Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 6

Scouting for All

I haven't been able to get onto Scouting for All for several days now. Anyone know whats going on? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but ping can't even find it, so either it's been taken down or they have server problems.Rlevse 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's working now. --Jagz 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another case

Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America, 05-1260. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13047756/from/RSS --evrik 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Support our Free-Thinkers Act

This organization discriminates against American citizens, yet they get special access to lands which we ALL pay for. Some of those lands the average person isn't even allowed to visit. If they're private the n they should be treated like any other private organization. End the corruption.

BSA religion claims

My additions were deleted without explanation. If you think it shouldn't be in the article, come to the talk page to discuss it first.--Heqwm 03:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your first statement says, "During this lawsuit, the BSA claimed that it was a religious organization, and therefore exempt from the law under the First Amendment." Where is the BSA v. Dale case discussed in the reference you provided?

The reference does discuss another lawsuit that says, "Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with religious organizations, associations or societies within the meaning of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination..." The BSA is saying it is a religious organization under Kansas state law, not a religious organization under federal or other state laws.

In your second statement you didn't provide a citation. You referred to the Dale case in your statement as their "position in New Jersey" but New Jersey is not mentioned where the Dale case is discussed so most readers will not know what you are referring to. Also, you said the BSA asserted it was not a religious organization but that does not necessarily conflict with their statement saying that they were a religious organization if they were basing their statement on the laws of a state other than Kansas or the federal government.

I suggest you delete your statements. The courts will decide whether the BSA is or is not a religious organization under the particular laws in question. --Jagz 05:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The cite says: "In its legal briefs, it presents itself as a private group with an essentially religious basis that is exempt from discrimination laws, including California's Unruh Act." No, I haven't been able to find a quote specific to Dale, but I do recall seeing this before. And the issue isn't merely whether the BSA is found to be a religious organization, but whether the BSA is consistent in what it claims.--Heqwm 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

One of your statements has a bad citation and the other has no citation. You also have not shown that the BSA was being inconsistent because it depends on the particular laws pertinent to the case as discussed above. Also, the BSA may have changed their position based on legal advice. Your statement above says that the BSA claims it is a private group. The issue of religion is being considered in the case [1]. The issue you are bringing up has already come up several times in the past and it was left out of the article intentionally as we had to try to write an article that people on both sides of the membership controversy issue could agree to. This is a featured article and it can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, however, I can't say that you've improved the article but made it more contentious. --Jagz 07:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree- [2] makes no sense in the context of the statement, and the article is in many ways obsolete. The article is titled "How Your Tax Dollars Support the Boy Scouts of America" (the cite did not include the title). When I read the first paragraph, I knew it was old. It was written in 1995 and discusses issues such as Explorers and religion- this issue was resolved in 1998. There are other issues mentioned that have been resolved or are under current litigation. Military units and public schools may no longer sponsor units and the BSA has split from government control in many other ways. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too. There may be something to this, but Heqwm is approaching this from an obvious biased point of view with an axe to grind - expose the BSA as inconsistent. Here's a summary of what I personally would want to see in order to add to a NPOV article:

1. A clear citation from a case that the BSA claims privileges based on its religious nature.
2. A clear citation from another case or source that the BSA claims privileges based on not being religious in nature.
3. It should be clear that the statements are contradictory. For example, the can claim to be a religious organization but not a religion without being contradictory.

However, here's my problem. Even if someone could do this, the third step amounts to original research and is therefore not appropriate on Wikipedia. These two policies (WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) together have created a very high standard for this topic, which has not been met. --NThurston 14:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to claim that "the statement doesn't belong in in this paragraph", then you should move it to wherever you think it belongs, rather than deleting it. And I don't understand how it "is not written in proper English".Heqwm 03:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in this article at all. This article is about membership controversies. You can start a new article for other BSA controversies if you wish. --Jagz 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In the article there are internal links to various articles on lawsuits involving BSA. You may want to discuss BSA's position on their status as a religious organization in those articles but the information needs to be specific to the individual lawsuits. --Jagz 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved Heqwm's statement to the National Scout jamboree article under Funding controversy. (I changed the word "contest" to "deny" though.) --Jagz 00:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division amicus appellate brief in Barnes vs Wallace (where they've determined that BSA isn't a religious organization) they point out that if BSA wanted to formally claim that it was a religious organization it could have done so and avoided the entire Dale lawsuit in the first place!! That's because a religious organization would have been exempt from the law that that case was brought under!!! It really is a stretch to call BSA a religious organization. Read the DOJ Civil Rights Division brief for the details. I would tend to say that they know Civil Rights Law a little better than any one here GCW50 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Openly Gay and Percentages

I just reverted a few of GCW's recent edits-- specifically those involving "openly-gay" vs "gay" and those that added "out of a total of". Jagz beat me to the punch on one of those, but I reverted the others. Both these issues are discussed in the talk pages icons, because they're issues we considered in the vetting of this page for FAC, so you can observe the whole consensus building process and full debate on these two issues in the archive, but let me try to summarize.

Openly gay

GCW added the qualified "openly gay" when describing the policy. There is actually a pretty substantial debate about whether non-openly gays men are welcome in BSA. The official policy statement only mentions openly gay men, and it is silent on how non-openly gay men should be treated. This leaves the possibility open that perhaps non-openly gay men are welcome in BSA.

As of now, however, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not a nation-wide basis. Some troups have mentioned they have "don't ask don't tell", presumably welcoming non-open gays. But there have been many other cases in which non-open gays were expelled. One notable case involved a high-level employee of the National Council who was NOT openly gay but who was fired for homosexuality. there are other less notable cases.

In trying to get to the heart of the matter when writing this article, I contacted BSA and asked them to comment on whether non-openly gay men are welcome, but I didn't receive a response. I in turn contacted webmasters of the leading Pro-policy and Anti-policy advocacy sites and asked them their opinion on the issue-- they both were in agreement that in general, non-openly gay males are not welcome in BSA under the current policy.

So, the long and the short of it is: we have no reliable source specifying that BSA nationals allows non-open gays. We have a number of reliable sources in agreement that non-open gays can be expelled in some circumstances. So, until we have a reliable statement from the BSA officially allowing non-open gays to participate, it's OR to claim that only the openly gay are excluded. Obviously, if BSA makes some statement officially allowing them, all that would change. Until they do, we have only their actions to speak for them, and those actions are clear that in some cases, members can be directly confronted with suspicions of homosexuality and expelled on that basis.

Percentages

In several other cases, when numbers were cited, GCW added "out of a total of". For example, 100 of the 1,500,000 eagle badges issues have been returned in protest. I reverted these sorts of additions as well, and this issue also came up when we were doing the run up to FAC.

The problem with these sorts of statistics is that they imply everyone NOT in the minority disagrees with the minority's position. So, in the eagle scout badge example, the implication is that the other 1,499,900 eagle scouts support the policy. The truth is, that number is simply undecided, and in general, has not weighed in on either side of the issue. Many are no longer living, and cannot weigh in on one side or the other. Most are probably not involved with Scouting anymore, and don't keep up with the policies. Many other oppose the policies, but simply never considered making the gesture of returning their badges in protest. So, as much as we would like to have a statistic that talks about the former eagle scout position on this, we don't have such a survey, and to list the full number of eagle badges only falsely implies that we do.

Let me give this an example, let's say I'm talking about the 2004 US Presidential Election. Suppose I say this:

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

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

So, that's our reasoning. We gave serious consideration to both these issues, and the consensus was to do things this way for a good reason. So, GCW, I applaud you for having the keen eye to realize that both these issues might be points of interest, or ways the article COULD be different. BUt in general, once an article has reached FAC-- if you think you detect a systemic NPOV problem with the article, there's probably a good reason it's being done that way. But of course-- it never hurts to raise the issue.

--Alecmconroy 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Then by your own argument, the clarifying lead "few" must be included! GCW50 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Which "few" where? --Alecmconroy 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The 100 who did return them is obviously a few of the 1,500,000 awarded, even if you ignore the spurious argument (which I never made) that the remainder actively support the position. I found this bias against proportionality throughout the article, where "many" later referred to something described as "several".

In the real world of Scouting (which I suspect you're not a member of) this is an issue that rarely comes up. GCW50 15:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking objectively at the facts, I question the notability of the turning in of Eagle badges. As currently written, that fact was used to support the statement that some within the BSA do not support its policies. I don't think that makes much sense as there is no source to show that the badges were sent in by members (current or past) of the BSA. It is a strange fact that you can buy badges at 2nd hand stores, yard sales, etc. And I could walk into a Scout Shop and buy a duplicate badge today, if I wanted to. What I might find notable about that fact is that it dispels the common myth of there being wide-spread protest by past Eagle Scouts, maybe. In that case, it should be placed somewhere else, but there really isn't a place for it. My vote is to remove it as not-notable. --NThurston 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another concern for me - the citation for the "30 percent of parents" is a simple statement in the Boston Globe. It does not clarify when this survey was done, whether it was national or just a local council, etc. I have been misconstrued and misquoted on statistics and facts by the press many times, so I am a little iffy on what that quote should mean. This is the primary fact supporting the statement that there is opposition within, and probably should be a little more firm. Any chance that someone has access to a direct source on the survey data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThurston (talk • contribs)

I see Jagz has put in the compromise wording "several"-- that seems fine to me. I can't really compare 100 out of the 1.5 million since who knows how many of that million are still around, but they give out 40 thousand of these things a year, so 100 or so obviously isn't "a lot" based just on that one. At the same time, it's at least in the triple digits, so a few might not get at the fact that it's a group doing it, not just a couple.

As to the concern that the badges aren't being returned by Eagle Scout-- I think you're taking the "returned badges" a little too literally. I believe, though admittedly perhaps I'm wrong, that you have to submit your name in order to declare your officially "returning" the badge. I don't think they're counting just any old badge that people found somewhere and mailed in. Since our source for the badge returning is notable media and the BSA itself, we don't have any reason to suspect that badges are falsely acquired.

About the 30 percent disapproval-- it was an internal poll conducted by the BSA. It's quoted in the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and probably others. But no, I haven't been able to find any details about sample size, etc. BSA would presumably have that info, so you could write them for it. Some of the other webmasters on this issue might know. Of course, I'd predict that over time, that statistic is going to drop towards zero, as those who oppose the policy leave BSA and others who are specifically attracted to the policy join BSA. Since gays, atheists, and some people who publically oppose the policy are being expelled, that right off the bat, that should substantially decrease the numbers within BSA who oppose.

In the real world of Scouting (which I suspect you're not a member of) this is an issue that rarely comes up.

Well, there's a whole cottage industry built up on guessing what ties I do and don't have. In the end, it doesn't matter, but you might be surprised. But about the issue in general-- yeah, I'm aware that within Scouting itself, this really doesn't come up. Scouts don't sit around all take talking about how much they hate gays or atheists-- the focus is on the boys and making a great program for the boys, and it's really not about this. This is a common theme whenever you talk to people in scouting-- most feel like this isn't an issue that comes up a lot at the local level. And I think that's a very valid point. This isn't just a "Scouting issue"-- rather, this is a larger societal debate, of which the BSA are but one part. That's a big part of why this is a separate article, rather than just being a large portion of the main BSA article.

--Alecmconroy 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Opposition within BSA

I just think we can do better than the writing that is currently there. As far as I can tell, the returning of badges was a "one-off" thing that sort of fizzled. It created an urban legend that thousands of Eagle Scouts were doing it in protest right after Dale was decided. The bottom line is that very few (less than 100) were involved, so I would feel uncomfortable including it under the "opposition from within" category, unless we mean that there "wasn't much opposition from within." I like the internal survey idea, but it's too loose to say what it really means without some better sources. Does it really rise to "opposition" or just "mild dissatisfaction"? I think that paragraph really needs some work or should be re-focused. --NThurston 13:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should be clear that the opposition is opposition to the POLICIES, not necessarily opposition to the BSA as a whole. A "mild dissastication" with the policy would be an opposition to the policy. And I think that it's safe to say that there is notable opposition to the policies within BSA. The internal poll, the returned badges. The most notable advocacy on both sides of this issue has be conducted by current and former members of BSA. So, do think there is some very real opposition to these policies from within Scouting. Obviously, the importance people place on their opposition to the policy varies wildly. Some have taken the extreme step of renouncing their membership and returning a badge which took so much work to earn. For others, they would change the policy given the chance, but don't feel strongly enough to severe their ties with the organization. So, I don't think we really can say there "isn't much opposition from within". A lot of the most notable opposition _has_ been from within. --Alecmconroy 14:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again it's a question of proportionality. In an organization of this size, you can find a group of folks with an opinion on anything, including whether we need a tiddlywinks merit badge or whether the uniform is designed right. It's safe to say that most active Scouts and Scouters find the issue of openly homosexual and atheist leaders to be a tempest in a teapot.

What they do really resent is outside folks (including non-active former Scouts) using BSA as a "Mom and Apple Pie" target in the culture wars because they had the audacity to say that our values won't change to be politically correct and the resulting drain on resources.

You'll note that BSA has always said that others are welcome to their opinions and beliefs and we don't want to force anyone to change them, but likewise, let us have our own values in peace. We also resent the ACLU now changing topics in a huff to annoyance suits over religious principles once they lost the homosexual issue in the Supreme Court. I would say the attacks from atheism issue is much more resented by BSA members than the homosexual one as that's a more direct challenge to the Scout Oath and Law which most adult scouters hold as the unchangeable bedrock values of Scouting.

To be honest, as a practical matter, as long as someone didn't publicly proclaim their Atheism and agreed to the Oath and Law, no one would even ask what their religion was if any in the first place. Same goes with homosexual adult leaders. I actually know a few in BSA. But they keep it private and away from Scouting and the public so it's no big deal. But folks who make sexuality of any type a prominent part of their public lives probably aren't the best to have as role models for kids.

BTW, the reported 30% parent survey is a much lower percentage than you would find if you ask the general public about homosexual rights in general as opposed to homosexual Scout leaders. But that was just a survey of "parents", not BSA members. Also, most of the returned Eagle Scout badges came from folks who earned them as a kid and have had little to do with the organization since, thus I wouldn't call that internal opposition. I haven't heard of any active adult leader or kid quitting over the issue, have you?

My own opinion is that the Gay Rights movement would have been much better off if they got Congress to ammend the Federal Civil Rights Act to include sexual preferrence FIRST before pushing the Boy Scouts on the issue. BSA naturally evolves as the country does, but was not the place to initiate such a revolution. As they said about the military during the Don't Ask Don't Tell debate, being a petri dish for social change is not the mission of the organization. But now the organization has gone on record one way with the Supreme Court and Congress backing them up so undoing it will be that much harder. GCW50 15:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GCW, the "gay rights" movement did not push this issue; one man, James Dale, sued the BSA. Even if everyone in the gay rights movement thought it was a bad time, they had no power to prevent Dale his day in court. And I've removed your comment that only atheists who refuse to say the oath & law are removed - Brad Seabourn said the oath & law, but he was removed for being an atheist anyway. And finally, the ACLU is not "changing topics in a huff" - the BSA succeeded in defining itself as a private organization that can exclude atheists, but they still had thousands of BSA units chartered to public schools which CANNOT exclude atheists, and there are many other governmental ties that raise first amendment questions. Public schools can't sign agreements to exclude atheists, so they can't be chartering organizations; yet the BSA kept issuing charters years after the Dale decision, the Randall decision, etc. That's what lead the ACLU to act - the BSA doesn't always act like a private organization.Brian Westley 22:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ACLU Position

Just curious - according to statements that Heqwm has made, one would infer that the ACLU does not officially "oppose" the BSA policies per se, rather they view themselves as a legal resource for defending people's rights. This policy has led them to offer their services to groups that you might not expect, such as the KKK. So - is it really accurate to say that the ACLU opposes the policies? Or should we re-word to say that the ACLU has been active in assisting others in cases that challenge BSA policies (not much success there) and cases that challenge prefential treatment of the BSA? --NThurston 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think we can say that the ACLU does indeed oppose the policies. See for example the Amicus brief the ACLU filed in the Dale case, where it spoke for itself, not in the direct representation of a party. The ACLU is an advocacy group, not just a legal representation, and they take a wide array of stances on all kinds of issues. For example, the sometimes issue voters guides endorsing or opposing certain measures. I think you would be correct in saying that the ACLU does not endorse the KKK, homosexuality, or atheism themselves, but the ACLU has spoken out on the BSA issue a number of times. --Alecmconroy 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring

I reverted this edit which did a major restructuring of the article. We should talk about why we want to do this. One problem I see right off the bat is that it introduces two headings together without any interveneing text, which the FAC people look down on. Some of the people listed as former members were active members of BSA at the time they began opposing the policies. But if people feel a restructuring is called for, that's something we can definitely talk about, doing an RFC to get more eyeballs as needed. --Alecmconroy 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The restructuring is not as major as one would think, just a reorganization of the concepts in two subsections so that related facts are grouped together to create a better flow. After comparing the two versions, it is clear to me that the article reads better now, so I reinstated the restructuring. I realize that there may be a couple of new things to fix, but they certainly don't warrant reverting. The two adjacent headings (a sub-section above a sub-sub-section) can easily be fixed (I didn't even know that was a concern). The Opposition section, in particular was dis-jointed and continued a hodge-podge of facts, but did not have much flow to it. It's better, but still needs flow. Personally, I am not sure why the Youth Organization with different rules was ever under that heading, but am reluctant to move it out. It does require some explanation, though. --NThurston 18:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the article better without the restructuring. Everything is too divided up now and the article doesn't flow well. --Jagz 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the issue with the sub-headings, the re-ordering of topics, or the combining of similar facts? I could live without the sub-headings, and would be open to some further re-ordering of the topics (especially in the Opposition section). It may not flow perfectly now, but at least it has some order to it. It certainly is a lot more structured than the previous approach. This just suggests a need for further editing. --NThurston 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If there were problems with the article the way it was it wouldn't have become a featured article. Right now you don't have a consensus to keep your changes. --Jagz 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please AGF - No Featured Article is beyond improvement. This one has been edited dozens of over 250 times since July 24, 2006 and will continue to be edited into the future, making it better each time. A fundamental premise of Wikipedia is that you don't need consensus to edit an article. If you have a serious problem with someone's edits, you take it to the talk page. So, here we are - what about the edits do you not like? I am happy to dialog with anyone on this, as that is the key to making it better. --NThurston 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Wholesale reverting is not very helpful in this context (See Help:Revert#Tips). We are all perfectly willing to discuss how to make it better, but at the end of the day, the article is getting better. Reverting is necessarily a step backwards. --NThurston 19:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That is your own opinion I take it. --Jagz 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is generally accepted that the editing process makes articles better. You may disagree with a particular edit, and have every right to do so, but reverting is not the appropriate tool for resolving it. (Again, see Help:Revert#Tips). --NThurston 19:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct a misunderstanding here, because I think you've got things backwards a little, with regard to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle]. No one is saying that the article can't be improved-- it always can. But the way we go about it is that first you make a change. If anyone objects, they go ahead and revert back to the consensus form, and then we all talk about it, and if there's a consensus to re-instate the change, we do so.

If, however, we doing things backwards as you suggest, not only do we do contradict policy, but we cause all kinds of problems. For example, when people come and add GOOD, uncontroversial changes to the page, we have to do a LOT of work to revert just the controversial restructuring. Meanwhile, there's a disputed version of the page live for all our visitors. Wikipedia would work on a Bold-DIscuss-Revert cycle. Anyone could make any changes and the encyclopedia would quickly degrade.

When I have more time, I'll explain in greater detail some of the problems introduced with the restructuring-- I know I've mentioned a few, but I could do a better job of discussing this. In the meantime, I suggest a revert back to the consensus version-- although I won't make that revert myself right now, I think anyone else who opposes the restructuring should feel free to. --Alecmconroy 20:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but the essay you referred to is not policy, and is not very workable in the setting of frequently edited articles. (Honestly, I've never seen that done on any other article I've worked on.) A more reasonable thing in this setting is to make the changes, then if someone objects, either they make an improvement by editing it or if they object to the whole change they take the discussion to the talk page. This is not "more reasonable" because of some sanctity of process, but because of two practical considerations: 1) there are likely to have been multiple good edits done in the meantime that then have to be tracked down, included, etc. and 2) reverting makes the page history less useful and causes a lot of unnecessary action on recent changes and watchlists.

So, with that aside, let's talk about the edits. In reference to your previous suggestions:

• Two headings together - resolved
• People listed as former members were active members of BSA at the time they began opposing the policies - Header has been changed (maybe should be deleted), but it is my understanding that those people are no longer members. Perhaps the text should be edited to note that they were members at the time they did the things that led to their becoming "former" members.
• Jagz' point - Article is too divided - Can't tell from this if that refers to having more headers or the re-ordering. I presume it means the headers. I'm going to take them out. That will address this concern.

Any other concerns? They are easily resolved through editing. --NThurston 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there are plenty of eyes on this article. There is no need to place it on hold while one editor is away WP:OWN. I am sure that you will find that most of the things that bother you will be fixed by the time you get back.

As to one other concern raised - That the edited version was presenting a negative image to potential viewers. I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but the changes weren't that major (mostly just re-ordering of facts, reorganizing paragraphs and adding headings), and I think it actually presented a more positive image than what was there. Since there can be no way to make that call, let's work to a quick resolution. --NThurston 21:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Etiquette, "Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible... Amend, edit, discuss." --NThurston 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Youth organizations with different policies

Currently, this section is under the heading of "Opposition to Boy Scouts of America's policies." Yet the paragraph does not say anything about active opposition. It merely states that other groups have different membership policies. I don't know if that paragraph even belongs in this article, but assuming it does, I don't think it's in a helpful place. Any suggestions? --NThurston 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The theory behind this paragraph is that the other Scouting organizations, by virtue of their refusal to adopt BSAs policies, regard those policies as inappropriate in some way. I realize this connection isn't 100% ironclad-- presumably those organizations feel such exclusions are wrong-- but potentially maybe they just feel it isn't a moral issue at all, merely one of preference. THat is-- someone could argue that the Girl Scouts don't allow lesbians because they think it's wrong to exclude them-- maybe the girl scouts feel it's NOT wrong to exclude them, but they simple don't choose to exclude them. But in general, I think that's a pretty thin argument to make, and most of the organizations, through their policies, opposing or supporting the BSA's policies. The American Heritage Girls, for example, seem to be making a very strong statment of support for the BSA polcies through their membership policies-- even though they don't explicitly claim active support. The Girl Scouts, though they don't explicitly criticize BSA's policies, seem to be making a sharp statement that those policies are unnecessary / conflicting with Scouting values.

I wrote an introductory sentence to try to make the link clearer. That sentence could be improved upon, but you get the idea. If people think it necessary, we could also cite secondary sources who have used the existences of these organizations as evidence that "scouting values" are not consistent with the BSA policies. I left that sort of commentary out, because I don't want the article to sound "lecturey" and "pundity"-- and was content to let the evidence speak for itself, rather than hit people over the head with that argument. But if you think the reader can't detect the revelance of mentioning those articles, we could add a quote explicitly mentioning why opponents of the BSA often point to the other scouts/youth organizations when making their arguments that the BSAs policies are inconsistent with scouting. --Alecmconroy 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"by virtue of their refusal to adopt BSAs policies, regard those policies as inappropriate in some way" is a strange logic. Every group chooses the policies that they feel are best "for them" not that they feel would be best for someone else. Does the BSA oppose 4-H's co-ed policy? Of course, not. Each has adopted the policy that they feel best serves their organizational goals. Similarly "presumably those organizations feel such exclusions are wrong" has no meaning when you are trying to apply one organization's policies to another's purposes. The current heading is accurate - "Youth organizations with different membership criteria." I propose that this sub-section be it's own section as it does not obviously belong under Opposition. --NThurston 18:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like implying that someone who has different polices is opposed to BSA is a collolary to the principle shoved at me when I tried to include rpoportionality numbers. Here's the quote:

Let me give this an example, let's say I'm talking about the 2004 US Presidential Election. Suppose I say this:

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

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

So saying others with different policies are opposed to BSA is the same kind inference some were so vehemently against before. They can't have it both ways. "Seem" isn't a fact.  ;-) GCW50 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well there are a couple of ways to show this evidence. One is just to show the organziations that oppose the exclusion of homosexuals/atheists, and leave it at that. The critiicsm being made here is that somehow these organizations aren't irrelevant to this page as currently listed. I try to avoid being lectury in the article text itself, but perhap that's a mistake.

The other organizations are a strong part of the opposition for a couple reasons. One reason is because therese are organizations similar to the BSA that have said it's not okay to exclude gays or atheists. They organizations are in no way 'neutral'--- they don't leave it up to local leaders to decide whether or not to exclude gays/atheists. They have decided that such policies are unaccepatble, and within their jurisdictions, they do not allow such policies. Each of those organizations has 'weighed in' on the issue of private youth organizations excluding gays, and they have said it's unacceptable.

The other reasons the scouting organizations are relevant is that they serve as a counter to the "BSA's scouting values". If you talk to the BSA, the argument has made that Scouting Values require the policies, and that the policies have always existed-- they just haven't been explicitly enforced. The opponents of the policies routinely cite all the scouting organzations in order to try to disprove this claim. The opponents, therefore, claim that the BSA has essentially been co-opted by a ultra-conservative group has had radically re-interpreted the Scouting Principles, and so that the BSA is unique in its policies is a critical piece of evidence in that argument. (pleaes be aware, I'm not the one making those arguments myself, I'm just quoting them)

So perhaps the solution is for us to add a sentence that excliptly mentions that the organizations with different policies are those which explicity forbid the kind of discrimination the BSA does. Another solution would be explicitly mention the claim (cited of course) that the current BSA administration is hypocritical / incorrect about what "scouting values" are, and then mention the other youth organizations as evidence for that claim.

In any case-- you can't get far in describing the opposition to the policies without mentioning all the other BSA-like organizations that have rejected similar policies. If the connection really isn't clear, then we can come up with introduction paragraphs that spells out why these facts are such a big part of the debate. I tend to err on the side of "less-lectury", but perhaps we've errred to far on that side.

--Alecmconroy 00:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

New article organization

I reorganized the article. Is it acceptable like this? (I reverted before the reorganization because with the numerous recent changes it became very difficult to sort out what has changed recently.) --Jagz 03:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will also add that I don't think bulleted lists are considered acceptable. --Jagz 03:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes, in places where the new organization seemed particularly odd to me. The youth with different rules, for example, was under the BSA values section, which didn't make much sense to me. Similarly, although I didn't change this back-- I see the cancellations of funding has been removed from the opposition section and moved to the controversy section. In my eyes, the cancellations of funding is a form OF opposition, and probably belongs in that category.

I realize that we're being somewhat 'loose' in our defintions of what we call support and opposition. The President speaking at the national jamoboree, for example, is not strictly a form of active support for the policies-- but it's an implied one. The American Heritage Girls aren't strictly a form of active support for the policies, but it's implied. The cancellations of funding and the other youth organizations who have inclusiion policies don't strictly oppose the BSA's policies, but it's implied.

In general I'm not yet convinced there's anything wrong with the old organization:

1. The BSA's Position and their current policy.
2. The past legal battle which has now been resolved, and the on-going legal battle about governmental resources
3. The people who, directly or indirectly, agree with BSA on this.
4. The people who, directly or indirectly, disagree with BSA on this.
5. The miscellaneous issues that are tangential but should be touched on: membership size, emblems programs

To me, this old organization makes a lot of sense. Now, in the new organization-- the other youth organizations that have nondiscrimination policies and the cancellation of fundings have been removed from the informally titled "people who disagree" and mixed in with the litigation. Doesn't make as much sense to me --Alecmconroy 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Loss of Funding section to a new place. --Jagz 06:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation

Well, NT, I'm in a difficult position. On the one hand, I definitely don't want to seem like a bully or being too overbearing, or otherwise be open to the criticism of WP:OWN. But on the other hand-- I don't want to undertake a major reorganization/rewrite without a firm understand of why it's needed.

A lot of people have looked over this article and found its structure acceptable. Jagz wrote the bulk of it, I and many others helped. There were a number of peer reviews, two FACs. A lot of eyeballs have been over this. I didn't find anything wrong with the organizations, neither did Jagz, neither did the peer review or the FAC. What he had here was very much a 'consensus' version-- as much as an article can be.

Now, you think there is something wrong with the organization, so you want to improve it, so you are being bold. That's fine and quite appropriate, and as you mention-- there have been a lot of additions to the article since it hit FAC, and they've been good improvements. But, if ya make an edit, and people don't like it--- there's an impetus on you to convince us BEFORE you change it back. Now, there were many, many changes all done at once-- rewordings, reorganizations, deletions, etc. I was almost impossible to easily follow. I looked it over and found a number of changes I didn't agree with. As of this moment, I haven't yet come to understand why a major reorganization/rewrite is even needed. Jagz also looked it over and didn't like the reorganization, and posted so earlier up on the talk page.

My point of view therefore is that particular Being Bold, while good intentioned, isn't helpful on this case, and we should slow down, discuss, and reach a consensus and talk about why there need to be a rewrite in the first place.

An FA requires a _lot_ of time and effort to go into it, it requires a lot of approval to get where it is, and it carries the special star that implies the current version has been rigorously screened. In short-- major rewrites of a FAC are a lot harder to justifies, and there really isn't much excuse for edit warring AWAY from the the consensus version that has undergone FAC approval. It's not that any of the rewrite jumped out at me as a glaring NPOV violation or blantant POV pushing or any other sort of bad faith. But, given how much does go into a FA-- I would expect people to tread a little bit more lightly than usual, and not to make major article-wide changes without a clear mandate to do so. Major, Controversial changes away from the approved-form of a FA shouldn't be made through edit wars, they should be done through strong consensus, RFC, Mediation, or Arbiatration.

Based on all this-- if it were up to me, I'd just revert the whole thing back to the consensus version that existed before the rewrite, and then slowly, carefully, discuss what needs to be changed about that version, doing an rfc/peer review if needed for more eyeballs, and take it that way. But Jagz has spent some time trying to make a compromise proposal, I don't see too much harm in leaving that up for the time being to see what people think. As of what I've seen and heard so far, I think I like the old version better, but perhaps I just haven't heard the argument for change put to me in the right way. --Alecmconroy 05:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. The current version is good, but could still be improved. For example, there is a paragraph that refers to "these" decisions cementing the BSA's right to define membership, when some of the decisions are mentioned in the following paragraph. If it seems ok - let me propose the following approach

• Copyediting/rewording for clarity can be done without discussion - this seems to have been the approach up until now and has worked quite well.
• Adding relevant material can be done without discussion, but is subject to editing and possible deletion if discussion shows irrelevance, bias, etc.:*Moving a fact to another place in the article (such as from one paragraph to another) may or may not require discussion depending on the impact of the move.
• Reordering paragraphs would be discussed first, although 100% consensus may not be necessary as that gives one editor a super-veto on any proposed changes. Just a fair and open discussion.

Sound OK? --NThurston 13:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for the bulleted lists. Personally, I think they make it easier to identify lists, but since I knew that you were away, I did ask Rlevse to review those to make sure they were OK with FA criteria. Turns out I was wrong. Sorry about that. --NThurston 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you can make any non-controversial edit. Just be prepared for those changes to be reverted if they turn out to be controversial-- and dont' edit war putting them back in until there's a consensus to do so. I hope I don't come across as harsh-- there's nothing _wrong_ with trying to improve the article-- that's being bold. It's just that on an article this mature, that so many, many people have poured over trying to find ways to improve it-- it's very hard to do, and if you ARE bold and put a lot of time in to being bold without talking about it very, there's a very good chance you'll just get reverted outright, because most people will think that the changes aren't improvements. When that happens, it doesn't mean we are necessarily assuming bad faith or that you did anything wrong by trying. No harm, no foul. Thing only get dicey if you fight people when they revert your suggested improvements. I don't mind being bold-- but if people don't like your improvements-- don't re-add them until it's clear that a strong consensus does want them. --Alecmconroy 06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reordering Issues - Litigation

Opening Paragraphs

These are the current thesis statements (by paragraph number):

1. Lawsuits have challenged BSA membership policies, specifically gender, orientation.

2. Lawsuits about gays and atheists have been unsuccessful

3. BSA's right to establish membership has been established through case law

4. Lawsuits about gender have been unsuccessful

5. The focus of lawsuits has shifted toward government relationships.

Issue #1: Having 3 in between 2 & 4 makes no sense. "These rulings" should equally apply to the gender rulings as to the orientation/atheism rulings. Three solutions - A) move 3 before 2 and change the first sentence - "The right of the BSA to set their own membership standards has been firmly established through case law." B) Switch 3 & 4 and modify three to include a reference to gender cases, too. C) Combine the thesis of 3 into 1 - Cases challenging membership policy have resulted in case law indicated that BSA has the right to establish membership.

Issue #2: As cited, the Dale case does not support the thesis statement of 3 directly. It is better used to support the thesis statement of paragraph 2. --NThurston 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Issue 1 is a complicated issue, and i'm open to major discussion on how to fix it. The gender issue is basically 'tacked on' to this article, and the seems DO show. We have two competing interests here. On the one hand, the gender issue is very dissimilar to the gay & atheists issues. Gender is mostly a non-issue. THere isn't a lot of notable press coverage, there aren't major advocacy groups, there haven't been the same kind of high-profile lawsuits, and the girl issue usually isn't cited with regard to the governmental resources issue. So, my instinct was not to make a moutain out of a molehill by covering the girls issue. I don't know that I could even really call the exclusion of girls a "controversy". My impression is it's really not that big of a deal. At the same time, it's something that's come up, so we probably ought to mention it in passing, and some of the FAC reviewers mentioned that I think. So, my solution was to just tack it onto the end. THe result is, admittedly, sort of an odd flow.

One solution is just to make this article only about the the gay/atheist issue, and NOT about hte girl issue at all-- including only a one-line link to it beind discussed elsewhere. That's the solution I liked best, but nobody else seemed to care for it. Another solution that I like a lot is moving the girls issue to a "related issue" at the very end of the issue. We could leave as it is. Or we could try to fully integrate it in with the other issue.

I tend to opppose integrating it, because the girls issue really isn't that big a deal, and it's not fair to the BSA for us to make it seem like it is. But what do Jagz, Rlevse, and others think? I certainly admit the current version is, at least, somewhat inelegant.

Issue 2: The Dale case is mentioned here because it is the "biggie" case-- the most press, the US Supreme Court. It's the big word from the highest court in the land that the US constitution allows the BSA to exclude gays and atheists, and short of a constitutional amendent, that's the way it is. The various cases help establish-- but Dale is what firmly establishes the BSA's rights.

--Alecmconroy 02:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Girls Issue - It came up right off the bat in the FA review, and I believe that it set the historical stage for the more recent membership issues. It was a big deal at the time, but case law settled it. It is fundamental to the "membership controversy" if only because of historical context. There appear to be two main historical episodes - 1) case law establishing membership rights, and 2) the fall-out associated with exercising those rights. Under the case law, you have to consider three things a) gender, b) theism, and c) orientation. The fallout has been less on the gender issue because the BSA has compromised to a degree by allowing women leaders, girls in Exploring, Venturing, and LFL. Perhaps that's an important point that has not been made, but needs to. In any case, gender was where the whole case law regarding membership started, so it definitely should not be ignored. I think it is a dis-service to discount it's place in the legal context.

Dale case - You are saying that Dale is about much more than orientation, and I agree. A re-wording would do - "Through case law, the right of the BSA to set their own membership standards has been firmly established. Federal courts have repeatedly held that the Boys Scouts of America, and all private organizations, have a right to set membership standards under the First Amendment protected concept of freedom of association. The Supreme Court firmly established the BSA's right to freedom of association in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)."

Changes in Access to Governmental Resources

Thesis Statements (by number again)

1. BSA's access to governmental resources has become controversial ("and resulted in litigation" needs to be added since this is the main idea of this whole section.)

2. Receiving access on terms more favorable than other private organizations is known as "special" access

3. BSA has special access to A.P. Hill

4. (This one is tough because it is not well written) - Litigation has come up asking the courts to define when a local government a) can and b) has to grant special access to the BSA.

5. The Federal government has responded to litigation by passing new laws.

Main Issue: Paragraph 4 is disjointed and needs a rewrite. The point of that paragraph is NOT clear.

Solution 1 - There are really two points - A) Private individuals and local governments have taken actions (policies and lawsuits) that restrict BSA's special access based on the membership policies. and B) BSA has sued local governments claiming that they cannot discriminate in the granting of special access based on constitutional rights to membership. (This means probably having two paragraphs.)

Solution 2 - Make "Uncertainty about what 'special access versus 'equal access means is the source of current litigation." into a thesis statement --NThurston 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What's unclear about paragraph four. it goes basically: Because of the policies, there's a push to change BSA's access to public resources. Some people have sued to compell the government NOT to support BSA. The BSA meanwhile has sued to compell the government TO support it. what rewording would you propose?

I'm hesistant to do solution 2 because I don't think the uncertainty about what is special -vs equal is the whole of the dispute-- it's more of an ancillary source of dispute. But I don't think everyone accepts that the BSA can't be provided special access-- the jamboree being at AP hill for example, is something that is only provided to the BSA, so a good argument that it's special. But that doesn't mean that there's no dispute. Even if it is special, maybe it still okay. I think the dispute is more about the idea of government funding in general, and the confusions about what's special and what's equal is just an additional source of dispute. No doubt, some people would want the BSA banned from even equal access, just as people often attempt to ban the KKK from having the same access that other private organizations do. Alternatively, there are undoubtedly people who want hte BSA to have special access-- just as other highly-valued non-profits are often given special access. --Alecmconroy 01:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The facts in Para 4 are fine, but they don't build to a meaningful thesis, as in "what does this all mean?" Sounds like you are ok making the two points in solution 1 more prominent. Proposed rewording:

Some local governments have adopted policies and ordinances which limit special access to organizations that do not follow acceptable nondiscrimination policies.[citation needed] Often, the BSA's membership policies are not consistent with local requirements for nondiscrimination. This has led some government organizations to limit or eliminate special access privileges for the BSA.[citation needed] In other cases, private individuals have filed lawsuits to prevent governmental entities from granting special access to the BSA.[38]

There is not always agreement about whether these cases involve "special access" versus "equal access." The BSA has sued governmental entities that deny them "special access" to resources while giving special access to other organizations.[33] They argue that such policies deny their right to "equal access" and amount to discrimination based on their constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.

That's my first attemp at a two para solution, which could use some work, but gets the two main points across. --NThurston 13:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see-- so-- proposing is good. here are my comments

The phrase "organizations that do not follow acceptable nondiscrimination policies." is a double negative that gets kinda complicated-- "organizations which practice discrimination" is more straighforward. I'm also not 100% clear on what legal terminology the anti-discrimination laws use-- "special access" may not be how legislators, so that's something to think about.

Often, the BSA's membership policies are not consistent with local requirements for nondiscrimination.

"Sometime" is more accurate here, I think. The relevant local laws are widespread enough that I feel comfortable saying there are "many" of them, but I wouldn't necessarily say that the BSA is "often" in conflict with those laws. May be, may not be.

This has led some government organizations to limit or eliminate special access privileges for the BSA.'

We shouldn't characterize the access as 'special' while litigation is pending. it's led governments to limit access for BSA, but maybe they're wrongly eliminating equal access.

In other cases, private individuals have filed lawsuits to prevent governmental entities from granting special access to the BSA.

We really have to attribute the belief that the access is special to the individuals-- BSA may disagree that it's special.

The BSA has sued governmental entities that deny them "special access" to resources while giving special access to other organizations.

If you asked the BSA, they probably would say that the access they get probably isn't "special access"-- they in MOST cases would probably claim they're just getting "equal access".

--Alecmconroy 05:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Litigation

All of these cases are related to Special Access and should have a more direct link to the Access section. A transition paragraph would do the trick. I also understand that the federal actions (paragraph 5 in Access section) are in reaction to some of "these" cases, so again we have a problem of misplaced antecedents. I recommend moving these paragraphs into the Access section, perhaps as a subsection, and putting them right before 5 (Federal Congressional action). --NThurston 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If (Federal action) is to remain just the laws passed, then it should be renamed to differenciate it from USSC actions, which are also federal. CovenantD 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually would go a step further-- it seems to me that there's room for a whole article on just the access controversy. We _mention_ this access issue, because it is so closely linked with the membership controversy. But strictly speaking, it's really its own issue, aand I dont' htink we can't fully cover all the intricacies of the issue on this page. Right now this page is the central nexus for discussing this issue, but it would be better, I think, if we could briefly summarize this acccess issue, and leave all the nitty gritty legal details, specific cases, etc of the access issue to the some other page. --Alecmconroy 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a decent idea. Let's start a new article Boy Scouts of America access to government resources All of the current text from "The conditions under which.." down to the last of the litigation would form the seed for the new article. There would be a "main article" link here and a sync'ed summary header from the main article. At present, there isn't a suitable summary header, so that would have to be written there (and here) as a top priority in order to preserve the integrity of this article. Anybody want to do it?--NThurston 14:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Local Special Access

I have some additional problems with the local special access paragraph. First, there's no indication of how wide-spread the local anti-discrimination ordinances are. Second, there's no discussion of what those ordinances mean and who they apply to. Can a city require all private organizations in their jurisdiction to have a non-discrimination policy? Clearly not. So what can they actually do with these ordinances? Do they only apply to special access or are there other ways that cities have tried to push on the BSA? Third, there is a difference between ordinances and operational policies. For example, a nearby mayor recently attempted to create a policy (it was just the mayor's policy, not an ordinance) that would have required all businesses receiving city contract funds to have a non-discrimination policy (among other things). This policy wouldn't affect the BSA in any way, because they don't do contract work for the city. Then, the city council told him to knock it off, and passed an ordinance prohibiting this type of discrimination. (These details may not be the actual facts of any particular case, but highlight the issue.) The paragraph also fails to adequately describe the process of litigation in the most prominent cases: 1) Local government denies special access, 2) BSA sues the local government based on non-discrimination theory. The paragraph mentions that private citizens are suing local governments to restrict special access but this thought is not well connected to the arguments or thesis of the paragraph. --NThurston 14:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

These are really complicated issues, and the most we can do, in this article, is summarize the "general trend"-- the 'special'-vs-'equal' access issue. There is a _lot_ more to be said about this issue, and one of hte many, many things on my wikipedia to-do list in the back of my mind was to try to cobbble together a good article that discusses all the nitty-gritty of the issues you ask.

Honestly, at this point, there really isn't an answer to these questions yet-- the courts haven't given a clear answer yet. There is no one "test" we can report on. There is no one answer we could cite that would neatly fit into the space of this article.

The best heuristic you can use is: If the KKK _can_ do, the BSA can do it. If the KKK can't do it, there's going to be someone who won't want the BSA to be able to do it, and the courts may or may not agree that the BSA can't do it. The oregon ruling is a case where the courts disagreed. In a number of other cases mentioned here, the courts have agreed with the BSA opponents. So, it's a mixed bag right now. It'll get sorted out in a decade or so probably.

Anti-discrimination ordinances are _extremely_ prevalant. Virtually all communities have laws, ordinances, or policies requiring that the city only support organizations that practice non-discrimination. I have never heard of a contemporary government that didn't have such practices. The question, therefore, is not really whether non-discrimination policies are widespred-- the question is whether non-discriminations policies can legally be applied to the BSA and if so, under what circumstances.

--Alecmconroy 04:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Locally, I am not aware of any communities that have such laws or policies. In fact, the case I mentioned earlier, caused a huge uproar. I'm not saying that other places don't have them, and maybe everywhere does and I just don't know it, but that's not how WP works. Even if everybody besides me knows something - Sacramento is the capital of California - you still have to cite it due to WP:OR. Cite is definitely needed here.

Of course, that is a minor issue (existence vs. extent) and should be easy to document, if true. Your second point is key - Can local govt discriminate against groups based on their choice to exercise constitutionally established free association rights? Also, right now it's orientation and sometimes theism, but if the ACLU thought they could do it, they'd bring in gender in a heartbeat. --NThurston 14:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me give you a brief rundown. When it comes to anti-discrimination law, the biggies are the federal laws that prevent discrimination-- Civil Rights Act, Fair Employment and Housing act, and Americans with Disabilities act. Supplementing that are state and local anti-discrimination laws. Almost all communities have them in some form or another-- I've never heard of one that doesn't.

What's more relevant for _our_ issue, however, are the subset which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. These are widespread and becoming even more common. In 2003, there were more than 250 such cities, including 9 of the 10 largest cities. [3]. A more detailed breakdown based on early-90s data is also available here. [4]. I'll add those references when I go through the whole text of the article.

--Alecmconroy 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you've "never heard of one not having one" means the same as the fact that I've "never heard of one around here that has one" - nothing. That's probably why Wiki "believes" in WP:NOR. I'll look at the cites you've provided here. It seems to me (a novice in civil rights law) that gender and religion are widely protected, but that orientation has less protection, federally and locally. So to focus on cases where the BSA is singled out for its orientation policies seems odd given my perception that gender and religion have greater protections. Perhaps it is perceived by local govt that the BSA stance on orientation is "stronger" than on religion or gender. Who knows, but I would be interested in knowing to what extent cities (in particular) try to use policies and ordinances to establish "official" attitudes in all three areas. Maybe this should be in a different article somewhere else.

Finally, what is that paragraph all about? Please see/edit/change or comment on the proposed text for consensus below. --NThurston 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean for my "I've never heard of one that hasn't" opinion to be the citation-- the proof that many (indeed all) communities in the US are governed by some sort of anti-discrimination laws would come from the federal laws. (although those federals are almost always supplemented by state & local laws). But the critical citation needed for our purposes are the two provided that show the many (250+) cities that have local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

To go off-article and discuss the issue itself in order to address your question as to why has the sexual orientation aspect often been "more controversial" in the access cases than the atheism aspect? My guess, and it's just my guess, is that there's a couple of factors at play. First and foremost is simply political. "Gay-rights" is a much bigger, stronger, and more popular movement than any "atheist-rights" movement. Another factor is that I think most americans "get it", on an emotional level, why people of a similar religious beliefs would want to have a private organzation where all members have similar beliefs. Most Americans do have some sort of religious beliefs themselves. In contrast, I guess maybe not as many americans actively belong to organizations that are hetero-sexual only. --Alecmconroy 22:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough on the off-article stuff. I guess we're still where we started though. It seems that "few" cities, counties , and states have policies that would actually impact the BSA's special access. While we don't know what it is, certainly it is smaller than the 250 with Employment Policies, which I found to be a relatively small number to start with. (And I checked your cite - there are no cities in my county that have any such policies, and there is only one city in any neighboring county, although I think that has been repealed.) Now I am thinking that the federal laws couldn't be used to deny special access to the BSA and I cannot understand how a local ordinance on employment discrimination would be used to deny special access. So, where are we really? How many locals have policies that would matter? What do they look like? How are they used to deny special access? Same questions as before. --NThurston 22:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've reviewed the cites. They only cover employment discrimination. Basically, what you've shown is that some cities and counties (about 150 nationwide, which is actually quite a small percentage) have local policies extending orientation protection to the private workplace. There are also several more that have extended it to public employment (a matter of policy). Problem is - this has very little to do with special access or this article. Berkeley's policy in Evans v. Berkeley wasn't an employment protection policy. It was much more broadly worded than that, and I honestly doubt, given the second citation you showed that policies that would restrict special access for the BSA based on its orientation policy are very common at all. Also note that California cases using the "public accommodations" theory supported the BSA because they are not a "business." So, we're back to my original questions - 1) What are the different types of nondiscrimination ordinances? 2) Which of these types would affect the BSA's special access? 3) How prevalent are those types? --NThurston 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. You see the need a second article on this issue. I don't know answers to some of the questions you ask. Some of the questions you ask, I'm convinced don't have answers yet-- the legal system is still working on it.

Here's what I do know: race, gender, and religion antidiscrimination laws are so common that they are practically universal in the US. Sexual orientation laws are quite prevalent--- most major american cities have them (9 out of the 10 most-populace cities, 250 all told). How do the laws apply to the BSA? Here we're getting into murky water. The laws apply enough that direct government sponsorship is definitely out-- public schools and military bases can no longer be the direct sponsors. You can check the ACLU suit to figure out what law probably compelled that (although no judge ruled on it, there's a good chance the argument is sound, since the BSA settled such a big issue). After that, they're getting really complicated. I'm not even sure that anyone is 100% certain sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, and I seem to remmeber it's pretty well established that BSA can not hire gays for at least SOME of their jobs, so presumably the at least some courts have held that some of the anti-discrimination laws aren't applicable.

I come back to the basic themes. Anti-discrimination laws are very widespread, and some people have tried to sue under these laws to stop what they see as "special" access. The BSA has sued to try to protect what it sees as "equal" access. I don't think the access article will be able draw any clear conclusions-- the best we probably can do right now is list off the cases that have been decided, the laws they were decided upon, and the cases which are still on-going.

--Alecmconroy 04:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reordering (and factual) Issues - Opposition

Thesis statements (for the whole section by paragraph number)

1. There has been an increase in oppositon to the BSA's membership policies in recent years

2. Some within Boy Scouts of America are opposed to the membership policies. Issue: The only supporting sentence does not even refer to those within the BSA. Neither of the sources indicate that any current member of the BSA returned their badges. In fact, the cases cited were actually all former members. Compromises: "Some within 'Scouting'" or "Some people who have been affiliated with the BSA"

3. Some local units and councils have unsuccessfully tried to have non-discrimination policies

4. Former Scouts and Scouters have formed organizations that advocate the inclusion of gays and atheists.

Issues:

• "A number of" is not encyclopedic language. Suggest - "Some," "a few," or "several" depending on the evidence. The evidence here would not justify "several."
• William Boyce Mueller was never a Scout or a Scouter. --NThurston 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• The Coalitions web-page[5] has changed. There is no reference to their name anywhere. On the Mission page, you get a statement from the New England Coalition for Inclusive Scouting[6], but no indication that is was actually formed by present or former Scouts or Scouters. --NThurston 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

5. Steven Spielberg resigned his position with the BSA in protest.

6. The Unitarian Universalist Association has vocally opposed the BSA's membership exclusions.

7. Some other religious groups that formerly supported Scouting (?) have withdrawn support and severed their ties.

8. Some private institutions have severed their ties to the BSA as a result of their membership policies resulting in a loss of funding.

9. The BSA forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public or to youth members.

10. Dave Rice was a dedicated Scouter who was removed for advocating policy change

11. Not all of the Scouting movement has accepted the need to exclude atheists and/or gays.

Proposed changes:

1. There seems to be a major theme of "Some current and former Scouts and Scouters and other supporters of the BSA are opposed the policies." This is the common thread is paragraphs 2-8. I propose turning paragraph #2 into an introductory paragraph for this idea, then use better transition sentences to work through the other paragraphs in the current order. In this context, it would be fine to keep the Eagle badge fact in that paragraph as an example.
2. Paragraph 10 shouldn't be a "martyr" paragraph. It should be limited to evidence that the Dave Rice case is an example of how the BSA implements (fairly or not) the policy described in paragraph 9.
3. More generally, the thesis statements need to be refined & "word-smithed" to reflect the point better. Thesis statements can be used either at the beginning or end of a paragraph.

--NThurston 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay-- so... the assertion has been made that there is no opposition from within the BSA. This assetion is completely and utterly groundless. There is a _lot_ of opposition from within the BSA-- indeed the most notable advocacy on both sides of this issue has been from within BSA. So-- let's _not_ edit this section based on the assumption that such opposition is non-existent.

That said-- if Jagz and others don't object,, I personaly am okay with changing "Some within Boy Scouts of America are opposed to the membership policies" to "Some within Scouting", because we do talk about more than "just" the current members of BSA, so "within Scouting" may be a better transition.

The paragraph on David Rice is a bit one-sided, but that's because I haven't been able to find any statement from the BSA on this. I contacted them to try to get 'their side', but didn't get any response. I know the claims may seem a little martyrdomish, but they actually are quite well documented and have gotten a lot of press. If you can find additional commentary from the BSA on this, I don't mind adding some statments, but I would be hesistant to delete any of the existing portions of the section. Again, I don't like to hit people over the head with the 'point' and be lecturey, I prefer to just present the evidence and let people make up their own minds-- but the allegation is that the BSA's position on this controversy is so strong that they have taken to expelling people who disagree with it on these issues, not just people who somehow egergriously become anti-bsa advocates. So, I might be open to tweaking the NPOV of this by the addition of material, but let's definitely not just reduce this to a matter of fact story: "There was a guy, he violated BSA rules about advocay, and he got kicked out for it".

Clearly, it's necessary to say that Dave Rice was a long-time, mainstream Scouter that opposed policy and got whacked for it. It's also OK to talk about the process. But I think NPOV required a somewhat toned-down version of these facts. --NThurston 14:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

About the proposed changes-- if Jagz, Rlevse and other feel there's a need for change, then I'm certainly not going to edit war against a strong consensus for change. I don't mean to be shooting down all the proposed changes, but what can I say-- I really like this article. I think it's really fair, I think it's really neutral and has been supported by editors from a variety of backgrounds, and it's gotten lots of support, and I don't think it has any glaring problems. I think Jagz did a stupendous job on it, and it's one of the best pages I've been involved in. Are there minor tweaks to be made that could improve it? sure. But are there major problems of logic, flow, and NPOV that we've all somehow missed?--- I'm 'very skeptical, and until there's a strong consensus that there are such problems, i'll probably try to edit back toward the article that got approved for FAC.

--Alecmconroy

Well, there aren't many major problems left. I think I've pointed out the two or three that remain. Direct editing has been very effective, but you have requested this rather tedious process of discussing re-ordering of facts or paragraphs. Personally, I feel that this approach tends to over-emphasize the importance of requested changes and makes the whole deal slow. Again, consensus should not be required for progress, per all the WP cites on policy and guidelines I've previously given.

However, I will agree that there is at least one issue that should be discussed further - the girls issue. The "tacked-on" feel is a major problem and the solutions represent a fork in the road. I'm going to add a discussion segment on this below to hope for consensus. --NThurston 14:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Union for Reform Judaism

GCW50: What is the point you are trying to make about this? You need to provide citations with statements you add. --Jagz 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Union for Reform Judadism on it's webpage says that it's up to congregation to decide. Their Social Action committe did say what is listed here, but that's just a committee, not a ruling body. I would strongly urge you to go beyond the edited cites on bsa discrimin ation.org and go to the original source material. GCW50 18:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You should provide a link to the information you reference instead of expecting us to search around for it. You could have provided a link in your above message for example. --Jagz 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations

How do you cite something so the cites are not duplicated in the References list? --Jagz 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

An example

First Cite: <ref name="impact">{{cite web|url=http://lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/fact.html?record=1325|work= Lambda Legal|title=The Impact of the Boy Scouts of America’s Anti-Gay Discrimination|accessdate=March 2|accessyear=2006}} </ref>

Second Cite: <ref name="impact"/>

--NThurston 16:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all the dup cites I can find. --NThurston 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a tutorial on this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary

So, I replied to all the proposed changes. One big room for improvement I see expanding the "access to governmental resources" section into a full article, and if anyone wanted to do that, that would be very cool, because as NT correctly points out-- we basically do a very quick rundown, and there is lot more to say about it.

I also definitely can tell that have a sort of awkward organization when it comes to the girls issue, and there might be room for improvement for where we put that girls issue. So, I'd really like to hear feedback on which options people like.

At the same time, I note that some of the recent editors feel that the page has widespread problems of logic and NPOV, and there has been very aggressive editing in that direction. I personally disagree that these problems. If Jagz, Rlevse, and other agree with the edits, I certainly won't be the one to insist. But in general, the page is a very good one, if you disagree, you've should be focusing on convincing, not editing.

Anyway, the edits are so much that I can't keep up, so keep in mind my comments are more on 'general principle' at this time, not so much on the specific edits. In a few days, when the editing has settled down and people feel like they've done what edits they want to do-- I'll go through it and compare that version with the pre-rewrite version, and try to keep the changes that I personnally agree are improvements or which are supported by strong consensus.

Please try too respect the current article and the current balance, and if you feel this article is unbalanced, do an RFC / talk. Trying to change the POV of the article to make a point, won't likely be successful, as Heq. found out. Just on a hunch, I checked the article to see if the much-contested 30%-oppose survey was still in the article, and as I suspected-- it has been removed. I realize some (but not necessarily all) of the new editors very strongly disagree with opposition, but this does not cause such opposition to not exist. :) ---Alecmconroy 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America

This case has no link in the article. Not sure if it did at one time. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America --Jagz 07:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The case is discussed the subpages of bsa discrimination and bsa legal. The appeals court decision is here (pdf). --Alecmconroy 08:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Okay-- I see those links are already in the article, so-- they probably aren't what you were looking for. lol. I'm too sleep deprived. :) --Alecmconroy 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I put a link to the Wikipedia article in See Also. --Jagz 08:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus - Is Girls Issue Relevant?

Alec raises an important point - What is this article really about? Is it about membership controversies generally or the current membership controversies(orientation & theism)? Please use this section to help us find consensus.

Comment The article should be about the totality of membership controversies in the BSA. The girls issue is a historical important feature for two reasons - 1) It was the beginning of case law establishing right to association, and 2) The BSA's policy on girls and women has changed significantly over time. Even though they presumably have the right to do otherwise, they now allow women leaders in all positions, and girls to be members of some programs. --NThurston 14:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the girls issue should be covered somewhere. The BSA is different than some other countries, see the Coeducational Scouting link. I believe the lack of success in past litigation is the reason we are not seeing lawsuits on this issue today. Although BSA lets older girls into the Venturing program, girls may not be interested in a high-adventure type program or the program may not be available locally. I think there is a somewhat silent controversy out there on this issue. --Jagz 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To me, the question is no longer "Is it revelant or should we cover it at all"-- one of the very clear feedbacks that came out of vetting the article was that we SHOULD mention it. The question is where should we cover it? I think my favorite right now is listing it as on of the related issues, so we can present all the girl issues & litigiation in one coherent narrative, and also mention the later admission of women into BSA and mention the venture scouts. I sorta feel like all this information should be together in one place, and I can't we anywhere else to put it other than in the "related issues". At the same time, it would be wrong of us to treat the girls just like a third, equal issue-- by and large, it seems like the exclusion of girls aren't controversial, and we shouldn't make it out that this is a huge isssue. What would people think about adding girls as a third "related issue". --Alecmconroy 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely cover it here on a par with the other issues. It has been going on longer than the religious and sexuality issues--in fact all the way back to the earliest days. There have been several court cases on the matter. To me, it's somewhat schizophrenic of BSA to say boys need women as role models so they allow them as adult leaders and it's okay to have them at 14 and up in Venturing, but not at 13 and below in the troops and packs. This article is about membership controversies and this is certainly a membership controversey. Rlevse 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Access to governmental resources

I believe that the reason so many governmental bodies have reconsidered the terms of BSA's access to their resources in recent years was caused by the enactment of anti-discrimination ordinances or something similar followed by the public attention cast on the BSA by related court decisions. I don't think that most governmental bodies were acting simply to punish or spite the BSA. What do you think? --Jagz 16:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I sense that Berkeley and San Diego probably were happy to single out the BSA because the individual members of the councils don't agree with the BSA policies as a public way of expressing opposition to their policy. I think the Oregon people were just trying to do what's right. I suppose it is likely that some/most local governments in this setting react out of fear of being sued. That seems to be the local reaction with regards to the 10 Commandment displays. Many cities have moved them to avoid the controversy, even though most individual council members privately wish they could be on city property. Certainly, there is a cross-roads - you can either amend the policy to not apply to the BSA or not enforce it strictly (if you like them) or you can insist on holding to the letter of the policy (if you don't like them). Nobody is forcing the cities to have these policies - they are doing it by choice. --NThurston 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I might be wrong on this, but I don't think local governments are fiscally liable for this sort of thing. People can sue get ordered to compell change, but I don't think i've heard of anyone asking for damages. If so "fear of being sued" might not be as much of a motivator as much as a it's just general attempt to force change the constitutionally-protected policies by "inflicting economic sanctions", as it were. --Alecmconroy 00:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, as the court ruling in California established (and the SCOTUS upheld) is that Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways. A private organization can certainly discriminate, but they cannot compel public entities to give them subsidies that other private organizations would not otherwise enjoy. Therefore, by arguing that they are a private organization that can discriminate(against anyone they wish), the Scouts cannot cry foul when public entities withdrew their financial support. [an example would be: If boy scouts can kick out gay members and still get public funding and subsidies in a municipality that bans antigay discrimination, then the KKK can get public funding to hold racist rallies although municipal laws bans racist discriminations] Moreover, individual council member's personal bias has nothing to do with the withdrawl of support: the municipal laws are drafted and approved by a vote, sometimes by committee, sometimes by referendum. Therefore, because of the potential trouble caused by not enforcing the rules, and the wish of the majority of the population, these municipalities are obliged to withdraw their support regardless of the councilpeople's feelings.--Bud 10:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter still to be decided and is the whole point we are trying to write about. Can local govt's discriminate in their special access policies based on an organization's constitutional right to free association? and the corollary: Can local governments choose to give special access to the BSA? The Berkeley case is an example on one side. Oregon is an example on the other side. San Diego is yet to be resolved.

Here's how cities are financially liable - ACLU sues a city based on alleged violation of the separation clause and wins. The city (losing side) must pay the ACLU's legal fees, which are not trivial in many cases. It is sometimes argued that the 10 commandments cases have become a source of revenue for the ACLU because they are allegedly allowed to bill for legal fees that are much higher than their true costs. --NThurston 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The antidiscrimination ordinances were not enacted with the purpose of allowing municipalities to punish the BSA. The laws were on the books, then the BSA in court proceedings and publicly asserted their right to discriminate (although they may have used more politically correct terminology like being able to set their own membership standards, etc.) making it obvious that they were not complying with the antidiscrimination ordinances and furthermore had no intention of moving in the direction of compliance. The public subsidies the BSA receives in the form of access to governmental resources are paid for in part (taxes) by the same types of people they are excluding from membership in their organization. While some council members may have been personally offended by the BSA's attitude, were putting on a show for their constiuents, or were seeking publicity; the net effect seems to have been that they were just enforcing the law. --Jagz 22:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we don't really know whether municipalities in fact did create those laws in reaction to BSA policies. While I don't know, it's entirely conceivable that this could happen. However, that aside, I guess my point was more subtle than that. It seems to me, based only on what I have read in the press (amittedly a problem), that the San Diego and Berkeley councils had other options if they had wanted to pursue them. Remember (this is key) that councils have full control over what the ordinances and policies are. The executive branch has to enforce the laws as given (your argument), but the legislative branch gets to decide what the laws are (my argument). Instead of taking the actions they did, they could have amended the ordinance and policies to allow preferential access to the BSA because there are no laws requiring cities to have nondiscrimation policies. Now, choosing to exempt the BSA in this way may have had political consequences, this is true. But my opinion is that the individuals involved preferred to pursue the course that they did, at least in part, due to their personal feelings about BSA policy and were OK with using these policies to make a political statement. --NThurston 14:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know of an instance where a government body created a law or rule primarily to punish the BSA? --Jagz 07:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Thurston's point. If the city council would amend the local laws so they can give preferential treatment to the BSA, not only would it violate the spirit of the anti-discrimination laws, it would also trigger a slate of law suits that can present real legal dilemma. Consider the following:

1. BSA is a private organization that says they can limit their membership criteria.

2. the KKK is a private organization that says they can limit their membership criteria.

If a local city council write a law that says the BSA can be granted privileges despite the fact that their membership criteria is against anti-discrimination ordinances, then the KKK can concievably sue that the BSA is being treated in a preferential way and as another private organization that discriminates, the KKK would be entitled to get preferential access as well. Sooner or later, all the other private organization can claim similar privileges and the anti-discrimination ordinances would be moot.

Therefore, many cities that has anti-discrimination laws can no longer give boy scouts special access. It does NOT mean boy scouts are banned from the area, or put in any other disadvantage, it just means that BSA would have to follow procedures and pay the fees just like any PRIVATE organization (KKK, the local yacht club, the company that wants to rtent the park for a picnic, etc). Basically, the BSA cannot have it both ways: they cannot cry discrimination when they choose not to follow the rules (anti-discrimination ordinances). As long as they pay just like any private organization, they are certainly allowed to use public facilities.

Access to public schools is another area entirely. Several years ago, teh FEDERAL government wrote that law that says if the public schools are being funded by ANY federal money (which most of them are in forrm of grants and such) then they HAVE to allow the BSA to recruit and pursue activities in the schools. The access granted to the BSA by the Federral government is special and trumps local ordinances. One can draw parallel of this law with the Soloman law, which says universities (which has their own non-discrimination rules and object to the anti-gay rules of the military) must allow Armed forces recruiters on campus in order to recieve federal money. In their reasoning, the SCOTUS ruled that since universities recieve federal money, they should comply to the requests of the federal government. Moreover, the Supreme court also says that altough the government is forcing the universities to accept military recruiters, it does not amount to stifling the right of speech and association (which is the university's calim): If the university object to the military's policies, they can set up a booth right next to the military's and express their opposition. --Bud 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are far more places that don't have antidiscrimination statutes than there are that do. A lot of them give preferential treatment to whomever they feel benefits their community, and yet, remarkably, the KKK doesn't sue them, and likely wouldn't be successful anyway because local governments do have the right to discriminate in giving out preferential treatment if they so choose based on the theory of benefit to community. On the other side of this, the most visible cases regarding preferential treatment have arisen out of places that do have antidiscrimination laws. Which leads to my point - cities that have antidiscrimination statutes and policies are doing it by choice, not by force from state and federal governments. Their actual motivations for keeping those statutes is probably difficult to know. For what it's worth. --NThurston 20:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We can't say that a local government that enacts laws prior to the federal or state government is wrong or their actions are automatically suspect. For example, we can't wait on the federal government to take the lead on global warming; the leadership here is building in the private sector and at local or regional levels. --Jagz 20:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Things are even more complicated. Bud argues that there's a federal law that requires schools receiving federal money to allow the BSA to recruit-- I assume he referring to the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act. But that law just requires that federally-funded schools not prevent the BSA from having EQUAL access. But I don't know what force that's going to have, since most schools do not allow recruiting and/or meeting access to all private organizations (i.e. no KKK recruiting in schools). I've heard of some districts that do allow any private organization to meet in schools well after school hours, so presumably none of those locales can exclude the BSA from that sort of access. But I've never heard of anyone allowing anything but preferential recruiting access to a few select private organizations.

As for the motivations for anti-discrimination laws-- I think the SIMPLIFIED explanation is that people want to: a) express disapproval for discrimination and/or organizations that discriminate, b) penalize organizations with policies they see as "wrong" in order to encourage change, c) not reward/strengthen those organizations through public subsidy or d) not force all taxpayers to support those organizations through public subsidy. But things get very, very complex once you asking questions of morality, freedom, etc. Are the policies really discrimination? Is discrimination really wrong? Should governments been judging morality? etc etc. It's a very complicated issue.

--Alecmconroy 22:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nit-picking

Please try to refrain from nit-picking edits. Cite your statements. Try to edit without bias. --Jagz 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just checking in every now and then, but notice there's been a some of 'gutting' of the Opposition section, so I suspect that the current edits are introducing widespread NPOV problems. Please be wary of introducing such problems-- if they exist in a few days when I get around to going through all the changed, I know I may just revert the wherever I see them back to the NPOV FA text. Someone else may do it before me. it just wastes people time when you edit with bia-- it won't actually change the article in the long run --Alecmconroy 19:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what's being "gutted" other than GCW's occasionally objection to the way things are worded, which I assume is the nit-picking referred to above. Please elaborate and I will be glad to help fix it.

As I watch what's happening, it appears to be headed towards order (which is important in good writing) and is becoming even more NPOV as biased comments are edited and cleaned up. We've also identified some major discussion points - girls issues and youth organization policies and are making progress on them.

As to your "threat" to simply revert it all, please don't. That is very bad form and not the Wiki way and besides, it would just set off a revert war. You are welcome to edit on the same basis as everyone else, just like Jagz is doing. If you have issues with changes, amend, edit or talk about them but avoid deleting or reverting if at all possible. You are welcome to reintroduce facts that have been removed at any point, although I haven't noticed that happening. Your comments seem to run dangerously close to violatons of WP:OWN. I would hate to lose your perspective on this article, but you have to be open-minded about it. --NThurston 20:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's a couple different directions going on right now at the same time, so I should do more to differentiate between the various things that are going on here. I don't want to single individual editors out, but I wasn't particularly trying to address you, NT, in this section. I may worry that you're being too unilateral and too forceful in some of your changes, but none of those changes have jumped out at me as blatantly unreasonable or completely out of the question, or otherwise clearly being done in bad faith. And I don't mean to imply that I'll revert the entire article-- I will definitely go on a section by section basis.

As to ownership-- I definitely don't feel like _I_ own this article, that's for sure. On the one hand, there is no ownership. On the otherhand, there is definitely leadership, and earned trust, and for that I look to Jagz. So, rest assured, if you and he both feel strongly that the changes are improvements, I won't even think of touching them. On the other hand, however, if it seems like there isn't an consensus for chance, I hope to help him keep the article in it's most-consensus state, once the flurry of editing slows (and when my daily life becomes less time consuming). --Alecmconroy 04:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Major re-wording (for consensus)

Both occur in the Litigation section

• Re-word the paragraph on how case law established freedom of association:

Through case law, the right of the BSA to set their own membership standards has been firmly established. Federal courts have repeatedly held that the Boys Scouts of America, and all private organizations, have a right to set membership standards under the First Amendment protected concept of freedom of association. The Supreme Court firmly established the BSA's right to freedom of association in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)."

• Two paragraph re-structuring in Access to allow for two main ideas:

Some local governments have adopted policies and ordinances which limit special access to organizations that do not follow acceptable nondiscrimination policies.[citation needed] Often, the BSA's membership policies are not consistent with local requirements for nondiscrimination. This has led some government organizations to limit or eliminate special access privileges for the BSA.[citation needed] In other cases, private individuals have filed lawsuits to prevent governmental entities from granting special access to the BSA.[38]

There is not always agreement about whether these cases involve "special access" versus "equal access." The BSA has sued governmental entities that deny them "special access" to resources while giving special access to other organizations.[33] They argue that such policies deny their right to "equal access" and amount to discrimination based on their constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.

--NThurston 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is going to be a new article or articles created using the information in this article, maybe you should work on them now. When they are finalized and the blitz of edits slows down, we can delete the corresponding information in this article and link to the new article/s. That way this article can remain stable. --Jagz 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this approach though is making people aware of the article/s that are under development. We could include links to them in See Also or on the Talk page I suppose. Maybe you can draft the new article and request a review on the Talk page of this article and maybe the BSA article too. --Jagz 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Going through

So, I finally found the time to go through and sort through the recent edits. There were lot of WikiGnome edits that had been made lately-- replacing duplicate links, fixing capitalization, and other such thigs--- so thanks for those! THe "Support for" and "Opposition for" order was swapped-- it took me a second, but I think it's actually a really good improvment. There were a lot of really good introductory statments that made things a little smoother.

A few of the changes I disagreed with, so I reverted or altered them. Here's the changes I made and why:

• altered girls statement in into to reflect the girls are NOT the main controversy, and that the excusion of girls is only controversial "to some". everyone can agree there's a huge amount of coverage of the gay/atheist issue. in contrst, single-gendered organizations are so commonplace that i don't know it's verifiable that this is a societal controversy.
• reinstated briefer mission quote. The critical element here is that they want to instill values-- not their full statement.
• social discrimination is odd term. "disrimination" is by far more common.
• Explicitly attributed mission statement quote to the BSA mission statement
• Removed that GSUSA have gotten special access. This is true, but more of an aside for our purposes.
• I changed the Access to Government resources, but this is an area that merits further discussion, so i'll address it below.
• Much was mad of the fact that the DOJ filed an amicus brief-- i removed it, because the DOJ doesn't speak for the US Government in this matter-- the courts do, and the DOJ amicus carries no more legal authority than any other party's briefs.
• Removed "in recent years" from opposition. Opposition is at least 15+ years old, so recent is relative. Removed a similar recentness from Support.
• The 30% opposition citation was deleted. I realize in an ideal world, we'd have more data on sample size and sample population, but the report on it IS from a very reliable source, so it stays, absence information from a reliable source that the Boston Globe story is wrong.
• The unsourced claim was introduced that William Boyce Mueller has never been a scout. This claim appearts to be false according to this Boston Globe article. article
• The claim was made that the forgotten scouts no longer exist. The claim is unsourced and probably irrelvant anyway.
• The NJ coucil non-discriminatory statement is intesting-- i'll looking into it, and left a reference to it intact. We should try to find a good source that talks about why that one was accepted when others were not. Presumably the statements were different. I know that some sort of statement was also signed in the San Diego case, but the courts so far have found that whatever statement it was, it did not constitute a legal non-discrimination statement under the relevant laws.
• A fact tag had been added requesting cites for the Coalitions for Inclusive Scouting. I re-instated a link to one of the coalitions with the largest presence. If links to more are required, you can find them with this Google seach.
• I re-added that Dave Rice isn't gay or atheist.
• I returned the organization with nondiscriminatory polcies to the opposition section again. I added a paragraph making the relevance to the opposition more explicit.
• I added that the Public Expression of Religion Act actually directly mention the BSA, and shortened the description overall. Certainly, if the act becomes law, we'll have to discuss it the access article, but at this point in time nad this point in the text, we're just mentioning it in so far as it's a show of support from the government.

One main area of discussion right now is the Access to Government Resoureces section. One way the article could be better is if we moved some of the specific details about the access issue to the Government Resources article. RIght now, this article is hte only place to put that stuff, so we're putting each specific case here. The stuff should be in wikipedia somewhere, but this article probably doesn't need that level of specificity. I tweaked the sentence about "many localities" so that it is more vague about what kinds of laws they have-- it used to be ordinance is, but perhaps that's less accurate sinse ordinances implies only local laws-- not necessarily all the federal and state ones. I also changed "BSA policies are sometimes contrary to these laws" to "may sometimes be contrary", to be as NPOV on the issue as possible.

Another main area of dispute right now is the removal of text from the opposition section. I've addressed most of those above, but in particular, let me object to the removal of the Youth Organizations that don't exclude gays/atheists. The claim was basically made that these organizations don't actually OPPOSE discriminating against gays or atheists, and their non-discriminatory policies don't, in anyway, imply that those organizations oppose such discrimination. Structurally, the text was basically implying that these organizations feel "There's nothing wrong with the BSA's policies at all, there's nothing wrong with discriminations-- we just don't do it". I think this is a very original and unique intepretation of non-discrimination statements. When a government, university, business, or organization says "we do not practice discrimination", I think the logical conclusion is they don't believe in such discrimination-- not that they are cool with it, they just don't feel like doing it themselves.

In any case, that point is moot, because even if you don't think "prohibiting discrimination" necessarily implies "disapproving of discrimination", the fact remains that lots of the organizations (Girl Scouts and 4-H most notably) have explicitly stated their disapproval of the BSA's policy. Opponents also reference these organizations as pieces of evidence in their own argument that counter hte BSA's interpretation of Scouting (and youth-organization) values, so any way you swing it, these organization's prohibition of such discrimnation is a relevant part of the opposition.

--Alecmconroy 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Jagz-- I see that you've re-added part of the material I had deleted. As is usually the case when you revert me, I'm totally okay with it. :). Nothing I said above should prevent us from also discussing the WOSM requirements, as you did in the re-added material-- my objection was just to the complete removal of other youth organizations from the opposition section, not also to the broader discussion that occurs. I might suggest, stylistically, that you integrate that paragraph into the "Scouting Values affecting membership" rather than leave it in-between Opposition and Support. But, just a suggestion. --Alecmconroy 12:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an important point that the BSA did not adopt their policies because they were required to by WOSM and that other countries do not necessarily use the same policies. The policies are not universal in the Scouting movement. The section also touches on all 3 controversies. I'm tired of moving things around right now but it may need to be moved eventually. --Jagz 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am appreciative of Alec's careful documentation of what was done, rather that wholesale reverting. Of course, I disagree with some of the changes, and will respond as time permits. On the whole, we are converging, however, as most of the disagreements are about minor wording (some reintroduced POV) and such. One big issue still to be resolved is the impact of the girls issue. Per the discussion above, it is clear that everyone that commented (except Alec) recognizes that the girls issue was and is a relevant controversy, even though it is less visible than others at the moment. Watch the article for my updates and corrections. --NThurston 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made most of the "minor" revisions of Alec's fine work. However, there is a big problem that needs many eyes - the "other organization" sections. The current two-part format doesn't make any sense. This needs to be just one stand-alone section. Any interest in concensus? --NThurston 15:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

BSA Legal Issues Website

If you haven't figured it out yet, one of the primary purposes of this website, http://www.bsalegal.org/, is to disseminate biased propaganda. I was involved with this article for several months before it became obvious to me. People for the most part believe what they want to believe. --Jagz 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

By coincidence, I just made some comments on BSALegal over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA##Comments_from_Gadget850_.28_Ed.29. BSALegal presents articles on one of point of view, while Scouting for All, BSA Discrimination and Inclusive Scouting presents articles from a different point of view. All four sites are biased towards a particular agenda. Since BSALegal was registered well after the other sites, I would speculate that it was created at least partly in response to the other sites. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would rather that we cite articles directly instead of referring to the adopted versions on any advocacy web site, wherever possible. --NThurston 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. If a news article is on the original author's site AND mirrored on another site, we should always try to cite the original source, rather than the mirror of it. That's true in any case, but especially in cases here, where the mirror sites have their own non-neutral agenda on subject of the article. --Alecmconroy 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Other changes

Here are some discussions on my latest round of changes:

• GCW replaced my term "other youth organizations which prohibit discrimination" with "other organizations with different policies"-- yeah, that probably is a good call. I don't think it's necessarily a literal violation of NPOV to call the policies discrimination-- they clearly are discriminating, the only question is whether the policies are immoral discrimination or justified,necessarly discrimination. But in a larger sense-- yeah, "discrimination" has such a negative connotation that it's shorthand for "bad discrimination", and I shouldn't have used it-- I apologize for that, and thanks for pointing it out. I was trying to emphasize how the "different policies" are ipso facto a disagreement with the BSA's policies, since that didn't seem to be clear enough, but labelling the exclusion of homosexuals as "discrimination" shouldn't have been the way I did it. Thanks GC.
• There's a debate about whether "many" localities has laws that limit gov't support of organizations that practice discrimination. I actually think it's the case that all localities have some sort of laws of this kind (e.g. 1964 Civil Rights act). With regard to the BSA, the most relevant law here is the Establishment clause, its case-law intepretation (e.g. Torcaso v. Watkins), and a variety of different portions of US Code--- all together, these (it would seem) prohibit direct government sponsorship of the BSA. But ya know, I actually can live with "some" rather than many here, because I don't think it's ironclad, and if we go "some", we avoid the whole debate entirely about exactly which laws are appliciable, how many of them are there, are the laws constitutional, etc. The termination of all direct sponsorship strongly suggests, to me, that the answer to this question is "all", because Federal law is applicable to the entire nation. But, since that case never went to trial, it's not a done deal, there's still a lot of haziness about this issue, so I think "some" is acceptable. We'll know a lot more after Wikler v. Rumsfeld is concluded.
• WHOA-- I don't know where we (or more likely, I) got the idea that the oakland park Cub Scouts made such a dramatic defiance of policy and were punitively disbanded for it. The reference we had for it didn't say anything of the sort-- apparently they just informed BSA that the local laws over government sponsorship wouldn't allow the school to continue as the charter organization. Somehow I had it in my mind that some packs, unaffiliated with the school, boldly announced they were breaking with policy and got smacked down for it-- but googling around, I can't find any indication that anything even remotely that dramatic took place. Very embarassing for me, particular since I believe I reverted this particular change the just a few days ago. As it is, this seems like it's just a specific instance of the nation-wide "no direct governmental sponsorship of BSA". I left the text as is, but if this really is just a governmental sponsorship issue (not a "disagreement with BSA National issue"), then we probably don't need to even mention it. 10,000 packs/troops lost charter hosts-- there's wouldn't be any need to mention these few specific Oakland Park packs.
• Dave Rice being a "a married grandfather who is an active christian" got changed to "neither gay or atheist". That's a probably good change-- I think I didn't use that terminology because the sources don't explicitly say he's not gay or atheist, but it's strongly implied. In any case, I see now what you meant, NT, about a "martyr" paragraph-- implicit in the old wording is "Rice is a GRANDFATHER who's a GOOD CHRISTIAN-- would you want the bad old BSA being mean to a sweet little grandfather who goes to church and loves children, and american and freedom and apple pies?!?" lol. So, our NOR need to be literally accurate here ('married procreater' not necessarily implying 'not gay') is probably outweighed by our NPOV need to avoid portraying Rice as an adorable American Hero.
• "Other organizations which prohibit the exclusion of atheists or homosexuals." was changed to "Other organizations which have different membership policies". I tend to favor the former wording for reasons we've discussed, but if people think the latter is clear enough, I'm content not to beat people over the head the the point that other organizations explicitly disagree with BSA on this point. But I think the "prohibit exclusion" is more accurate-- a non-discrimination policy typically means "we actively don't let members of our business/university/organization discriminate"--- it usually doesn't mean "we have chosen not to require that our members discriminate". But if people think it's sufficiently clear in the text that the the organizations have disagreed with BSA-like policies, then I can live with simply characterizing them "different policies" in order for the text to seem less "lectury".
• Regarding "discrimination" vs "social discrimination". "Discrimination" is the term the critics use-- not "social discrimination". Organizations don't have "non-social-discrimination" policies, governments don't have "anti-social-discrimination" laws. If the social scientists use a more technical term, that's fine for the social science articles, but simple "discrimination" is the term used in this context. Personally, I find the term "social discrimination" misleading here-- when I hear it, I hear connotations of cliques and ostracism than race/religion/orientation issues.
• A reference was removed to "Discrimination in the BSA" which showed that critics regard the BSA policies as discriminatory. The claim is made that we need a reference to show that the Critics of these policies feel these policies are wrong/immoral/whatever. By all means, feel free to find and add one-- you can never have too many references-- I personally think it goes without saying that the critics feels the policies are wrong. Scouting for All's statment explicitly calls the policy immoral, as I'm sure most of the critics do. Do a google search and take our pick of your favorite cite.
• I believe the Coalition(s) for Inclusive Scouting are a series of affliated local chapters. So the link you're looking for-- one main unified page for all of the local groups "Coalition for Inclusive Scouting Official Site" emblazened across the top, is something I don't think exists. I re-added the reference-- if you look at hte bottom, the website explicitly mentions The Coalition for Inclusive Scouting is a program of G/LEARN, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization.. Again, this may not be the BEST reference for the existence of the organization, so feel free to replace it with a better one if they're out there--- but it does prove the organization exists.

Let me also say something about the referencing. In general dealing when dealing with references (not just on this page, but in general), if a reference link goes dead, don't remove it, because the reference still exists and can be useful to editors and readers who want to know where that information is. Additionally, most websites are stored in various archives (like here), so they are still accessable to researchers. We should of course look for new references that doesn't have a broken link, but don't delete the reference outright just because the link is dead-- then we won't remeber where we got what from where. Instead, just look for a new ref that says the same thing, adding the Fact tag as needed, and deleting the broken link only when the new references have made the old one superfluous. The situation is analgous to a book going out of print-- if you are writing a paper and you used that book as a source, you should still list it in your bibliography-- but it would be BETTER if you could use a non-out-of-print book instead.

Additionally, if you think a reference isn't sufficient to justify a statment, add a Citation Requested tag, but don't delete the reference. (With an obvious exception in cases where the reference is so unrelated that you think it's a mistake). This will signal to readers that the statement is not, in your eyes, justified by the reference, but they can still see what reference there is for it. It may be that the reference does in fact fully justify the sentence, but you didn't notice it. It may be that the reference partially-- but not completely justifies the sentence.

With regard to this specific issue-- I would't work to hard to find replacement links/archival links for all the Scouting For All references. Their main page says they're just having temporary server trouble.

--Alecmconroy 02:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

ACLU logo

Why does the ACLU logo keep getting removed? The only objection raised during the featured article candidate review was its location. It was relocated and the person who commented was satisfied. There were no additional comments. Not being a fan of the ACLU is not a sufficient reason for removing the logo. --Jagz 02:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should the ACLU logo be included?--Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The ACLU has had a major role concerning the membership controversies in recent times. Graphics and photos are sometimes used to make an article less boring. --Jagz 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the logo back in the article since there were no reasons given here for taking it out. --Jagz 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I believe it was removed because it doesn't really "illustrate" anything in that section. At the time, there was just a brief mention of the ACLU, then a great deal of talk about former Scouts, etc., hence the SFA logo was left in. I'm sort of split. I don't really think it adds anything informative to that section. At the same time, FA's usually have some good illustrations. I'm surprised that it made FA without some quality images to illustrate the articles. Certainly, we ought to be able to come up with something better. --NThurston 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not that the ACLU image is incredible, but, there oughta be a few images, and that one worked. This is a really hard topic to illustrate. There are a few political cartoons that represent the criticisms well [7] [8], but I worry that the evil laws of Copyright would probably prevent us from making use of them, and I worry they'd be more "prejudicial" than helpful in illustrating the discussion. A picture of some people with signs protesting for or against the policy might be useful, but back when I looked, I didn't find any that seems like they had the right combination of size, legibility, and copyright-not-owned-by-big-company status. --Alecmconroy 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Winkler v. Rumsfeld

Is Winkler v. Rumsfeld just about the issue of federal government funding of national Scout jamborees or does it also consider the issue of the BSA's special access to the Army base, Fort A.P. Hill, the home location of jamborees. --Jagz 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think realistically, the opponents do consider the mere access to be special and therefore objectionable, since there aren't any other gatherings of that magnitude at the base. Legally, however, the argument seems to center on the FUNDS that are spent, rather than just the land access permission, because that's a much more overt form of support than merely issuing a permit. It think both aspects are controversial, but the overt funding is an easier argument to make, legally, than just the land access. --Alecmconroy 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Old requests for peer review

Can this category be removed from the bottom of this page? --Jagz 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

LDS

Now that you have mentioned the LDS church, I must describe a local scenario involving it. There is a small LDS church about a mile from my Scout Hall. They run their own Cub Pack in their church hall, apparently as part of Scouts Australia, but find it difficult to get enough kids staying on to run a Scout Troop. There is a bigger LDS church around 10 miles away, and the church encourages parents to move their kids to the Scout Troop there. Sadly, very few end up carrying on in Scouting because of that extra travel for the parents, and perhaps the change of venue for the kids, and maybe fear of joining the new organization. I've had a handful of enquiries from LDS parents about joining our Troop, and been totally welcoming, but nothing has ever come of it. It's sad that we lose kids from Scouting because of the connection to the church being seen as more important from the very start. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on all counts. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, let me say I have a lot of experience in this matter. In my area we have numerous LDS troops. I have had lots of experience with LDS leaders, OA members, and even members of my troop have been LDS. Usually the only LDS boys that join non-LDS troops tend to be youth that are either both in a LDS troop and a "normal" troop to get the full scouting experience, they might be members of LDS groups that aren't part of the mainstream LDS church, or they just don't follow their religion to close. The primary problem LDS scouts have in "normal" troops is that your average troop doesn't allow for following of strict LDS policies. One policy involves people in the LDS faith not being allowed to travel from Saturday midnight throughout the day on Sunday except to and from church. Most scout troops camp Friday - Sunday so anyone closely following LDS regulations can't do that. At one point most of the leaders of our local OA chapter were all LDS and it made for some interesting planning for Ordeals since your entire leadership had to leave by Saturday at midnight and yet the Ordeal still went on. You will probably find more non-LDS scouts in LDS units then the other way around. Marauder40 (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(splitting in a new section) We should probably take this to your talk page but the LDS uses Scouting as their boy youth program in the US (and this may be true in Australia also). As such it is very closely integrated with their church, and, I suspect most such troops consist only of LDS boys. I think this is unique to the LDS. Other religious sponsored troops tend to be mixed religiously and don't differ from non-religious sponsored troops. --Erp (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I see this discussion as something that will enable improvement of this article, and thus relevant. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the chartered organization with the largest number of Scouts and formally uses the Scouting program as a part of its Young Men auxiliary.[9] The LDS does not endorse coeducational Scouting programs nor does it endorse or use programs of the Girl Scouts of the USA. The first-grade Tiger Cubs section of Cub Scouting is not used. As Boy Scouts reach age 14, they move to the Varsity Scouting program.

The LDS uses the programs of Scouts Canada in a similar formal manner and has some relationships with Scouts Australia, Scouting New Zealand, The Scout Association and others. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gadget850 Heck with Wikipedia, you ARE an encyclopedia in this area. You have the detailed facts on every topic that comes up. How do you do that? North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend.[10] And I do have a fair library. This is actually relevant, as we have nothing here on the BSA's relationships with the religious chartered organizations. I think the BSA is unique in it use of COs— I'm not aware that any other Scouting organization operates Scouting as a franchise where the CO owns the unit and is supposed to incorporate it into their youth program. This gives the COs influence with National, and obviously the biggest CO has the most influence. There is some material on this, but most are rants, and I have not found anything reliable. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sponsoring of units in the UK and Australia are not that different from chartering, although there are differences. I am no longer in touch with the details for sponsored units and have never fully understood chartered units in the US so can not comment further. I can comment on one difference. In both the UK and Australia sponsored units are declining relative to open units. In Australia they appear to be quite rare. I did know of a LDS Group with only a Cub Pack in the mid 1990s in Darwin, but it faded away. There were no other sponsored Groups in the Northern Territory although there were only a dozen or so Groups in total. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly true. But that influence is also multiplied by another factor. The fact that the numbers come from LDS making BSA an integral part of their program means that a simple decision (ending that particular practice) would have a very large impact on membership numbers. There is no similar situation with any other CO North8000 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You pointed to one of the main challenges of covering certain aspects of BSA. There are areas (such as the last few topics in this discussion section) where the real understanding (the forest vs. selected trees) is basically a synthesis from thousands of observations over decades. UnWikipedian (OR in a contested area)unless they published their findings elsewhere to cite.

In reality, any writing with any expertise is inherently OR, which cites that cover specific areas. So, where it is allowed (on non-controversial items) the system works. Where it is disallowed (as it must be) on controversial areas, you see a lot of unstable articles with eternal arm wrestling. This seem pervasive on Wikipedia articles covering contentious areas.

Maybe with a plan & consensus amongst the main contributors, this article could do two things that have not been done before .......a good, informative, stable article in a contentious area, and coverage of some of the hard-to-cover, not-covered-well-elsewhere BSA topics.

This would not require agreement on the ares of contention, just agreement on covering the controversy vs. something that is cleverly designed to bolster one or the other side of the controversy.

North8000 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever major debates about conservative BSA policies arise somebody says that if BSA became more open it would be at risk of losing massive membership numbers from the LDS chartered groups. But the controversy exists because LDS is, inevitably, always going to be pushing BSA towards its conservative position. I see a solution in the LDS church running its own Scouting based program and letting BSA get on with running Scouting for everybody else, and moving closer to how it is run in most other western nations. More kids would end up doing "Scouting". The only damage would be to the egos of those who see current membership numbers in their particular club as more important than becoming more inclusive.

But I agree that it's hard to document the issue. To me, it is built around the fact that BSA is driven by the chartered organizations. But are there any good sources on that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

First, a clarification of terminology is needed. In BSA terms, the CO is the local entity that charters one unit or one set of units (e.g. 1 cub pack & 1 scout troop). Most CO's have no clue what being a CO structurally is. They provide the meeting place (and maybe storage space) for the unit, the unit and it do a few other things for each other, and once a year they sign a piece of paper. They don't even know that they "own" the unit. Four very typical example of a CO might be 1. a local club, 2. a local chapter of the VFW, 3. a local Catholic Church, and 4. A local LDS church. #1 has no national level activity or influence. The national level org of #2 or #3 or #4 has a certain amount of influence being that of having a lot of CO's in their organization, and also a national organization that can speak nicely or badly of BSA. But what is more significant is that the national level on #4 also has practices/policies which PUT large amount of kids into BSA which gives them a lot of extra influence.

If you put any group together which has at least a few paid people working for it (e.g. a business, a governmental agency, an organization) invariably, getting eternally bigger and getting more money will become the defacto prime objectives of the "machine" that runs it. BSA included (in BSA's case, IMHO the "machine" is the unofficial national network of the paid professionals) Although such can be legitimate if it is merely a means to an end, which would be to serve more people, in BSA the "machine" often considers the "means" to be the mission and have the highest priority. Hence you see the scandals .....ghost members, ghost units, falsifying books to get rid of Scout camps etc. IMHO Low level professionals are considered successes if they get numbers of members/units and $ and do what their supervisors tell them to do and avoid big problems. And failures if they don't. Unfortunately it's as simple as that. BSA objectives are given lip service but are not even on that list of top 4 items. And so the "machine" would want as many atheist, agnostic and gay members as possible, as long as they don't cause problems by forcing confrontations on those issues. Of course, these are massive overgeneralizations, but useful ones.

Answering your "sources" question. I think what Wikipedia needs is some scholarly works that analyze all of this and publish their work to be cited. I don't know if that exists. Lacking that, you have to look for relevant "pieces" of information, the selection of which "pieces" to include is inherently POV. I.e. POV coverage through selection of material for "NPOV" coverage. I was thinking that these discussions here might be useful in developing a core of editors on both "sides" of these issues who understand the actual situation (good or bad as it may be) which would lay a foundation for significant progress in improvement of this article. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good explanation of the charter organization concept. In practice, it varies a lot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You can say that again. In reality you have CO that are totally absent and you can have some that are involved in every aspect of the troop. In reality it is usually somewhere in the middle. Most COs usually only get involved when there is a problem either within the scout troop (i.e. a kid/adult gets in major trouble) or outside the scout troop (i.e. the Catholic church requiring all adult volunteers to get background checks.) From my personal experience the LDS church seems to be the most hands on with their troops and troop sponsored by groups like the American Legion seem to be the most hands off (only seem to use their troops as a check mark on a American Legion form and at ceremonies.) Marauder40 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that the reference provided by Gadget850 gives an excellent overview of the official structure and intended practice. And Gadget's closing comment plus Marauder40's overview gives and accurate picture of the actual situation. Too bad it's all only in a discussion section North8000 (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that having such large numbers of paid employees is one of the issues for BSA. It's something not obvious to an outsider. And it would skew priorities towards more of a money-making, business model than one of providing a great program to the kids. But I would know where to start looking for citable material on that topic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. I had my sights set a little lower at the moment. There seems to be endless arm-wrestling on much more basic stuff in this article. I was thinking that an understanding developed in this discusion section could provide a foundation for moving towards improving the coverage of the simpler stuff. North8000 (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)