, I think we are okay with removing the speculation that gay non-leader youth are allowed until such time as a reliable source can back up that there's been a some major change in policy. In line with that, I reworded a few things: changed the 2004 text to a "statement" rather than a "policy", and shortened the quote from it. The article's looking really good, what else are we missing? --Alecmconroy 11:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Scouting America

...might be dead. Their website has not had any activity for almost a year. Any Google hits either lead back here or to some link page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This page on their website says it was updated within the last month. Obviously, if we don't think they're notable enough to be mentioned, that's a different thing. I emailed them to ask how many members they have. --Alecmconroy 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see that one. Last entry in the forum is August of 2005. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Their website is undergoing a major update and information from their prior web site is being moved from their prior site to the new one. They are alive and welcome those interested in their efforts to contact them directly for membership information or volunteer opportunities. Those participating in their forums by posting on line should realize posts might unfortunately be lost as the update process continues, thus the dates of posts might not appear recent.

Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane murderer)

So... what connection does a pedophillic scottish mass murderer who was expelled from the Scottish Scouts for poor leadership have to do with the BSA's gay/atheist policies? --Alecmconroy 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind I didn't put it in in the first place, but I did put it back it. The connection, albeit very weak, is membership in general. If it were in the main text, it definitely wouldn't fit, but as it was in see also, that's the only reason I put it back in. I won't object to it being left out since the connection is weak at best. Rlevse 19:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's also not a very good article. In my view, the focus is on the failure of the police to revoke his certificate. There is nothing about his Scouting association and nothing about the actual murders. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that if Hamilton had been involved with the BSA and had been removed for one of the reasons that is controversial (throwing out pedophiles is not opposed by anyone as far as I know), then it might belong in a see also. Otherwise, every article that has anything to do with Boy Scouting should show up in the See Also list here. --Habap 19:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a faction of society who would like to both see Homosexuals allowed to lead Scout troops and the age of consent laws in America lowered. 132.241.72.20 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Did he ever campaign for either? If so, did he ever campaign for either in the US? I still don't see the relevance. --Habap 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While the inclusion of West makes sense (pedophile in the BSA), I get the sense you are trying to make a point here about homosexuals. The shame is that doing so makes the BSA look worse (terrifying to parents who worry that seemingly straight men like West are actually pedophiles). At least the result is NPOV. --Habap 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly if you like apples it doesn't matter how big or small the apples are and the same goes for penis. 132.241.72.20 20:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say so. Personally, unripe apples (or parts of the male anatomy of any age) have never appealed to me. Of course, if we follow the logic of your argument, straight men should never be allowed anywhere near girls and married men should be prohibited from speaking to women other than their wives. --Habap 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If the anonymous editor from CSU can't explain the connection, then I say leave it out. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pedophiles in the BSA is a different issue than Gays/Atheists in the BSA. The BSA prohibition against convincted child molestors, for example, is not controversial. The no-gay policy is about morally straight and clean, not about pedophilia. That's why it applies to youth members as well as adults. The BSA does not claim that it's homosexuality ban is related to concerns of pedophilia, and even if it did, that still wouldn't mean we should use this article as a clearinghouse for "Lists of Scouters accused of abuse". If you want to make such a list, make a new article for it. If you want a fuller discussion of the cases of abuse within scouting, make a new page or add it to Boy Scouts of America. This page is just about the two gay and atheist policies-- not the pedophile policy. The people at Feature Article Candidates would eat us alive for have random links to every pedophile who's ever been in scouts. --Alecmconroy 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we strayed here. Hamilton had nothing to do with the BSA, thus does not belong in this article, nor any BSA article. I don't know who "West" is, as there is no mention in the article. Otherwise, I consider 132.241.72.20 to be a troll. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim West link

I removed the Jim West link for several reasons. One is because I didn't see that he was legally found guilty of an offense against a Scout. Even if he was found guilty, pedophilia isn't a controversy. If pedophilia was a controversy, his wrongful personal actions would have to help illustrate a general problem within BSA itself.--Jagz 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well if people are going to claim gays can molest kids this would be a good example. 132.241.72.20 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

BSA apparently makes no such link and this article doesn't identify any supporters who do. If there are verifiable sources that identify those who support BSA policy for this reason, maybe it should get written into the article. If not, then we're looking at original research, which has no place in an encyclopedia. --Habap 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to the Scout policy in the UK, there is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality.[12] I have never heard of the BSA stating that there was a link. Also, there are probably a lot of non-avowed gays in the BSA already. The BSA makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of its members, or at least that is their official policy. Why don't you start a new article?--Jagz 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How to Fix This Article (part 2)

The first section was getting quite long so I suggest starting a new section to make it easier to find things. --Erp (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is about controversial policies and controversial practices; however, both have to be documented. As far as the oath/law barring non-straight youth members, I'm not aware that the standard material given to youth members states that the "morally straight" bit forbids homosexuals (it is a bit more obvious that atheists are forbidden as they have to avow a duty to God with no rephrasing allowed [other than presumably into Spanish or American Sign Language if appropriate]); I must admit the thought of a scoutmaster explaining that homosexuals are immoral to a tenderfoot seems unlikely. This is not to say that some troops would make life hell for gay scouts or kick them out (and others are probably quite accepting and would stop any scout who tried harassing another scout because of his sexual orientation; they also probably ignore the bit about denying youth leadership positions to out homosexuals). However neither is documented in reliable sources so we have to make do with official statements by the BSA and by actions they've taken against people (mostly adult members). The situation for atheistic scouts and scouters is somewhat different. Now the article could probably be improved and we each might want to look over it to see if it is well written, up-to-date, and well sourced. --Erp (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Official BSA policy is not set by the standard material given to youth members. BSA policy is set by official policy statements from BSA. BSA policy clearly states that avowed homosexuals are not able to fulfill the Scout Oath. Nothing in the standard material given to youth contradicts that policy. There are any number of violations of behavior that can cause a youth to be ineligible for BSA membership. None of these behavior violations are specifically listed in material given to youth. Instead, youth are instructed to "understand and agree to live by" the Scout Oath. Of all of the behaviors that can exclude a Scout from membership, none of them are as clearly stated in BSA policy as homosexual behavior. I don't see how there can be any doubt that homosexual youth are excluded from membership. If official BSA policy is not sufficient evidence of this ban, what additional evidence are we looking for? If a trial were held to determine official BSA policy, would the judges rely on the material given to youth at a recruiting meeting, or would they rely on official BSA policy statements? The Supreme Court of the United States faced this question, and they chose to rely on official BSA policy statements. Wikipedia should too.(Cwgmpls (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

"The Boy Scouts asserts that it teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight... We accept the Boy Scouts' assertion. We need not inquire further to determine the nature of the Boy Scouts' expression with respect to homosexuality" -- SCOTUS Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the majority, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, June 28, 2000 [13] In its brief to the SCOTUS, the Boy Scouts asserted that they teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight. The Supreme Court decision in their favor, which allows them to legally exclude gays from membership, hinges on this finding. If BSA does not assert that the "morally straight" bit forbids homosexuals, they would have lost their case in the Supreme Court, and they would be required by law to allow gays as youth and adult leaders. The BSA can not have it both ways. Either they teach homosexuality is immoral, or they don't. BSA asserts that they teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, and Chief Justice Rehnquist took their word for it. Wikipedia should too.(Cwgmpls (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Well, briefly out of retirement. BSA policies that reference Homosexuality are written, short and concise. The can be listed and speak for themselves in the article. If anything is added, it would be material on actual practices and "incidents" in this area, if any. It does not need what CWmpls continues to try to inject which is personal derivations, interpretations, seletive comnining of BSA and non-BSA statements etc., misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject. It is even secondary that I believe that Cwgmpls comes to clearly wrong conclusions via his/her derivations etc, it matters just that they are personal derivations, interpretations which are both unnecessary and inappropriate, for the article. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep posting BSA policy statements with regard to homosexuality, yet keep getting accused of making personal derivations, interpretations, and misinterpretations. I'll just shut up and, once again, list some relevant BSA policy statements:

• "Your son can be a Scout if he... Secure[s] a copy of the Boy Scout Handbook and complete[s] the joining requirements as listed." BSA Youth Application form, Joining Requirements, Boy Scout Troop, point 3. [14]
• "Boy Scout Joining Requirements:... 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.[15]
• "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 [16]
• "Demonstrate scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life." BSA Rank Requirement for every Scout rank [17]
• "Scouting... teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight" BSA Brief for Petitioners to the SCOTUS, page 39. [18] Cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his majority opinion that allows BSA to legally exclude gays from membership. [19]

Whether BSA policy statements are well-written, short or concise is not an issue. This forum is not a critique of BSA's writing style. This forum is a place to discern and state official BSA policy, together with supporting evidence. Please keep future conversation focused on these and other BSA policy statements, rather than focused on personal attacks against me.

BSA clearly states that avowed homosexuals cannot be leaders. In addition to that ban, the above stated policies make it impossible for an avowed homosexual to apply for membership to BSA, or to advance in rank within the BSA, as well. If you can find BSA policy that states that avowed homosexuals are eligible for membership, please state that policy.(Cwgmpls (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

"misinterpreting a preface of the policy as the operative portion of it, that Cwwgnpls continues to try to inject."

I do not misinterpret anything. "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." stands on its own, needing little interpretation. If this preface does not stand true on its own, then there is no legal basis for the operative portion of the text "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." Without BSA's assertion that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the Scout Oath, there is no legal basis to exclude gays from leadership positions. [20] The preface must stand true on its own or BSA has no way to legally exclude gays.(Cwgmpls (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

The reason why I said short and concise is because such makes it very practical to directly show Wikipedia readers what the policies say instead of your derivations and interpretations of them.

The biggest personal derivation is saying that BSA bans homos3exuals from membership. There is no such policy or practice. Your biggest faulty logical leap in your derivation is, in essence saying that those who violate the Scout Law (Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, etc.) are expelled from Scouting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said they would be expelled. I said they do not meet the eligibility requirements to be a Scout. The only way an avowed homosexual can both understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law is to lie. Of course, he is also violating his promise to be Trustworthy in the process. He does not meet the eligibility requirements to be a Scout. He intentionally violates the Scout Oath and Law, and he intents to continue violating the Scout Oath and Law. But he could join and remain in Scouting nonetheless, by telling lies. I imagine, at any given time, there are thousands of Scouts who are regularly violating the Scout Oath and Law, who intend to continue doing so, and still remain in Scouts. But that doesn't change the fact the Scout Oath is what it is, that BSA believes that homosexual behavior violates the Scout Oath, and that these Scouts are not qualified to be Scouts.

"the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group's policy to be 'expressive association'." "the courts may not interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or irrational" and "beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to merit First Amendment protection"[21]

The fact that many Scouts disagree with BSA beliefs, ignore BSA beliefs, disobey BSA beliefs, or that anyone finds BSA beliefs to be inconsistent, irrational, unwise, or simply can't figure out what BSA's beliefs are, does not take away BSA's right to assert and hold their beliefs.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

The fact is the sentence you keep trying to add/justify/defend is incorrect and you don't seem to get the reason why, "BSA does require agreement with the Scout Oath and Law on its application form, effectively barring homosexuals from membership" If you added something like "avowed homosexuals from becoming members" or something like that it would be closer to the truth. The point is, that scouts that are already members can retain their membership in scouting, just not in a leadership position. Avowed homosexuals can still be members. We keep going around in the same circle. You need to come up with a statement that is NPOV, is factual, and is based on RS, baring that it cannot be added. Not to mention if it is modified correctly it doesn't really belong in the lead but in the section "Position on homosexuals". Marauder40 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CWgmpls, using your same logic, one would say that Scout policy bans everyone from membership who is untrusworthy, unhelpful, unfriendly, unkind or unthrifty, etc. as those are points of the scout law, an obviously incorrect derivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.138.102 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The analogy would be if there were a boy who was "avowed" to be unfriendly. He was unfriendly, was happy being unfriendly, and had no intention of ever becoming friendly. In addition, he understood that being unfriendly was a violation of the Scout Law. Could such a boy join BSA? Sure, as long as he didn't tell people he was unfriendly when he joined, and he lied about it when he said the Scout Law, and nobody made an issue out of it. Would his BSA unit tolerate him leading unfriendly rallies outside of Scouts? Maybe. But if he gained enough reputation and stature in the community to be a spokesperson for unfriendly people, I can imagine it might reach a point where the BSA unit or local council might try to have a word with him, remind him about his promise to be friendly. And if he didn't make an effort to become more friendly and tone down his public unfriendly statements, I can imagine things would easily reach a point where BSA did not want him as a member any more. That is certainly a possible outcome of an "avowed unfriendly" Scout. And it is the same situation avowed homosexuals are in. They do not adhere to basic BSA beliefs, and they can be denied membership on that basis.(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

CWGmpls, While there are some issues or differences with your above (previous) paragraph, I think that it is very useful. So, now I ask you 2 questions......based on your paragraph: 1. Would you consider it accurate to say "BSA bans unfriendly people". (I think not) and 2: Would such be a statement of objective fact, or would it be statement of a personal derivation/conclusion? ( I would say that it would certainly be the latter) 75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I never said BSA bans gay people. I said "BSA does require agreement with the Scout Oath and Law on its application form, effectively barring homosexuals from membership"(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

The truth is that gay scouts that are already members can only retain their membership as long as they keep lying -- every time they recite the Scout Oath, which is usually weekly, and every time they pass a Board of Review for the next rank, which is at least once per year. I've never said they can't be members. I've never said they are banned from membership. I've said they don't meet BSA qualifications for membership.

I've never said we can't re-word the sentence to more clearly state my point. How about "BSA does require applicants for membership to understand and agree to live by the Scout Oath and Law"? The policy statement regarding avowed homosexuals and the Oath and Law is in the previous paragraph, so there is no need to repeat it.(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

Applicants must understand the Scout Oath and Law but no where in the info given to young scouts is anything about homosexuality included (the God bit is more overt); a young scout beginning to suspect he is gay may not even be aware initially of the BSA's position (this is in contrast to a young scout realizing he doesn't believe in God though I suspect some troops take the GSUSA approach). If anything the issue of morals is consider the responsibility of the scout's religion and parents and several denominations now have little trouble with homosexuals. Now admittedly the BSA national would probably like all gays to evaporate from Scouting, but, I suspect, it doesn't want to risk the publicity of openly banning even chaste gay youth so it doesn't and it fact states it doesn't (though they are considered lower class scouts as the article already demonstrates). Much though you think your view is accurate, it doesn't reflect the current state of affairs and cannot be included in the article.--Erp (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is: Is BSA policy established by what it communicates to young scouts, or is BSA policy establish by official BSA policy statements? What is your rationale for assuming literature given to young scouts is a definitive statement of official BSA policy?

The Supreme Court of the United States based their opinion on official BSA policy statements. If SCOTUS had relied on literature given to young scouts, they would have found no legal basis for BSA to exclude gays from membership or leadership.

The legal basis for BSA to exclude gay leaders rests on the fact that BSA teaches that homosexuality is not morally straight. When that is no longer an official BSA teaching, BSA can no longer legally exclude gays.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

ERP: Well written. But I think that BSA National's actual agenda is to get as many Scouts as possible, including gays. And, as a much lower priority, to discourage homosexuality. And, as a part of the latter, to exclude people who go high profile with their homosexuality from senior leadership roles. Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership. This is just my own sincere, accurate as possible conclusion from thousands of hours of observation and evaluation of all of the information that is available. And as someone who has spent > 45 years in scouts (and Eagle Scout) with an attribute (atheism) which is much more heavily discouraged by BSA policies, and never had even the tiniest problem, Not secret, but not "in your face" or high profile (e.g refusing to sign applications) about it. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"Also to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership."

The only way BSA can preserve their right to exclude gays from membership is for BSA to assert that it teaches that homosexuality is not acceptable. BSA may choose to not present their full beliefs during its recruiting process, but that does not mean they have changed their beliefs. Even if the beliefs are not clearly expressed, they must remain core beliefs for BSA to preserve their rights to place conditions upon membership.

It may be appropriate to have one section describing the BSA program as it is presented to the general public, and another section describing BSA program as it is presented in official policy statements and in courts of law. It is certainly possible for BSA to change its message for different audiences -- but it still can only have one set of core beliefs.(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

A pretty good observation. As someone who also has been in the program for a LONG time I would have to say that honestly it wasn't really a big issue before the Dale case. Before unofficialy it was sort of up to the troops to decide who they did or didn't want for leaders unless the leader was on a National "black list". The only adults I saw removed from the program were those that did something wrong (i.e. child abuse (sexual or physical), major moral issues, etc.) Sexual issues of any type were never brought up other then normal teenage joking about it. Adults never brought it up except in regard to things like the "Time to Tell" video. The Dale case forced the national policies and probably forced many people in scouting to either quit or go farther in the closet. Of course this is all OR and can't go into the actual article. Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that BSA asserts, at risk of perjury, to the Supreme Court of the United States that it teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, but BSA rarely gets around to actually teaching that to any boys? That makes BSA a liar, doesn't it?(Cwgmpls (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Except for the showing of "A Time to Tell" sexual issues are very rarely brought up at all in formal setting. They may be brought up in response to specific things. Since you claim to be an Eagle Scout I thought you would understand that. I will have to look up where in the Supreme Court filings someone actually claims that BSA explicity teaches to the youth anything about homosexuality. I don't remember that being there and since your link claiming that scouting explicity teaches that homosexuality is wrong doesn't contain the entire page, I will have to verify it elsewhere.Marauder40 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Cwgmpls, you are jumping all over the place. But the answer to your question is no, those two things do not conflict with each other. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So BSA does teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight, then. I agree with you.(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

As a Scout from outside the USA, I'm concerned about the "morally straight" requirement for American Scouts. There can be no argument about whether that requirement exists, but what does it mean? Does it have a formal definition? If it doesn't, BSA is leaving itself blatantly open to the anti-gay allegations. Straight is commonly used in day-to-day language to mean not gay. In the area of morals, I would argue that it's the word's most common meaning. Some local leaders largely free of formal edicts from above are bound to use the not gay definition, especially if they have strong personal feelings that way themselves. So, what DOES it mean? HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In the United States, beliefs mean whatever you say they mean. BSA asserts that being homosexual is incompatible with being "morally straight", so that is what "morally straight" means to them. You can define your own beliefs, and your beliefs don't need any proof or reason.(Cwgmpls (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

The BSA is way beyond allegations of being anti-gay. They state for themselves that they are anti-gay. They have openly fought in court and won the right to exclude gays from Scouting, based on their stated belief that being gay is not "morally straight". BSA will not dispute the assertion that homosexual conduct conflicts with their core beliefs.(Cwgmpls (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's the better link that Marauder40 was asking for: "Scouting... teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight"[22]. Go to PDF page 27, which is page 39 in the document. That same document was cited by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his majority opinion that allows BSA to legally exclude gays from membership. [23]

There are also these:

• "The Scouts also will not accept as members or adult leaders those who openly engage in conduct that contradicts Scout moral teachings, including homosexual conduct." Brief in support of BSA written by American Civil Rights Union, published by BSA National Council [24]
• "[Scouts] are an organization composed of subdivisions of neighborhood parents and adults who come together with neighborhood children to teach them traditional moral values..." ibid.
• "The Boy Scouts is a private, not for profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people. The Boy Scouts assert that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill."[25]
• "[Homosexuality] is immoral conduct inconsistent with the values of being 'morally straight' and 'clean.'" U. S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, [26]

When in court, BSA clearly states that it teaches that homosexuality is immoral. If BSA did not make this assertion, it would have no legal basis to exclude homosexuals from membership.

Either 1) BSA teaches that homosexuality is immoral -or- 2) BSA has no legal right to exclude gays from membership.

Which of the two is correct?(Cwgmpls (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Your reasoning is incorrect. The BSA can legally discriminate whether for moral reasons or other (such as why girls can't be Cubs or Scouts) because of freedom of association. It chooses to make a moral argument to justify itself to the public not to the courts. It is also free to decide how to treat those it considers to have violated its norms (the BSA does have units for incarcerated youth who have presumably been convicted of a crime). Note that government entities are restricted on what support they can give to organizations that do discriminate such grounds as religious belief, race, sex, sexual orientation (in certain jurisdictions), etc. and that is where the current court battles (as opposed to public relations battles) are. I think the article covers this fairly well though I think the UUA controversy properly belongs in this article not the UUA article.--Erp (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Cwgmpls, the problem is you are taking sentences out of context. Your placement of your "..." leaves out important statements. You are editing things to say what you want instead of what they actually mean. The entire quote is "If Scouting were a place of public accomodation, and if it could not "discriminate" against openly gay applicants for leadership positions, how could it continue to teach that homosexual conduct is not morally straight?" This same sentence appears in a section where they are talking about implicit actions and the fact that scout leaders can have "intimate association" by the nature of the role of being scout leaders. It is clear they aren't talking about explicit teaching where someone would get up in front of the group and say x, y, and z about homosexuality. They are talking about teaching by example. At no time has BSA come out and told scout troops they are explicity supposed to talk about sexual matters in a formal setting other then those contained in the movie "A Time to Tell". Marauder40 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not my reasoning. This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States. Please read the decision again.[27] "The freedom of expressive association is not absolute... To determine whether a group is protected, this Court must determine whether the group engages in 'expressive association'. The record clearly reveals that the Boy Scouts does so when its adult leaders inculcate its youth members with its value system... The Court first must inquire, to a limited extent, into the nature of the Boy Scouts' viewpoints. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly those represented by the terms 'morally straight' and 'clean,' and that the organization does not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior. The Court gives deference to the Boy Scouts' assertions regarding the nature of its expression."

A group can only legally discriminate if they engage in "expressive association". BSA asserts that it engages in expression that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with being 'morally straight' and 'clean.' Based on this finding, the Supreme Court determined that the BSA right expressive association is protected, and they can legally exclude gays.

This is the reasoning of the Supreme Court of the United States. If BSA does not engage in expressive association regarding homosexual conduct, it cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Wikipedia should clearly state that BSA teaches that homosexuality is immoral, since that is the basis of the Supreme Court decision protecting their right to exclude gays.(Cwgmpls (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC))

Cgmpls, I think that you are getting closer. I think that something that does not (incorrectly) imply active specific teaching, that is not ambiguous on "the practice vs. the person" and more accurately describing their stated position would be good. Like:

BSA's stated position is that the practice of homosexuality is not "morally straight", which is one of the points of the "Scout Law".

75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Scout Oath, you mean. Neutron (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops! You're right. Thanks 75.24.138.102 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What does straight mean?

I understand that BSA has been using the words "morally straight" as a requirement for its members since around 1910. I haven't been around quite that long but my impression is that the idea that straight means not gay has only been a linguistic concept since the 1960s. What did morally straight mean in 1910? Has BSA's requirement been confused by a change in the meaning of the word?

HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the BSA directly interprets the "straight" in "morally straight" to literally mean heterosexual-- since that meaning is, I presume, relatively new. I think they go: "I believe practicing homosexuality is immoral, the scout oath promises to be moral, therefore the scout oath implies a promise to not practice homosexuality". --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

"Gay Resort" sentence in "Position on Homosexuals"

In the subject section Bduke reverted my changes on a sentence, taking it back to "In 2005, a high-level employee of BSA was fired by the National Council after the organization received a copy of his bill from a gay resort at which he had vacationed." With the notes: "where is the source that says staying in a gay resort makes you an activist?"

I would start with two comments:

That whole sentence should probably get dropped, as the implied cause and effect is merely inuendo. In that case, per the cited reference (a biased web site, but which did contain some useful info on this) BSA did NOT make an an issue out of his homosexuality, and did NOT give that as a reason for termination.

And responding to BDuke's question/reason for reverting, the sentence as edited said that the discovery that he was an activist FOLLOWED the "gay resort" revelation, it did NOT say that attendance at such a resort equated to him being a gay activist.

But, my edit confused two cases (i.e. with the Dale case where he WAS clearly a gay activist, and that that activism WAS given as the reason for the action.) And so, despite the above, my edit was in error and so it is good that it was reverted. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What happens in other countries - wrong emphasis

Under the sub-heading of Mainstream Scouting we have "In countries where homosexuality is legal, there is usually at least one Scouting association that allows even avowed homosexuals to be leaders." Similar comments exist elsewhere. While the statement is technically true, it doesn't really reflect the situation in those countries, certainly not in Australia where I come from.

Here we don't explicitly allow nor disallow homosexuals to be members. We don't place any emphasis on homosexuality in Scouting at all. The difference is not just that Australia allows homosexuals as members. We just don't care if a member is homosexual, and make no effort to find out. BSA does. That's the difference. BSA officials seem to want to know. We don't. If a person chooses to make their homosexuality public, it might be the equivalent of an American saying they voted for Ralph Nader. It would publicly make them a bit unusual and place them in a minority, but wouldn't require them to to banned from anything.

So it's not a matter of different regulations. It's a matter of different attitudes. To me, the controversy is the apparent need among BSA officials to even know.

HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the above. It reflects the situation as I understand it in Scouts Australia and the B-P Scouts of Australia. I also believe it reflects the situation in the UK as well, although I believe the Scout Association have a policy statement that basically says that they do not care, that being homosexual has nothing to do with child abuse and that they care about child abuse not whether their leaders are gay or not. From the perspective of my experience in UK and Australia, the BSA stand is just odd. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 & BDuke. I think that all would accept your description of the situation in Australia and the UK as accurate. And also the main point of HiLo48 which, as I see it, is saying "Since homosexuality is a non-issue in Australia, so one should see no need to make such statements about a non-issue. However, I can tell you that what you both have said about BSA and homosexuality is about 80% wrong. As a starting point, BSA has no policy restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. In essence, the BSA policies say that homosexuality is a bad and wrong practice, and that "avowed" homosexuals can't hold leadership positions. Your impression that BSA seeks to "find out" sexual orientation is also mistaken. Although, when triggered by something, BSA has, on occasion, sought to find out about homosexual activism activities by leaders and employees.

It's reasonable to assume that the original writer(s) of that section wanted to include statements about Scouting in other countries being less negative about homosexuality then BSA. And so, I guess one could say the mere inclusions of such inherently means making a "statement" about a non-issue. As a sidebar note, their original wording incorrectly implied that BSA bans MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals. And so I guess the "end point" from your statements is either that all such mentions should be dropped, or else shortened to simply say that homosexuality is a non-issue in many countries including Australia and the UK. North8000 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes North8000, that last comment of yours sums it up pretty well. To me, and, I suspect, many others from outside the US, the fact that homosexuality is an issue at all in BSA is the basic controversial matter. All the rest of the discussion, whether it applies to members, or just adults, etc. is just detail.

And to put the Australian perspective another way, it's imprecise to say that Scouts Australia allows homosexuals. Scouts Australia has no policies at all on homosexuals. I suspect that's the case in many other places too. My only concern about your suggestion is whether "non-issue" is encyclopedic enough to satisfy the pedants. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that objective, uncontested NPOV summary type statements (such as your "non-issue" statement)are a norm in wikipedia writing. But see below.

The situation in other countries varies from homosexuality being a non-issue in Scouts in many countries to homosexuality being illegal and criminal in others, making the Scout position a moot point. A huge topic. It (or an attempt to summarize it) should probably not even be in an article who's subject is "Boy Scouts of America membership controversies". But I've limited my editing scope on this article to a narrower one of just correcting false or misleading unsupported statements rather than making such deletions. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

As nations I would describe the USA, the UK and Australia as being roughly equivalent in their legal approach to homosexuality. The question in my mind is why BSA is so different from Scouting in the UK and Australia in its attitude. Yes, globally it's a complex issue, but I've narrowed it down a fair bit there. To me it's controversial that across three demographically similar nations, one can be so different from the others on this issue.HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In reply to the statement that "BSA has no policy restricting MEMBERSHIP by homosexuals."

I'm still very unclear why it's claimed that BSA has now started to allow gay members. They've stripped membership for homosexuality before, their membership policy said point-blank: "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members". They never issued any retraction (or denial) of that policy, despite the substantial media attention it's attracted. No reliable source reports any change in policy, no reliable source reports BSA National ever knowingly granting membership to a homosexual. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alecmcontoy Rather than going in circles trying to "prove a negative", (i.e. that no policy such as you are implyiong exists) a good starting point would be you citing the BSA policy regarding MEMBERSHIP that you are referring to.

A good point is also to sign comments. I am interested in any cases of youth membership being stripped. Do you know of any, Alecmconroy? We have cases of adults (both gay and straight) having membership stripped for being 'gay activists' and also apparently for just attending a gay resort. --Erp (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The "gay resort" case is one where folks have hypothesized or implied that such was the reason for firing (from a paid leadership position), but the scouts did not cite that or any homosexuality related issue as a reason for firing.

If you do not count firing of near-adults from paid positions, then I think that you will find that there are NO known cases of a youth having been denied membership or stripped of membership for any homosexuality-related reason, or even specific allegations of such. I think that the fact that this article, which seems dedicated to seeking out and highlighting such things has no cases of such reinforces this. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 13:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

A DESPERATE PLEA: Can those of you who so aggressively want to defend to the honour of BSA here please do so in a more friendly, constructive, sensible and structured way? Or perhaps have a think about whether this is really the place to even try? Several posts above have absolutely nothing to do the the section you've posted them in. Please have a look at the section heading. A number of posts are unsigned. The whole approach is nit-picking and clumsy, and not going to help BSA in the slightest.

In briefly ignoring my own request, I will simply say here that that BSA has an image of discriminating against homosexuals. That it has such an image is unquestionable and is one of the reasons the article exists. The posts trying to defend it here (even though it's not really the place) tend to take the position "Yes, it discriminates, but not precisely in the way you say it does". A tip. That approach won't get you anywhere.

Like many of you, I want the image of Scouting everywhere to be as good as it can possibly be. Look a little deeper at why the attacks are occurring. I'm not close enough to be able to tell you. But don't turn these pages into a forum for nit-picking about details of rules. The fine details aren't the controversial bit, and, I would argue, not really relevant to this article. (Look again its title). It's the overall image. Please address it, for Scouting's sake, but address it elsewhere. Here is the place to discuss how to write about it. Maybe it can become the place to discuss how to write about what is being done about it. But it's not the place to argue about minor details of the rules and their alleged historical application.

HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48

While I think that this discussion section may be violating the rule that it be limited to potential article changes, I think that it has been quite friendly. I think that the only unsigned sections were by me and those were accidental / from lack of familiarity (editing in 2 places and only the second one got signed.) (I'm normally at 75.24.138.102) My participation in the discussion section was to build a consensus to allow change of genuine inaccuracies in the article, and to respond to persons who seemed to be seeking information. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Openly Gay Youth Are Not Allowed in BSA, end o' story

So, to condense a couple different requests.

• From 1993 to 2004, they just said, point blank, "We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or leaders". (cite in article, emphasis mine)
• Several individual cases exist where it's documented that BSA National expelled youth members explicitly listing their orientation as the reason. (e.g. Matt Hill Comer, Scott Ford,Scott Vance)
• The belief that openly gay youth are not allowed to be Scouts has received widespread publicity, to say the least.
• Despite many, many requests, BSA national has never denied this, they have never gone on record describing this fact as a myth, and they certain have never once threatened to sue anyone for liable for reporting that gay youth are not allowed in BSA.
• Indeed, just in the creation of this article, we asked BSA national to comment on the claim, and they didn't respond.

It might be easier to imagine that BSA's policy is only for adults, but a spade is a spade. If their old policy straightforwardly disqualified gay youth, if their past practices explicitly expelled gay youth, if the policy interpretation has gotten massive attention without being BSA noticing any inaccuracy or requesting retraction-- every fact available suggests that's still their position today. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, why did I ever bother creating a Section about other countries? HiLo48 (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I happen to agree with you that the various BSA policies with regards to gays and atheists are wrong, but, to state they currently bar gay youth not in leadership roles is not supported by the evidence. The closest is the case in 2000 of the 16 year old eagle scout applying for a job at a scout camp who was told he could not have the job since he was gay. It was also reported that the national BSA spokesman, Greg Shield, said he could not be a scout either, eventually he kept both the job and his scout membership.[28] This could be included in the prior to 2004 info. I'm not aware of any dismissals, attempted dismissals or refusal to allow membership for youth members for being gay post-2004. If you are aware of documented incidents (e.g., newspaper reports), it would be extremely useful. Also useful would be incidents of youth refused eagle (or lower rank) for gay rights activism or for being gay.--Erp (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying the policies are wrong-- that's a much larger can of worms that, in large part, depends on what you believe the fundamental nature of the universe is, the existence and nature of god, etc. Funding sources and child molestation concerns and parent concerns, not to mention the whole concept of individual liberties, etc etc etc-- there's lots of shades of gray in the actual issue.

It's the meta-issue of the mythical 2004 perestroika that's frustratingly black-and-white. What evidence is there that any BSA practice was changed in 2004? As best I can tell, the only thing that happened in 2004 is that somebody wrote a webpage. No reliable source has even hinted that any change in policy occurred in 2004-- BSA national doesn't claim a change, no commentators on the issue lauded or opposed any policy change, etc.

And obviously, pre-2004 they did remove gay youth. E.g. [29][30]

--20:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's time to stop going in circles. Let's say that it's irrelevant that I know that Alecmconroy's lead statement is wrong. Or that someone who has had a logic course will tell you that his/her conclusion does not follow from the given 5 points. And that it is rife with logical flaws. It's time to ask these folks to give cites that directly and clearly support what they are saying. If they say that BSA bans something, that "ban" would be a current policy or other item of authority which defines such a ban. Please cite it. If I say that BSA bans jaywalkers from membership, to support that I need to cite the in-force policy or rule of that ban. I can't go saying "they they never said that they don't ban jaywalkers, therefore that shows that they ban jaywalkers" Such is both logically flawed, and does not meet the standard for Wikipedia content. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(linked my previous paragraph by indenting)99.151.168.32 (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)99.151.168.32 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You could have helped a lot more by moving it completely to a more sensibly named section, where it should have been right from the start! It has absolutely nothing to do with Scouting in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. It jumped the tracks at the very beginning when the unsigned person who created this section in talk (I think accidentally and unknowingly) put an incorrect (and wrong-section) statement about BSA in as an an implied premise for a different statement that they were making. 99.151.168.32 (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)