Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Expulsions for public disagreement with the policies

This statement in the subject section is not properly cited: "The Boy Scouts of America forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public or to youth members." Someone said it may be in the Scoutmasters Handbook but I don't have a copy of it. --Jagz 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You can probably check out Dave Rice's story on Scouting for All. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for the official BSA policy that says something to the effect that the BSA forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public. The Scouting for All site is down temporarily but I don't think there is anything there that makes that general of a statement; it says Dave Rice was removed for "involving Scouting youth" in his effort to have a BSA policy changed. I think that there needs to be clarification here. What does the Scoutmaster's Handbook say exactly, etc.? --Jagz 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the latest SMH at home- I will try to remember to check it out tonight. I do not recall any policy of this nature. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone commented that the "Scoutmaster Handbbook page 153 under uniforms alludes to it". --Jagz 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed again from the section so I rewrote it according to the information we have now. --Jagz 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have information on anyone other than Dave Rice being expelled? --Jagz 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As no one has found any since you first asked it it 4 months ago, the answer seems to be "No". No one has been to my knowledge, but then the discussions I heard about the issue followed BSA procedure through the districts and councils (not creating you own organization and encouraging Scouts to then promote it), thus there would be no reason to not renew a Leader's commission for the next year. (the more correct term than "being expelled") GCW50 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article introduction

Someone keeps changing the second paragraph of the introduction. Right now it states:

"The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character".[2][3] Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to discrimination. [4][5] BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards."

Any comments. Does it sound okay? --Jagz 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --evrik ^(talk) 16:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that it would sound good to you since you're the one who changed it. --Jagz 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • No need to get testy. --evrik ^(talk) 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you two please take a timeout on this? Just step back for a day or so and come back to this amiably. If you are this passionate about this, then you just need to let go a bit. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not upset by it. I thought the whole thing was amicable ... sort of. :-) --evrik ^(talk) 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My thought on the last sentence-- the "BSA advocates counter" is that introductions in particular are prone to having a runaway "back and forth" debate. Having "Side 1 says _____, and Side 2 says _______." is fine. But then you can get into "Side 1 counters.... and Side 2 counter-counters....", on and on. There's no logical way to end it-- one side can always have a logical reply back to something said by the other side.

Instead, I try to have the intro and the "pro-/con-" sections of page just go: "Side 1 believes its good because..." and then "Side 2 believes its bad because". I usually don't care who goes first, but I often bump into people who feel strong that having the "first impression" or the "last word" conveys some advantage, so I usually okay with whichever. If left to my own resources, I usually just pick whichever side seems to have held the position first to be the one that goes first.

So far, not having heard any good reason for its addition, I'd suggest removing the "BSA advocates counter" sentence. The sentiment is already covered when we say "The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character"" The intro gets it on the record that one side feels these policies are "Good" and very concise description of why. The intro then gets on record that the other side feels these policies are "Bad" and a very concise descrition of why. Boom. That's all the intro needs to be.

Obviously, the BSA and its supporters do feel the policies are lawful and therefore, not illegal discrimination. And critics would counter that legality does not imply morality. And supporters could reply that the policies are moral, and the law is just recognizing that. And critics could counter that the legality of the policies is a commentary more on libertarianism in the US constitution than the moral content of the policies. ANd .... so forth. Saying "BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards" doesn't really add any new information that isn't in the FIRST BSA sentence (which says the policies are "Good") or in the next paragraph )which definitively says the policies are legal).

Personally, I like the version we had up circa a week ago:

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to immoral discrimination.

It has that symmetry I talked about. Side 1: Good! Side 2: Bad! The end.

Looking through the history, I see the first objection to the was that the discrimination should be described as "legal" rather than "immoral". But I strongly disagree on that point, because the legality of the policies is not a point of dispute anymore, only the morality of the policies. The "crux" of the criticism is that the policies are somehow "bad", not that the policies are illegal. (Obviously, we need to mention that the policies ARE legal, which we do, in no uncertain terms, in the very next sentence).

Similarly, the next stab it was simply to say "critics contend the policies amount to discrimination"-- but this is again inaccrute, because whether or not the policies are (in the literal since of the word) "discrimination" is not being debated either. (To the extent that supporters of the policies dispute that word, it is because "discrimination", as commonly used, has become synonymous with '"'immoral discrimination"). In general, it seems unwise for us to remove "immoral" from the summary of the critics' POV or to insert "legal" in its place. While most critics DO admit the policies are legal (as show in the following sentence), this is hardly the point-- the critics don't object to the policies because they believe the policies are legal-- they object to the policies because they believe they are immorally discriminatory.

My vote, therefore, is to move back to the version as of a week ago (an edit I'll make in just a sec). This version:

• Gives each side one and only one sentence in the intro, so that we know they both exist.
• Lets each side very concisely "make their case", stating the tiniest kernel of their position.
• Immediately thereafter states the legality of the policies as an unequivocal fact, in no uncertain terms.

As such, there is no need to delete the critics' POV that the policies are immoral discrimination. Similarly, there's no reason to add in a additioanl sentence stating that the supporters think the critics are wrong-- this is implicit. Nor is there any reason to add a separate supporters' opinion that the policies are legal-- this is unequivocally stated as a fact in the following paragraph.

--Alecmconroy 16:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• The word immoral is loaded with POV. --evrik ^(talk) 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite right, it is-- it's the critic's POV. We, the "Wikipedia voice" cannot say the policies are immoral. The sentence "The BSA's policies are immoral." must NEVER appear in the article outside of a quote. But we can say that the critics regard the policy as immoral, which they do.

The flip-side of this is that it's loaded with POV to say that excluding gays/atheists will "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Two people could have a never ending debate over whether the policies instill or degrade ethical character in young people. But this sentence,too, is okay, so long as we attribute that view to the BSA.

--Alecmconroy 17:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I added the citation. I don't have a problem with the word "discrimination." I do have a problem with the word "immoral" which is what started this series of edits. --evrik ^(talk) 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal discrimination doesn't explain why people have filed lawsuits. If they filed lawsuits, they must have thought it was illegal. People are not required to have NPOV beliefs. Beliefs are inherently POV. People's beliefs can't be legislated or dictated (however, their actions can be). --Jagz 18:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• That may be putting the cart before the horse...

1. People got kicked out
2. They filed suit
3. They Dale case went to the Supreme Court
4. The Boy Scouts were affirmed in their right to exclude people who don't meet the membership standards.

--evrik ^(talk) 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Return to last week's intro

Okay, I've again returned the intro to last week's intro. As of this moment, there isn't a consensus to change it, so we talk about it until there is one.

Evrik-- I'm sure that some people do have a problem that critics of the BSA consider the policies to be immoral. I'm sure that many opponents of the policies similarly have a problem with the fact that the supporters of the BSA consider homosexuality to be immoral, or that the BSA feels that excluding gays&atheists helps children become more ethical. I'm know for a fact that BOTH sides have deep problems with the POVs of the other side.

However, your disagreeing with the critics' POV does not cause them to cease to exist, or cause their point of view to no longer be revelent. The fact is, critics DO feel the policies are immoral discrimination. That's just how they feel. May be right, may be wrong, but that's they way they feel about the subject. That's why there's an article about this in the first place-- if you DIDN'T have a problem with them calling hte policies immoral, and if they didn't have a problem with the BSA calling homosexuality/atheism, then we wouldn't have an article here in the first place.

If you want the critic's point of view removed, it is not sufficient for you to argue that their point of view is wrong, or that you take issue with it. We don't debate the issues, we don't decide the issues, we just cover 'em, ya know? If you want the statement taken out, you need to prove that the critics do NOT believe that the policies are immoral discrimination. Saying that YOU don't believe they are immoral discrimination does not help your case in any way, because we're not saying that you believe that, we're saying the critics believe that. To remove it, you have to say that the critics some DON'T believe it's immoral discrimination.

I think this is a very difficult case to make, because there are a number of primary sources in which the critics refer to the policies as a) "discriminatory" b)"immoral" and c) "immoral policies of discrimination". See, for example this page which bears a title Scouting For All's National Day of Protest Against the Boy Scouts of America's Immoral Policy of Discrimination Against Gay Youth and Adults. Or take the critical site BSA-discrimination.org, the url and site name both mentioning "Discrimination in the BSA".

In addition to the deletion of the critic's views on immorality, the reorg edit had some other issues. The additional counter argument "BSA advocates counter that it is not discrimination, but is adherence to their membership standards" was re-added, despite my above expressed concerns. (As an interesting bonus, also note how the sentence rebuts a "phantom" criticism that was itself deleted from the article in that reorganization").

Lastly, and this, like all of the things i've said, is something we can discuss. I personally prefer 3 paragraphs to 2. Paragraph 1: Here's the situation. 2: Here's each side's POV. 3: Legal issues. Merging 2 into 1 is, to me, conflating two very distinct ideas. --Alecmconroy 18:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the word immoral. I'm just fine with no word before discrimination or using the word "legal" which is also used by anti-BSA people.
  • http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+Boys+Scouts%2C+legal+right+to+discriminate
  • http://atheism.about.com/b/a/257901.htm
  • http://www.commondreams.org/views/092400-105.htm
  • http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258300.htm

--evrik ^(talk) 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal discrimination doesn't explain why people have filed lawsuits. If they filed lawsuits, they must have thought it was illegal. Why do you keep bringing up "legal" discrimination when it doesn't make sense in this context? --Jagz 20:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will refer you to lawsuit... something doesn't have to be illegal or even immoral for a suit to be filed. People just have to disagree (and in most cases the law has supported the BSA). I bring up the word legal because I find it an acceptable alternative to the word immoral. --evrik ^(talk) 20:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See, that's just the point exactly. the legality and the morality are two completely separate issues. Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be immoral. The critics's point of view is that it is immoral, period. It's a fact that they feel that. If you want that fact removed, you have to start convincing all the critics in the country that the BSA's policies aren't immoral, and when all their sites and the reliable news sources report that the critics have changed their minds, THEN you can remove it. What I think, or what you think, or what Wikipedia thinks-- those are irrelevant. There are critics, they do have a POV, and we have to convey that POV.

Anyway, thank you for not editing it back and forth. Putting up the POV tag is a much better alternative. Now I will go ahead and post this on RFC and see what people think about which version is better and whether the current wording violates NPOV.

--Alecmconroy 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, but there are critics who also call it 'legal discrimination.' I'm okay with the word discrimination, but the (im)moralizing in inserting the word immoral is where I draw the line. If some people use the word immoral, so what - they're trying to make a point - and it's not neutral. The fact is, I could have cited this article Boy Scouts Beat Sodomites 362-12, or United Way supports babykillers and sodomites just to make a point. Drop the word immoral, and we can call it a compromise. --evrik ^(talk)

Why would someome file a lawsuit over something they thought was legal or lawful? It would be a waste of time and money. I don't think you've read the whole article, at least not carefully. Try reading it carefully along with the articles that are linked like the lawsuit articles. I like the term "unfair" discrimination myself. --Jagz 22:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Jagz ... though I don't regularly edit this article, I'm surprised that you don't remember that I'm the one who prompted the creation of this page last year. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember your username. You seem like someone with strong religious convictions. Maybe that is the source of your motivation here. By the way, using bullets the way you do is kind of disruptive because it's hard to make out the chronological order that things were written. --Jagz 00:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference, however, is that the titles are _our_ words-- Wikipedia's words. In the title, we declare things to be fact or fiction-- titles must RIGIDLY adhere to a neutral wording. In the article however, sometimes we are speaking as "Wikipedia". But when we summarize the views of others, we should present their views directly-- being careful to be balanced. Note, for example that the BSA's views are presented in what would be a non-neutral fashion, were we not explicitly attributing those views to the BSA and it's supporters.

Your proposal for a compromise is kind of you, and I appreciate the sentiment. I do think, however, it's better to go foward in cases like this, and see what others think, so that we can both better learn "what NPOV means". If we compromise, we sort of escape having to go through the learning process of figuring out which NPOV interpretation is right. But, no worries-- a Request For Comment isn't an adversarial, hateful thing-- nobody will get blocked, no harsh words need be shed. Just asking for a few eyeballs to come check our work.  :)

--Alecmconroy 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict ...

• Great, you want neutraility? The intro sets the tone for the article. Just drop both the words immoral and legal. We'll just leave the word Discrimination ... that we can agree upon. --evrik ^(talk) 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, I seem to think somebody objected to that solution a while back and said it wasn't clear enough or something, but it might have been me that objected! :). In my opinion, immoral discriminiation best sums up the critical POV, because if we take the word in the literalest sense, everyone can agree that the BSA policies are, technically, a form of discrimination. The real crux of the controversy-- the thing that really separates the pros- from the cons-, is whether that discrimination is an immoral kind of discrimination (like banning all blacks would be) or very moral kind of discrimination (like banning all convincted sex offenders). --Alecmconroy 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

let's all not edit the sentence in dispute since i've gone ahead and written the RFC all out, it will confuse users if we change it around during the discussion. The NPOV tag is up, and it will stay up until there's a consensus-- so our readers will be informed that some part of the page is being disputed, and will know ot read it with an even-more-careful eye. Incidentally, Evrik, I think you've done four reverts on this now and technically could get like a 24 hour block or something-- so, let's not do that, let's freeze the intro for the time being. --Alecmconroy 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• For the record in the last 24 hours Jagz has five substantive reversions on that paragraph (with two minor changes), you have three substantive changes (with no minor changes), and I have four substantive changes (and five minor) - so n o one has clean hands here. --evrik ^(talk) 23:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request For Comment

This disagreement is over what the second paragraph of the introduction should be

The Initial Version

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to immoral discrimination.

(emphasis added)

Proposed Version 1

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and amount to illegal discrimination.

(emphasis added)

Proposed Version 2

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discrimination.

Proposed Version 3

Critics believe that these policies are wrong and are discrimination. The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these exclusionary policies are not discrimination, but simply adherence to membership standards.

Proposed Version 4

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these membership policies are essential because having atheists, agnostics, or homosexuals as members would impede its mission of instilling in young people the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law in order to prepare them to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong, and that having discriminatory membership policies instills bad values in Scouts and is unfair to those who are unable to participate.

Proposed Version 5

The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission of instilling in young people the the traditional values of the Scout Oath and Law. Critics believe that some or all of these policies are unfair, politically incorrect, and bigoted.

The questions

1. Which version is best?
2. Does the current version violate NPOV?

Statements by current editors

• The initial version is best. It is a well-cited fact that the critics do indeed regard the policies as immoral discrimination. On the other hand, it may or may not be true that all the critics regard the discrimination as legal-- i.e. complying with all federal, state, and local laws. This sentence should summarize the position of the critics, and their position is that they opppose the policies because they believe them to be immoral. It is not their position that they oppose the policies because they believe them to be legal. I believe the current version best conveys the nature of the controversy, and I do not feel it poses any NPOV problems. Similaly, the BSA's official statement, found in the initial version, does the best job of conveying the BSA's point of view. --Alecmconroy 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• I think the word immoral is not neutral and that the entire paragraph should be rewritten and this text should be dropped because it is found later in the article

  ... are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character".

  I would like to see Proposed Version 3 used. --evrik ^(talk) 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Version 4 - Over the top and full of POV. --evrik ^(talk) 02:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Version 4 hits the nail on the head. --Jagz 03:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments by outside editors

There are some people who believe it is illegal, some people who believe it is wrong, some people who believe it is immoral, and some people who believe it is a combination of the above. The only thing that all these critics agree on is that it is discrimination. In any case, the above three qualities are all quite clearly judgmental, and any one of those adjectives ought to be sourced. Something along the lines of "Critics believe that this is discrimination, and some say that it is immoral (source) or illegal (source)." - Che Nuevara 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah the initial version, i.e. the version we've been using before this most recent content dispute is sourced (see this version of the article). There are critics who believe that the policies are legal. I know of no critics who do not believe the policies are immoral. --Alecmconroy 08:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Version 2 is the best and most neutral version. The one change I would make is in the last sentence. "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory." Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completly with Ramsquire. JBKramer 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire changed his choice from Version 3 to 2, so I guess you don't agree with him anymore. --Jagz 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't change my choice. The listing of the versions is confusing. For some reason "version 2" is actually the third version listed on the page. The version I support, and have always supported is this one.

“ The Boy Scouts of America and its supporters contend that these policies are essential in its mission to "instill in young people lifetime values and develop in them ethical character". Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and discriminatory. ”

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not substantially invested in version 2 vs version 3, the only difference appearing to be order and quote/paraphrase. Version 1 and the current version are bad. JBKramer 20:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the results so far

Seems like there's a fair amount of consensus behind what is currently label "version 2". (and please, no one change the labeling around :) ). That's the version that says has neither "immoral", "illegal" or "legal", but just says "... Critics believe that some or all of these policies are wrong and are discriminatory."

I think the initial version is better, but I can certainly live with that one, no question asked. I think Jagz can live with it. (correct me if you object to it though Jagz). Evrik is the one who proposed it in the first place, so I think that he could live with it. Ramsquire thinks it's the optimal verison, and JBKramer has listed it as one of his two favorites.

Having seen so many independent eyeballs endorse dropping the word "immoral", I'm satisfied, therefore, that Version 2 is the consensus version, and I'd be cool with using that version and calling it good. If however, anyone wants to wait for more opinions, that's totally fine. For my part, however, I'm now satisfied that Version 2, the "compromise" solution Evrik, is not just a "compromise" but an actual consesus". --Alecmconroy 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should avoid the use of the word discrimination all together. How about Version 5? --Jagz 23:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer #3, but can live with #2. --evrik ^(talk) 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Version #2 and #3 use the word discrimination. I think we should avoid the word discrimination since that may imply something illegal. (However, "legal discrimination" can't be used in this context because people do not normally file lawsuits when they think that something is lawful.) --Jagz 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think most people understand that discrimination is different than lawfulness-- indeed the examples of racial discrimination that most easily jump into our mind are those in which laws mandated discrimination-- the anti-jewish laws of the early Nazi period, the Jim Crow laws of the American South, and Apartheid of South Africa. Discriminatory is the word I hear critics most often use, I think.

"The policies are unfair, politically incorrect, and bigoted."? That critics would call the policies unfair is true, but I don't think the critics typically would use the other two terms, although i don't know many critics, so perhaps they would. "Politically incorrect" is usually used as a term to demean action that are really harmless but which are often objected to on insubstantial grounds-- i.e. it would the supporters of the BSA that would say "The policies aren't wrong, they're just another example of 'political correctness' gone overboard".

Bigoted is in the neighborhood of what some critics would say, but I think it's a step beyond what the "bulk" of the critics would say. Certainly, you get people comparied the BSA to the KKK, because that's how shocking arguments are made, I get the feeling that the majority of the critics are criticizing the policies more than than people, and wouldn't apply the term "bigoted" to BSA, which most seem to feel is a "basically good (or formerly good) organization which made some bad choices". I think some reference to discrimination is the best summary of what I hear critics say-- they liken the treatment of gays and atheists to the race-based discriminations done against blacks and jews. Even if that's not legally true, that's still the "vibe" they send out.

--Alecmconroy 01:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you'll find the word bigot or bigoted used on the Scouting for All website. If you just use the words wrong and discriminatory, people may not know what you're talking about exactly. Maybe by adding a few more words or different words you can be more specific. Right now though, people are going to think we're talking about atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, and girls because of the way the previous paragraph is now worded. I don't think that you're intending to refer to the girls issue. --Jagz 02:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is that the BSA doesn't contend that excluding girls is essential in its mission to "instill in young people...". They exlcude girls for other reasons. --Jagz 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think if you asked the BSA, they would say that being boys-only does further their mission. I did like adding the additional term "immoral" to discriminatory to underscore that may people think the policies are a type of particularly bad discrimination, as opposed discriminations that are less controversial (the BSA's age and gender requirements, for example).

But I don't think "bigoted" is the word. I'm certain that "politically incorrect" isn't. Bigoted, to me, crosses a line and talks more about people than policy. Certainly, many critics DO make that leap, but many other critics adamently avoid it. I also wouldn't mind saying "amount to unfair discrimination" or some other such stuff, or some other modifier on the policy-- for some odd reason, I feel like "amounts to bigotry" would be better than "bigoted", but I can't really explain why. Isn't that weird. Crazy brain.

Anyway, I definitely get the feeling that our current critics sentence doesn't quite "nail" the criticism-- but on the other hand, all the intro really has to say is "BSA says its good. Critics say its bad". So long as a sentence quickly and concisely does that without creating any problems its own, it basically does the job. I do think that just saying "wrong and amounts to discriminatory" probably isnt' the "perfect" sentence though. -Alecmconroy 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use discrimination or discriminatory. It seems like the BSA's values are really the source of the discrimination though, not the policies. The policies reflect the values and are apparently necessary as otherwise it would confuse or interfere with BSA's "expressive message". See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. I reorganized some of the sentences in the introduction to separate the girls issue somewhat from the others. --Jagz 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :

Well, that's a whole other debate that isn't as notable enough for us to cover, but it's going on below the surface. Some supporters insist the BSA values compel the policies, and I'm sure there must be some supporters who think the old values didn't but BSA should adopt more stringent values. There are critics, meanwhile, who insist BSA values actually prohibit the policies-- in this view, the BSA is a basically non-discriminatory organization that has been 'hijacked' since the 1980s by more conservative elements. And then there are critics who believe the BSA's values do compel the policies, and the values are wrong. The most common viewpoint are the 1st and 3rd, but I've bumped in to the other two along the way. --Alecmconroy 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Discrimination" implies something illegal, while "discriminatory" implies something wrong but not necessarily illegal. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with discriminatory too. Would it be okay to change "wrong and discriminatory" to "immoral and discriminatory"? 'wrong' just sounds kinda juvenile to me compared with immoral. lol. --Alecmconroy 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How about just discriminatory? The wrong/immoral disctinction would be covered by that word. Immoral can be a much more loaded word than wrong and could violate NPOV by its use. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, ya'll are the boss, so to speak. Clearly some people an issue with saying that the critics think it's immoral. I myself don't see how that's any different, substantively, from saying they're "wrong". Look up the definition for "wrong" and meaning one is "immoral". So for that reason, it's just a minor syntactic issue, not really worth losing sleep over, but as long as we're talking about it, I might as well mention that I do for some stylistic reason like "immoral" more than "wrong".

How is "immoral" in any way a NPOV violation? The critics do think it's immoral, which is all we're saying. We have plenty of sentences that explain why the BSA feels its moral values compel the policies, after all.

In any case, you're right-- discriminatory is better. I actually thoguht it sounded better before but somehow got distracted and forgot it hadn't been used. And now that you mention the legal distiction, it's definitely better. --Alecmconroy 19:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, my beef with immoral is that it leads towards violating some religious belief or something (e.g. fornication, adultery, etc. ). I could be wrong about that. "Wrong" doesn't have that connotation. However, simply using discriminatory accurately describes the position of the critics, and doesn't get into whether "immoral" is POV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there is also impermissable and we could check a thesaurus. Note that there are two sorts of critics. One who would like the BSA to change and that the discrimination is against what scouting stands for and one who feel that the BSA can set what criteria it wants (much like a Jewish youth org might only allow Jews) but that special government support for groups that discriminate on either sexual orientation or religion should not be allowed (some critics hold both views). We need words that cover both categories.--Erp 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The BSA interprets their values in a way that allows them to justify their membership policies. It's a circular argument. --Jagz 07:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Membership size

The following sentence was removed from the subject section: "The practice, presumably done to obtain more grant money and so that paid professional Scouters can retain their positions, may have been going on for years but only recently has it been reported by the media." Let's put in the findings of the various investigations and/or litigation on this issue instead. --Jagz 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I substituted in another sentence a while back. Does anyone know the results of the FBI investigation into some BSA councils' practice of padding of membership numbers to get more money from the United Way, etc.? --Jagz 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical membership controversies

How about the idea of adding a section on historical membership controversies? It can mention racial segregation and how women were excluded from leadership positions, then just Scoutmaster positions before being being allowed to hold all positions. --Jagz 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Those subjects and more are covered in History of the Boy Scouts of America. I added a section on Early Controversies that covers a bunch of stuff that suprised me. The women in leadership is covered later in the article. I need to get back to this and add the sources and do some more expansion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the following in an old version of this article. Not sure if you can use any of it in the History of the BSA article:

"The Boy Scouts give female adult leaders all of the privileges of male adult leaders. Although this was not true in decades past, the policy was instituted in response to a shortage of adult males willing to participate actively in running the troops. While many scouting adults do have their own children in the program, it is not necessary to have a child in the program to be actively involved with a scout unit.

Until 1954, the Boy Scouts of America was a racially segregated organization. Colored Troops, as they were officially known, were given little support from Districts, Councils and the national offices. Some scouting executives and leaders believed that Colored Scouts and Leaders would be less able to live up to the ideals of the Boy Scouts.

In the 1980s, some Boy Scout troops in the Eastern United States were involved in a scandal resulting in violence occurring on campout trips. In Virginia, a report surfaced that a scout had been badly beaten by fellow scouts at the Goshen, Virginia Boy Scout Camp. Further reports followed of bullying of younger scouts by older scouts, especially on prolonged outdoor trips where adult supervision was limited. Parents challenged the Boy Scouts attitude to such instances, since several adult leaders were quoted as saying that scouts in the field should "know how to take care of themselves" and that "natural horseplay" on campout trips was not a problem.

To prevent such incidents and other forms of child abuse, the BSA developed an extensive Youth Protection Plan in the mid-eighties that actively teaches both youth members and adult leaders in how to recognise, resist and report child abuse in both Scout and non-Scout venues. In addition, it provides tight requirements on adult leadership and activities to help ensure that Scouting is a safe venue for its participants. Several Scouts have been expelled from the organization for violence." --Jagz 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is from the BSA legal site:[1]

"Quinnipiac Council v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 528 A.2d 352 (Conn. 1987) A female volunteer leader sued a Boy Scout council alleging that the then policy of limited Scoutmaster positions to men violated the Connecticut public accommodations law. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the public accommodations law did not apply to Scouting’s leadership positions because volunteering to serve youth was not a right protected under that law.

In 1988, Boy Scouts of America changed the policy and allowed women to be Scoutmasters." --Jagz 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

The article discusses the close ties between the Mormon church and the BSA but says nothing about the Roman Catholic Church. I think that the Roman Catholic Church sponsors a lot of troops, etc., however, I can't think of anything worthwhile to add to the article but maybe someone else can. --Jagz 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Review of article

I went through the whole article recently and did some rewording and reordered some of the sentences. --Jagz 22:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Female leaders

Woman who opened doors to women in Boy Scout leadership dies: [2] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Controversies and Concerns article needs expansion

The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies from countries and regions around the world. --Jagz 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The name of the article changed to Scouting controversy and conflict. --Jagz 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on atheists and agnostics

The following comment was posted in the article so I moved it to the Talk page: --Jagz 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"During the 1970's and before, admitted atheists and agnostics were freely allowed to be members of Scouting and advance in rank up to and including Eagle Scout in many local scouting organizations at the local level. Many of these former scouts post messages on atheist, humanist, and agnostic websites to discuss their experiences in Boy Scouts."

Should the article say that prior to a certain year, atheists/agnostics and/or gays were not necessarily expelled from the BSA? Maybe things were more lenient until recent years? --Jagz 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think to be exact many (but not all) local groups turned a blind eye to atheists and agnostics in the ranks; this is probably still true (and gays have probably been added to the list that blind eyes are turned to). The difference seems to have been that in the past National also turned a blind eye. However this is speculation and without evidence or reference this should not be in the article. --Erp 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Erp- most units probably have an informal "don't ask, don't tell". After Cradle of Liberty council got in heat with National when they formally adopted such a policy, I suspect no one is willing to commit that to paper. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Added new section

I added a new section to the article called Break up of Explorer Scouts. --Jagz 08:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Explorer Scouts are part of The Scout Association in the UK. In the BSA, the program is Exploring and is now part of the subsidiary Learning for Life. This happened almost 10 years ago, so it might better belong in the history. You might also want to define Exploring (Learning for Life) and Learning for Life. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section but referred to the issue in the History article. --Jagz 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Star Scouting America

Does anyone know about Star Scouting America?[3] I wonder how many members they have, etc. --Jagz 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for Youthscouts [4]. BTW, it is interesting to note that Youthscouts used Wikipedia as a reference during their trademark dispute with the BSA.[5] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed Star Scouting America from the "Scouting and youth organizations with different policies" section because it seems to be a fledgling organization and I don't know how many members it has. Feel free to replace it with another organization if you can think of one. --Jagz 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why not do the same for Youthscouts? GCW50 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is active and pending litigation. --Jagz 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the other Scouting groups to Scouting in the United States. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

UUA

Someone should update the "Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program" section, here's a site on the current status of that program: http://www.uuscouters.org/

Actually there are two competing programs. The one you list above recognized by the BSA but not by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the one developed by the UUA but not recognized by the BSA. You might find UUA comment on the new program--Erp 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is explained on the main article at Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program. --Jagz 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Camp Fire USA

Camp Fire USA is listed in the article as not excluding atheists. Is this true? See their Law below. --Jagz 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Camp Fire Law is:
Worship God.
Seek beauty.
Give service.
Pursue knowledge.
Be trustworthy.
Hold on to health.
Glorify work.
Be happy.

You are apparently not required to follow the law to be a member.

That makes for a meaningful experience for kids . "We stand for something, but you get to pick and choose which rules you like" GCW50 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Camp Fire USA Law, which dates from the first few years of Camp Fire, was originally the Wood Gatherer’s Desire. In 1942 the words “Worship God,” implicit in the whole statement, were explicitly given as the first item of the law. The word “law” is sometimes misleading, however. At no time in the organization’s history has a Camp Fire member been asked to take any oath or make any promise. The Camp Fire law is a desire or a goal, not an oath. We believe that children and youth are our most precious resources.

http://www.campfireusaihc.org/campfireusalaw.html There also doesn't seem to be any national policy of asking known atheists to leave. --Erp 00:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Main Page

What's the chance of this article ever appearing on the Main Page? --Jagz 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting for All

Their new website is set to go live on 15 March 2007. References linking to the site should be checked at that point. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The new website is live. The reference links from here are still 404. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been over a month, but none of the referenced articles from Scouting for All are available. These are references 42, 52, 58, 59, 65 and 66- some fix needs to be made here. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly

You can now get a BSA version of the game Monopoly.[6] --Jagz 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also get ones on birds, sports teams and almost every other subject. It's a specious argument. GCW50 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Coalition for Inclusive Scouting

What happened to the Coalition for Inclusive Scouting's website?[7] --Jagz 04:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Scouting membership policies

I expanded the subject section. Please don't use the Monopoly section to discuss items that should be in the subject section. --Jagz 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairness

Is it fair of the BSA to not allow certain segments of the US population to become members while maintaining a monopoly of Scouting for boys? --Jagz 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page is not for debating, the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. JoshuaZ 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I put a Fairness section in the article? --Jagz 04:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources that discuss that, I don't see why not, but I think as an organizational matter it would make more sense to quote what critics have to say about each individual issue within the sections on those issues. JoshuaZ 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Monopoly section is a circular argument - "BSA is a monopoly because it is a monopoly". While it may appear to be a monopoly to you, it is not the only Scouting organization for boys - it's just the most successful. Using the term monopoly means there are no other similar programs and implies that the BSA is making efforts to make sure no other similar program can succeed. It implies at least a nefarious intent, which would seem to be a POV statement. --Habap 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct - The Royal Rangers is very similar to Scouting (with much more religion than BSA's non-denominational stance) but BSA doesn't care because they don't use the word Scout. Hence BSA doesn't have a monopoly on youth outdoor programs. And as we said, monopoly is an economic term, not applicable in this contest. If you go down the fairness route, that section would be entirely a POV battleground. One person's fairness is anothers outrage GCW50 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What if the Ford Motor Company had sued General Motors and Chrysler to get them to stop using the words car, auto, automobile, and horseless carriage? How would GM and Chrysler have been able to remain competitive if they couldn't use those words? --Jagz 19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A good point. I single organisation with name ownership not only prevents the use of the known and attractive term "Scouting" for its activities but in the case of BSA prevents other organisations from taking part in the very attractive international activities of Scouting such as Jamborees. Whether this is a sufficient issue in the USA backed up with sources to discuss it on WP I do not know. --Bduke 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It applies to almost every country. Only WOSM member organizations can send contingents to International Jamborees GCW50 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Federal charter

Federal charters are honorary titles that serve as a prestigious national recognition of an organization.[8] What were the reasons that the federal government granted the BSA a charter? --Jagz 13:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The BSA charter is a bit more than honorary, as it adds an extra measure of protection to trademarks and copyrights. BTW- as I understand it, Boyce tried to get a charter in 1910 or so, but it got tied up with Hearst over some issue. West finally got the charter through in 1916 as part of his attempts to keep the BSA trademark from being diluted. Frankly, this is no different than any other corporation protecting its marks. The BSA has never gone after other youth organizations per se (and indeed helped to start the Camp Fire Girls), only after groups misusing a trademark. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't the BSA go after the American Boy Scouts? Why didn't they just go through the same trademark procedures they used with the Youthscouts?[9] According to this[10], it appears that the BSA did not have registered trademarks until the 1980's. --Jagz 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

{There are several errors in that document, such as the use of Girl Scout of America.} The BSA may not have registered the marks as they were protected under federal charter. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

From my reading, the BSA did pursue the ABS (and others), but only because of their use of Boy Scout. Intellectual property laws were much different a century ago, so the current procedures probably did not exist. I do not know how trademarks were handled at the turn of the last century, but I do know a bit about sound recording copyrights. Sound recordings such as records did not have a Federal copyright until 1972, but every state had a different copyright law. Thus, protecting the copyright on a record would have been a frustrating exercise. Since the BSA had a federal charter, they had clear rights across the US.

Federal charters under Title 36 of the United States Code seem to vary from simply honorary to groups with close ties to the government. The American Red Cross is a prime example of a non-profit organization with close federal ties. [11]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The BSA would have to have a legal basis to take action against another youth group. It would be virtually impossible to have another Scouting organization in the USA if they were not allowed to use words such as Scouting and Scout. --Jagz 21:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is a precedent as they won against the American Boy Scouts and again when they changed to the United States Boy Scouts. Again, this is not really remarkable- in order to protect a trademark, the owner must defend it, else it will become genericized. Searching the United States Patent and Trademark Office, I find a number of disputes involving the BSA. There are also some involving the GSUSA, Camp Fire USA, the YMCA and ARC.

• Maybe the reason that the BSA requested a federal charter was different than the reason the federal government granted them a charter. --Jagz 14:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of the USA

The fact that the Girl Scouts is for girls and young women only is clearly stated in the Coeducational Scouting section that is linked in the Mainstream Scouting membership policies section. I believe I am the one who wrote it. It does not need to be included in the article again.

The Opposition to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies section is by design slanted against the BSA in the same way that the Support for the Boy Scouts of America section is slanted in favor of the BSA. The two sections were designed to balance each other out. I am opposed to anyone going into either of the sections and start trying to neutralize them or otherwise change the slant of the sections. --Jagz 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Lack of competition

After the founding of the Boy Scouts of America...

There were Scouting and Scout-like groups before the BSA. Several were folded into the BSA, but some stuck around for some time.

federal incorporation

The BSA was incorporated in 1910.

GCW50 said it became a New York corporation in 1910, not a federal one. --Jagz 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The BSA was incorporated in Washington, DC in Feb 1910 and moved to NYC in Jun 1910. I don't think the US has anything like a federal corporation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The charter says Washington, DC also. --Jagz 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked the specifics as written in the 1937 BSA History ("Murray"). One of the precessor organizationss was incorporated in New York and the BSA itself was in DC in 1910. Then in late February 1917, (after the Charter was signed by the President) they met in Washington, dissolved the previous organization, and reincorporated under the Federal Charter. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that allows their incorporation to take precedence over any competing body incorporated at a state level, so they don't have to fight in every state. GSUSA, the Red Cross and I think some things like ComSat are similarly organized, but you need to get a Federal Charter first to do so. Also BSA is required to annually present it's annual report to Congress, something state incorporated bodies are not required to do GCW50 14:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Youthscouts documents say reincorporation although I'm not sure if it is important to this article. --Jagz 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Federal charters are intended as honorary titles that serve as a prestigious national recognition of an organization.[4]

The BSA charter is more than honorary. As noted in the next section, it gives it exclusive rights to emblems and the like. This was probably important at the time as copyright laws were quite different and quite spotty (see my previous remarks above). It is important now, as the charter means that there is no expiration on any trademark or patent. A federal charter is certainly more than honorary to the Red Cross per my comments above.

The wikipedia entry on charters defines them as "A charter is a legally binding document incorporating an organization or institution and specifying its purpose, remit or bylaws." So the federal charter makes BSA a federal corporation. GCW50 14:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

More recently, in 2003, the BSA filed litigation with the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board against the Youthscouts

This rather implies that the BSA is targeting the Youthscouts. This isn't correct- from the USPTO site, it appears that the BSA is actively protecting the uses of terms such as Scout, Scouting, Tiger Cub, Pinewood Derby, Scouting/USA, Jamboree, BSA, Explorer and Codemaster.

A result of the BSA's protection activities has been the suppression of rival organizations.

This is going to need a definite cite. If an organization that has to give up the Scout name went out of business, then that really reflects on weaknesses in the organization. If you are specifically referring to the ABS, then I should point out that from the little I can find, the ABS was never that strong, and Hearst withdrew support early on. The BSA never legally pursued the Lone Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts of the USA. West did have issues with the Girl Scouts of America name and he was upset with the LSA, but he never took legal action.

Alternate Scouting organizations could have different membership policies. Additional significant Scouting organizations in the United States could make Scouting available to Americans who are not allowed to be members of the BSA's programs.

These statements are speculative and smack of original research. Indeed, alternative programs such as the American Heritage Girls that split from the GSUSA have more exlusive membership requirements.

And WOSM probably wouldn't endorse a new Scouting organization in the US, even if BSA ever said it would have no objections. WOSM was founded in 1920 with strong input from the UK SA and BSA with the idea of only having one non-denominational Scouting organization per country, as separate organizations go against the concept of being a "brother to every other Scout". But since it was already 13 years since the Scouting movement began, there were some countries that already had multiple organizations, mostly segregated by religion in Europe and European colonies. Those countries had to agree to a national federation to be admitted to WOSM. But the WOSM endorsed trend is CONSOLIDATION of spreviously segregated organizations within countries, not creation of new federations. This is shown in Ireland and South Africa and to some extent in Canada, where the only difference now is the primary language actually spoken in the troop. The concept of WOSM ever endorsing the creation of a second splinter Scouting organization in a member country strains belief. GCW50 14:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The meat of this section is that the BSA is acting as a monopoly and keeping any other groups from using the Scouting program. As I noted above, the BSA 'must actively defend its trademarks or copyrights or those marks will become generic. This is no different from any other corporation such as Xerox, Disney or even Rotary International. This has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a very insider point of view. Let me give an outsider view. First, the Spiral Scouts appear to be less exclusive. Second, I see it as fairly obvious that one thing an alternative Scouting organisation could do is allow brothers and sisters to be together in Cubs or Scouts, allowing the parents (and the community) to support one group not two. That is seen as a real plus here in Australia particularly in small rural communities. Third, if the BSA stopped its trademark and copyright protection, it would be like all (I suspect) other countries where the terms Scout, Scouting, Cub, Pinewood Derby, Jamboree, and Explorer are freely available. Is the BSA so vulnerable that it needs this protection. They would become "generic". So what? There is no "must" about it. The BSA does not have to have this protection. If having this protection "has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that the BSA is stifling competition", it sure helps, as any real alternative would be attacked and the new organisation who not be able to advertise itself as what it was - a Scouting organization. Well, I should not be commenting on the BSA but on the article. Everything I have said supports the view that a more outside view on BSA controversies would improve this article by making it more NPOV. I agree with you about sources. In "controversy" articles more than anywhere, everything must be sourced. --Bduke 21:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Its one word- SpiralScouts). What this section boils down to is that because the BSA is protecting its trademarks, it is not allowing any competing organizations to form. As this is unsourced, it is starting to look like original research here. This is rather like trying to claim that since the American Red Cross protects its marks, no similar organizations can be created in competition. As with any corporation, the BSA marks are both an identity and a source of income. For example, allowing Eagle Scout to be freely used would undermine the cachet of the program and diffuse its identity. Again, this section says to me that because an organization cannot use the term Scout, it cannot be successful. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

(Its one word- SpiralScouts). Precisely. If they wanted to call themselves the Wiccan Wanderers, pathfinders, Pioneers, mountaineers (pick your favorite SUV name ;-) )or anything else without the word Scout in it there would be no issue. See Royal Rangers for a large organization that is similar to Scouting but avoids the Scout name. Hence, there is no conflict there. GCW50 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason to use the words "Scout" or "Eagle Scout" or such would be to claim to be providing exactly the same program and inheriting the legacy of Scouting. That would be false advertising.

This does not prohibit them from offering a similar program with a different name. If the similar program is a good program, it will succeed, regardless of what it is called. Shouldn't we let ideas, rather than trademarks, decide what kind of program young people participate in? --Habap 15:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It prevents an organisation using the Scout method to advertise that it is doing so. Traditional Scouting, for example, is just as much Scouting as is the BSA. Many countries have many Scout organisations without one claiming sole use of the term. --Bduke 21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

SpiralScouts™ have been around since 1999. They trademarked their name but the BSA has not filed a complaint. I suspect that the issue here is that Youthscouts (trademark applied in 2002) is not distinctive enough from Boy Scouts, whereas SpiralScouts™ is different enough to not cause trademark dilution. As noted, the Youthscouts name is "likely to cause confusion, deception, mistake, and misrepresentation." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Youthscouts appears to simply be a name without a program. Is it more than just a legal invention to test the copyright waters? --Habap 22:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not I can see. Search the internet on the term and all you find is one skimpy web site with no indication that any units or program have ever existed. The "Pro Se" on the legal filings also seems to indicates that it's one lawyers private hobby to irritate the BSA. One guy, a computer and a URL do not make a "notable" organization. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be for notable organizations and not self-promotion? GCW50 20:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just another example of a non-existant group like "The Forgotten Scouts" looking for publicity. That still only exists in the mind of its inventor and even he calls it a "past idea" [12] . But it still shows up only here in this "unbiased" article as having any significance of note anywhere. Similarly, BSA Discrimination.org has it's last update a year ago [13] and the Scouting for All website is "down for repair". Last I heard from that site, Stephen Cozza was concentrating on a bike racing career [14] and their "Southwest Division" site no longer brags how many people come to its now once a year rally. I wonder why?

Seems like folks have moved on to more trendy causes such as the the War in Iraq, Democracy in Dafur and Global Warming instead of harrassing a longstanding kid's organization for sticking to it's own moral code. Even in one episode of "Law & Order", the silliness of all of this reached the popular media. Prosecutor Jack McCoy said to an ACLU lawyer, "I'm surprised to see you representing this defendant. I thought you'd be too busy out attacking the Boy Scouts". GCW50 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the section has been retitled to Scouting in the United States. I still fail to see how this section relates to the membership of the BSA itself. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point that there is a distinction between trademark and copyright and we should be careful not to confuse the two. It is the trademarks of 'Scouts' 'Scouting' which the BSA is protecting (except to a degree from the GSUSA which can also use Scouts/Scouting though I think they usually prefix it with 'Girl'). Copyright only applies to longer works; most of Baden Powell's works and the original BSA manuals are long out of copyright (not that the BSA ever had copyright to the former) and I can't think of any groups trying to use more recent still in copyright works by the BSA. Copyright also is not lost if not defended. What the BSA has is a monopoly on the word 'Scout' and 'Scouting' in the US and a monopoly on access to the international Scouting movement of WOSM. It does not have a monopoly on starting up a youth group using scouting ideas (though the difficulty in starting such a group in this day is another matter). I'm not sure what the BSA would do if the GSUSA voted to admit boys (they did float the idea in 1975 but voted it down). --Erp 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Here is a [15] list]] of BSA trademarks and service marks (note that some of these are dead). If this doesn't work, just search for "Boy Scouts of America". --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's going to be difficult for the BSA and GSUSA to both claim a right to the words Scouting and Scout. They can't belong to both organizations. --Jagz 02:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The American Red Cross and Johnson & Johnson share the red cross emblem. J&J has the right to use the red cross emblem on first aid kits and supplies in the US. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The federal charters of the BSA and GSUSA give both the exclusive right to descriptive or designating marks, and words or phrases that they adopt. Congress could not have intended that this include the words Scout and Scouting because it would cause a conflict. --Jagz 07:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The BSA and the GSUSA co-existed without any conflict for 34 years before the GSUSA was chartered. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that two entities can't have an exclusive right to the same thing. --Jagz 15:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And they don't use the same terms. BSA uses the terms "Scouts" and "Scouting"; GSUSA almost always uses the terms "Girl Scouts" and "Girl Scouting" in it's literature in order to reinforce it's own identity. I think most of us know the difference betwen a boy and a girl; I'm not sure the public would be as clear with the terms "Spiral", "Peace" or "Rainbow". As a practical matter, GSUSA should have been using "Guiding". Baden Powell was very disappointed in Juliette Low's insistance in naming her organization "Girl Scouts". Read the biography of B-P by Jim Teal. Actually, I'm told that in the 1980's BSA approached GSUSA about the prospect of merging, but GSUSA rebuffed the idea as they believed that a single sex organization better met the needs of girls. GCW50 19:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What should the Scouting article be named since the BSA has claimed rights to the word? The article is not about the BSA (although they are mentioned). --Jagz 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is fine as it is. The BSA only claims the right to it the US. WP might be hosted in the USA but it is an international project. The BSA has no moral right to exclusive use of the term "Scouting" as it is used everywhere in the World. --Bduke 08:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

GCW50 might want us to rename it. --Jagz 12:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No I don't. BSA's claim of use is only to youth organizations using Scouting methods in the United States. Other countries certainly can and do use it and BSA considers itself the US representative of the world Scouting movement. BSA didn't have much trouble with the old US Navy "Scouting " squadrons in the 30's , etc. as folks weren't likely to confuse them with a kids organization; a Wikipedia article is the same. GCW50 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Youthscouts lawsuit

Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit filed by Youthscouts in U.S. District Court?[16] --Jagz 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You can register for PACER and look it up. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting membership in the United States section

I changed the first paragraph to:
"The Boy Scouts of America is by far the largest supplier of Scouting to boys in the United States of America. The BSA is the only Scouting association of significance in the United States that boys can join and there are no comparable alternative organizations available to them throughout most of the country. The situation is different in some other countries where a number of Scouting associations with varying membership criteria are available to boys."
Is the last sentence worded correctly? Should it say many other countries or some other countries? --Jagz 10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Some, unless you define ten percent as "many" GCW50 13:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are referring to WOSM Scouting associations. --Jagz 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

And WOSM is the major player. As a practical matter, small splinter groups such as Baden-Powell Scouts are TINY in comparison and rarely have troops in more than a few locales in a given country. Thus local alternative organizations are NOT available to most boys in countries that also have non-WOSM organizations. And once again, the bulk of the multiple organization WOSM federations are due to pre-existing troops SEGREGATED by religion or ethnicity. You keep trying to infer in the article that inclusive multiple organizations are widely available to most boys around the world. They are not, unless the kid's parents are willing to drive them hundreds of miles each week to a meeting. GCW50 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Article size

• Information on what to do with long articles can be found here: Wikipedia:Article size. --Jagz 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  

I apologize for trying to improve Jagz private biased article. Obviously, any edits by others have to be approved by him first, otherwise they get reverted. GCW50 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose you would consider an article that looks like it came out of a BSA manual an improvement. --Jagz 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe you should try to get a consensus on whether others consider the article biased first. --Jagz 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should the "Scouting membership in the United States" section be made into a separate article or moved to the Scouting in the United States article? --Jagz 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the Scouting in the United States article. --Jagz 17:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

External links section

I removed the Inclusive Scouting link from "External links" because it has not worked in quite a while. To maintain balance in the links, a link to a site critical of the Boy Scouts of America's policies should be added. --Jagz 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Article biased?

It is impossible to write this article so that it pleases everyone 100%. I think that a lot of effort has been put into making the article neutral overall. The article content is controversial as the article name states. --Jagz 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone is still biased. I suspect that flows from the original attack piece within the BSA article that this article first originated as. While much better, it seems to want to avoid facts that place the controversy in context with what BSA really does for kids. The current tone of the article implies that this is a big thing in BSA and that BSA is constantly hunting under rocks to expel Scouts and Leaders.

You, as an Eagle Scout, should know better than anyone that nothing could be further from the truth. Almost anyone actively involved in Scouting at any level knows that the subject rarely comes up. A person really has to make a big deal about calling attention to themselves by publicly refusing to repeat the Scout Oath and Law or engaging in flagrantly public acts or declarations about their sexual identity. People are not routinely asked the specifics about their sexuality or religion and BSA does define a Theology and is thus not a religion itself. It's about as non-sectarian as an organization promoting a moral code can get.

Heck, BSA is constantly trying to keep Scouts and Leaders, not get rid of them. Witchhunts are rare, and even the few cases mentioned need to be considered against the fact that over 100 million people have been BSA members. Far more Scouters have been removed for other transgressions; most leave quietly.

Likewise, most of the supposed opposition groups (except for the ACLU, which seems to have morphed into gay rights advocacy organization irritated about the loss in the Dale case) no longer seem to exist or are mere shadows of themselves, if they ever consisted of more than a handful of people to begin with. This article is about the only current place on the web even implying that they are still active. That is a disservice to the truthfulness of Wikipedia . GCW50 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to request mediation from Wikipedia then? You seem like a person who is bigoted in their views. There is no reason for us to try to discuss this further as far as I can see. Where are all the other people who agree with you? --Jagz 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To chime in-- I have to strongly disagree with the idea that this article (its older version) doesn't comply with NPOV. Now, it could be that supporters of the BSA believe that a neutral POV is inherently biased, which might be, but i would be really skeptical of the claim that the article doesn't jibe with NPOV-- lots and lots of eyes have been over the article and found it okay.

I think the heart of the misunderstanding is expressed by the sentence: "Almost anyone actively involved in Scouting at any level knows that the subject rarely comes up". The implication being-- it's not that big of a controversy within the BSA, so it shouldn't be regarded as that big of a deal here. It's a debate between the BSAPOV and NPOV. The controversy is a larger issue in society, with lots and lots of supporters and critics chiming in on the issue, whether it's a big debate within BSA itself isn't the controlling issue.

I suggest we revert back to the last consensus version, and any dispute edits generate a consensus first. --18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---Alecmconroy 18:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why??? Please point out which of the last revisions that I made are not true. Was anyone removed from the councils that proposed the changes in 2001? If so, who? Where is a religious award ever required of Scouts?? Are there not non-religious organizations on the BSA boards? Weren't all of the measures of Congressional support mentioned after the Dale decision?? etc., etc. Truth is what an encyclopedia is about, not advocacy, isn't it? GCW50 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually we don't what repercussions if any happened so I think saying no proponents were dismissed is going beyond what can be supported. The link for the info on the 2002 meeting certainly seemed to advocate the proponents of changing membership either shutting up or getting out; however, it was the organization's own opinion and not that of the BSA. I should note that other articles indicate other things at the 2002 meeting such as no proposal to change membership was voted on but a proposal was passed reaffirming the current policy.[17] --Erp 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Slight correction. The proposals for membership change were apparently at the 2001 annual meeting not 2002. And the statement affirming BSA's membership policies was issued by the National Executive Board in Feb 2002. Has anyone considered that a timeline might be useful?--Erp 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

GCW-- the statement about "No leaders were removed as this effort followed the procedures delineated in the BSA by-laws" is quintessential soapboaxing and original research. We don't know that's the case-- the source doesn't say that's the case. It presents as fact something which is directly contradicted by other sources (i.e. the several BSA memebers who claim they followed the rules but were forced out anyway).

Other than Rice, who? Please provide specific examples. I can't find a single example where someone who followed the established procedures of getting the Chartered Organization Reps in a council to vote on a rule change so that the council could then present the proposal to a National Meeting ever being kicked out. Asking one to prove a negative is illogical. GCW50 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

When you insert "after the dale case" into the sentence "after the dale case, congress supported the BSA", you're basically putting in your own OR about what events are relevant. Sometimes it might be okay, but "being true" isn't a guarantee that it's okay. For example, suppose I went to the article on US President Bush and inserted the statement "After Germany executed six million jews in the Holocaust, President Bush met with the leader of Germany to thank them for their support against Terror. [18]" Obviously, it "is true"-- you can look at the date and verify it, but of course, it's atrocious and just plain wrong. The insertion of "after dale, congress approved of bsa" implies "because of dale, congress approved", something that I think is only true of portions of the legislative body. --Alecmconroy 23:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here. All of the activity in Congress mentioned in the article (in both directions, including the failed attempt to repeal the charter) were the result of the Dale decision and/or the resulting lawsuits or advocacy efforts. How many pieces of legislation involving Boy Scouts did Congress vote on in the seven years BEFORE the Dale case? The answer is none. The connection to the Dale Case is blatantly obvious to any neutral observer. GCW50 12:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See-- but that's what gets you into trouble. Things have to be verifiable. If it's hard to prove a negative, then we shouldn't be stating negatives as facts. If the resolution passed by congress didn't reference the dale decision, we shouldn't be state that it was in response to the Dale decision. Saying "I bet it's true" or "Any neutral observer can conclude its true" don't resolve the problem that it's still not verifiable.

My own guess is that you're partially right and partially wrong about congress. I'd say that some members were directly voicing support for the policies (and Dale), but many others felt the BSA was a "basically good" organization with just one problem. My guess would be that a resolution overtly endorsing the policies would have resulted in contentious debate, as in the case with the analogous policies of the pre-Clinton US military. But see-- my personal interpretations, or yours, don't make it into the article. The resolutions didn't explicitly connect themselves to Dale, so we shouldn't put such a connection into the article in a way that implies congress (as a whole) made a connection. --Alecmconroy 15:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Go back into the Congressional Record and read the congressional testimony about any of the bills. The testimony in each mentions the resulting post-Dale advocacy and lawsuits as to why the bills were introduced and should be passed. The 2005 Support Our Scouts Act was specifically in response to the Winkler suit which was instigated after the Dale case. GCW50 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The resolutions were passed after the Dale decision but the way it is written is misleading because it implies that the resolutions were in direct response to the Dale decision. The resolutions were more in response to things that happened in response to the Dale decision as it turned out to be a watershed event. --Jagz 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if individual representatives made statements overtly supporting the policies, that's fine to note. I think we have sentence that says some members of congress did overtly support the policies, and more references/footnotes/text could be used to proved a more exhaustive list. But congress as a whole didn't reference Dale, and the resolutions, not overtly mentioning the issue, don't tell us much about what portion of congress supports the policies. We face a similar situation about that dead bill that would have changed people collecting attorneys fees for suing for civil rights violations-- how much of it's inception and defeat was a support or disapproval of the BSA policies? I don't think there's any way to tell. --Alecmconroy 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the edits made by GCW50 do not make substantive chnages and add more neutrality to the article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason for my putting up the neutrality template was not because of GCW50's March 27 edits but because he stated that the article is biased and he has persisted in making pro-BSA edits for a period of time in excess of a year. He continues now even after the article has achieved featured article status and the edits have become more numerous recently. The last time he did this the article started looking like it was written by the BSA and that's when Alecmconroy rewrote it. After Alecmconroy's rewrite there was much work done to make the article NPOV overall so it could become a featured article. --Jagz 21:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not normally like commenting on articles about Scouting in the US, but I have been following the various controversies for many years. If this article is biased in any way, it is biased towards the BSA not against. In general I think it does a good job of being NPOV. I would also comment that WP is not about truth but about what verifiable sources say. We should just be neutrally reporting the controversy not decided what is true. --Bduke 22:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm starting to think that GCW50 is doing this for the purpose of harassment or it has become an obsession. --Jagz 23:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• GCW50 seems to think the article should be NPOV from the viewpoint of a strong supporter of the BSA but that's not the way it's supposed to be. It should be NPOV from the viewpoint of a neutral party. I don't see any end in sight here. Should we request a Wikipedia:POV-check or request informal mediation, see WP:Mediation Cabal? --Jagz 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Just keep it balanced and everything will be fine. And most web sources are not verifiable as anyone can publish anything. I tend to get my facts from publications and have attempted to correct a lot of false implications that were present.

So are you saying that the article is not biased and are you willing to put in edits on both side of the issue instead of just neutral or pro-BSA edits? --Jagz 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as long you do the same. For example, this morning you removed the paragraph on the "Public Expressions of Religion Protection Act (HR 2679)" reasoning that "there's no room in the article for dead bills". But somehow you "forgot" to remove the other dead bill mentioned in the article (The Scouting for All Act) which never even passed any vote. Thus I finshed the pruning of dead bills for you since you indicate that there's no room for them. I'm sure that missing the Scouting for All bill was just an inadvertant oversight on your part. GCW50 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC) .

If you're saying that the article is not biased now and you continue to put in pro-BSA edits, that could make the article biased. --Jagz 04:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're saying that your removal of a dead pro-BSA bill "for space considerations" by itself doesn't bias the article, and my subsequently removing a similarly dead anti-BSA bill in response does? GCW50 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the bills at all. I'll repeat what I said. If you're saying that the article is not biased now and you continue to put in pro-BSA edits, that could make the article biased. --Jagz 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, but I'm sure all of Alecmconroy anti-BSA edits easily counterbalance them. I believe it was he who started this whole thing in the main BSA article in the first place.

I've been dealing with this for over 15 years since I was sysop for the Scouting forum on Compuserve. We had a separate section there for BSA policy issues designed just for this kind of discussion. But every time some poor scout leader asked a question in the Scoutcraft section, Eliott Welsh would pop-in with something like "How can you teach those kids abouts knot-tying, when my poor kid can't be in Tiger Cubs?". (BTW, it was actually because Welsh himself had an issue, not his son) After doing some research about Welsh and his previous non-BSA self-promotional lawsuits, I began to realize that a lot of this posting is really folks just trying to use BSA as symbol of mainstream America to get endorsement for their beliefs. And that has been a needless distraction from all of the good Scouting does at the local level.

Don't get me wrong, I personally have some diferences with BSA's positions and BSA folks could have handled all of this a lot better, but I get irritated when I see folks put in factual errors or innuendo to continue the controversy. An example of one is the fact that this article doesn't explicitly state that BSA (or any other youth group) doesn't award religious emblems; they are actually awarded by the church itself, usually at at church ceremony, not a Scouting one. But the article dances around it by merely saying they "administer" the program. If you want a cite about who awards them, in it's the 1985 history of BSA by American Heritage. GCW50 13:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, until I edited it, the section on Religious Emblems was written to imply that these are a big BSA program. They are not, they are totally optional programs run by the specific religions themselves as anyone who has ever read a Scoutmasters handbook would know. And anyone active in Scouting would tell you that only a tiny percentage (I'd say it's not more than ten percent) of Scouts ever pursue them. But it was originally written to imply a major Scouting program.

I think you are completely wrong here. Do a reality check. --Jagz 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise they're are lot more non-religious than religious organizations on BSA's boards, (see the BSA annual report) but that fact keeps getting edited out. Why? Because implying that BSA is run by religions is a better fit with some peoples agendas for this article. GCW50 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph and the preceding paragraphs are discussing religion. I don't think any reasonable person would deduce from the way the paragraph is written that the boards are only made of people from religious organizations. It's more about you. You know when you ask someone if it is hot or cold in a room or is it just me? Well I think it is just you. The article has to be written to make sense to readers, not just the editors. --Jagz 14:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any additional issues about article bias/neutrality that should be discussed now, while we're on the topic? --Jagz 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I still think the article needs some points of reference as to the relative magnitude of issues. For example, how many local United Ways exist gives an idea of what fifty not supporting BSA really means, the fact that there have been over 100 million members of BSA and only about 2 dozen have taken legal action feeeling they were being excluded, the number of members in Scouting for All and the other activist groups, etc. Those are easily documented facts, but they keep getting edited out. Likewise, the fact that probably fewer than ten percent of Scouts earn their religion's religious emblem is obvious to anyone who has a looked at a bunch of Scouts in uniform. That last fact is hard to "cite" though as I don't believe BSA has such a stat since they don't award the emblems, nor track who earns them.

The lack of such point of reference stats makes the article more of a promotional piece for the opposition groups, who in many cases, are mostly a web site written by one guy. "Youth Scouts" is the prime example, but "Forgotten Scouts" fits into the same category. If I go out and create web sites for a dozen new pro-BSA organizations that I form, can we include all of them in the article without mentioning that I might be the only member? I hope you see the point as to why size does matter in helping folks judge significance. GCW50 13:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You can put information on the total number of United Ways, Eagle Scouts, Scouts, etc. in their respective articles, and links in this article will allow people to get more detailed information if they want it. Statistics can be misleading. Say a mayor of a city with a high crime rate says last year xxxx people were victims of violent crime, however, xxxxxxxxxx people were not victims. Is that supposed to mean people can walk around by themselves at night anywhere because after all there were so many people who were not victimized. You can write a section on the magnitude of the problem if you can cite it properly. The point with the Forgotten Scouts and Scouting for All is that some people have formed advocacy groups. --Jagz 19:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But it puts things in reference to compare to other issues and how much importance. For your example, comparing one city to another. I noticed you never answered my other question. So I can create my own pro-BSA advocacy group and you'll include it in the article? I'll bet I can get a bigger membership than the Forgotten Scouts just from my unit committee. Your statements here keep making my bias point for me.

Also I love the way BSA's own internal survey was reverse and selectively edited (only taking the mothers portion) here to turn it into an internal opposition statement, even though it was of parents of Scouts and parents of non-Scouts , not members of BSA itself. How about including the complete BSA survey as it was originally reported and the other independent ones on the subject since the June 2000 Dale Decision:

A January 2001 survey by Rasmussen Research revealed that 75% of American adults continue to have a “favorable” opinion of the Boy Scouts. In addition, findings from sources such as the Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll, Zogby International, and Princeton Survey Research Associates/Newsweek, as well as internal research of the BSA, all reveal that Americans support the Boy Scouts’ volunteer leadership policy.

70.3% of mothers and fathers of Scouts agree with the Boy Scouts belief that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts. Among fathers of Scouts 73.5% agree. Source: Boy Scouts of America internal research (January 24, 2001), Sample size = 2,400

65.4% of American mothers and fathers agree with the Boy Scouts belief that homosexuals are not appropriate role models for Scouts. Source: Boy Scouts of America internal research (January 24, 2001), Sample size = 2,400

70% of adult Americans say their opinion of the Boy Scouts of America has either not changed or has improved since learning that the group does not allow homosexual members. Source: Rasmussen Research (January 29, 2001), Sample size = 869

68% of likely voters agree that the Boy Scouts should have the right to set their own rules and dismiss Scout leaders for being homosexual or other rules violations. Source: Zogby International American Values Poll (January 8, 2001), Sample size = 1,005

64% of adult Americans think the Boy Scouts of America should not be required to allow openly gay adults to serve as Boy Scout leaders. Source: Gallup Organization (June 29, 2000), Sample size = 1,021

56% of adults agree with the Supreme Court decision that “the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to block gay men from becoming troop leaders.” Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates (July 1, 2000), Sample size = 752

But of course, these statistics can't be included here because they don't agree with the pre-determined agenda for the article 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Gays and atheists are minorities in the United States and it's an emotional issue with some in the majority so it's no surprise when you start throwing out numbers greater than 50%. Maybe we should put a section in on how churches brainwash people and if it wasn't for all that brainwashing that the numbers would be different. Stop using statistics to validate the oppression of minorities. I don't think we should try to put the name of every advocacy group into the article but since we are mentioning that people have created advocacy groups it is good to list some examples. I don't see comments from others agreeing with you on this Talk page. --Jagz 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This last statement proves the personal position you hold and the resulting bias here. You still haven't addressed how the BSA internal survey was inaccurately reversed and selectively quoted here instead of using the orignal source data as written. Why not say that 73% of fathers of Scouts approved of the policy, instead of selectively just saying that 30% of mothers disagree? Because that doesn't fit with the pre-determined purpose of this article which is to advocate, not inform. When folks go to that effort to cherry pick facts, it shows inherent bias. And any attempt to offset that bias with facts is now branded as pro-BSA bias. GCW50 16:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Support for the BSA section sounds like the place where some of the things you are talking about should go. --Jagz 21:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Fixing this article

Thought I'd take a try at a draft of a roadmap to fixing it. I think that some "strategic level" consensus is needed to really make progress on fixing this article. Basically three steps:

1. Hammer out a consensus on the general action areas (starting with the draft below)
2. Summarize the broad action items in a new section of the discussion section and get a bunch of the regulars to sign on.
3. Proceed as consensused

North8000 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to write into the body of it, just indent and sign for clarity. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, here's the draft:

Deal With Scope Issues

The title is overall a little vague, but such is life. The title has two main qualifiers:

"Membership" qualifier in title

"Membership" implicitly that means: "restrictions on eligibility for membership". In practice the article expands this to "restrictions on eligibility for membership and leadership positions". Solution: let's just accept this and nail it down in a scope sentence. Do this so that this departure does not undermine that there is a scope for this article vs. full of random material.

"Controversies" Qualifier in Title

In reality the article has expanded this qualifier into three areas

2. The object of the controversies

Scattered through the article, but much of this in the "Position on" Sections. Some (including myself) have argued that Wikipedia standards, plus the objectives of accurate NPOV coverage dictate that #2 be covered elsewhere, not in this article. Solution/compromise: Set this complaint aside in exchange for agreeing to getting the "Position on...." sections to be CURRENT BSA position on....... Include policies identified as such, whatever (that meets Wikipedian standards) that sheds ligth on this area such as practices in these areas, litigation in these areas (see note under "litigation section"

Suggest that Gaget850's new "Religion" section draft be renamed "Position on Religion", and that it replace the "Position on Atheists & Agnostics" section. It already includes everthing from the current A & A section and is very referenced. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole draft is more than just the BSA position— it includes WOSM policy, incidents, and litigation. You can't just stuff it into the current article. I would rather work up similar drafts on the girls and gays issues and then merge all three. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you are intending / suggesting: 1. Whole new article? 2. Whole new section in "controversies" article, not replacing others. 3. Replacement of section(s) in "controversies" article. 4. New section in main BSA article? 5. Something else?

BTW, I think that all of those things are part of building a picture of "BSA position on"......North8000 (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

3. Covering (selected) other organizations for comparison purposes

This is basically the whole "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" As much as I like this section and consider it to be informative, it really doesn't belong in this article and should go. First, it's outside of the "controversies" scope, not germane to the topic, and is inherently a POV magnet. It inherently argues one side of the "Is BSA too restrictive/OK/too lenient? controversey by selection of organizations for comparison of BSA to them.

Deal with "Reference Bluffs"

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

Deal with unsupported implied statements of cause-effect

These are sprinkled throughout the article. Wherever an unsupported contested implication of cause-effect is made, remove it, and putting it back in would require a supporting cite.

Location and Organization of coverage of litigation

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

"Reaction to NonDiscrimination Policies" Section

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

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

The most common example is heavy use of the "www.BSADiscrimination.org" web site as a reference for factual material. Such references could be used objectively as examples of the controversies, but not as sources of factual material. Following one a reference to these usually leads to an op-ed piece with some apparent facts blended into it. Solution: The article relies on such type sources so heavily that removal of statements reliant on such sources would gut the article. If anybody knows the "BSA Discrimination.org" folks, possibly they could get the material claimed as factual separated from the material which is clearly Op Ed, then reference only the former for factual type statements, and reference the latter only as examples of the controversies. Alternately, take out only the contested statement that are reliant on such references, putting them back in would require an additional references or one which not so blatantly Op Ed material.

Resolve coverage imbalance in coverage of stated reasons for positions

Generally, in this article coverage of opposition to BSA policies includes quotes or summaries of what the opposer said to support (give a basis for) their position, while coverage of groups supporting BSA policies has no quotes or summaries of what the supporter said (give a basis for) their position. Solution: Create balance in this area. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

- - - - End of "Proposal for Fixing this Article" Section - - - -

Feel free to write into the body of it, just indent and sign for clarity. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

BSADiscrimination has been on my mind, but the site was down until late last week, so I had not had the opportunity to go back and look at it. There is a lot of content that appears factual, but it is often mixed with opinion pieces. The big issue is reliability. Nothing indicates who the editor(s) are, where they get their information nor how they vet it. I would like to see as many references as possible replaced with more reliable sources ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think our assessments of referenced pages in that site are the same. Op Ed pieces with some factual information sprinkled into them.

Response to Scope Narrowing

So, let me read back first major point you're making. You're saying that currently, the article covers more than it should, i.e. it's scope is too wide. To fix this, it's proposed to:

• Limit the scope of the position sections to the Current/Most recent BSA position statements only.
• Remove "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" section as out of scope.

Based on what I've heard so far, I think it would be a mistake to redefine the article scope in a way that excludes the recent history of the controversy and the perspective of the overall scouting movement. The past statements of BSA balance any claims that only "gay leadership" rather than "gay membership" is prohibited. The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting.

But in a larger sense, these elements-- the history, support and criticism from within Scouting, the sponsorship and funding backlashes, the backlash against the backlash, and all the other aspects of the subject-- these things are kind of what make it such a good encyclopedia article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding inclusion of history, I think that you were making 2 different statements and treating them as if they were the same one. You made one statement that it would be a mistake to redefine article scope in a way that excludes coverage of history and previosu positions. I would agree with you there, and the article has a historical section which could be used for that, including expansion. But "Position on" is clearly talking about (needed) coverage of the CURRENT position and I would argue that that suction shoudl contain only and all Wikipedian material that is informative regarding the current position. North8000 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding proposed removal of "Other Youth Organization Membership Policies" (or moving it to articles on those topics, if not alread covered) I actually like that section and found it to be informative. But I was saying that it (via selection of which organizations to include) is inherently an expression of the article article WRITER's opinion, or a bolstering the the article WRITER's opinion, thus my suggestion for removal. Or, I suppose, another way to make such coverage be appropriate for the article is if a significant group on either side of the controversy is using such comparisons to state or support their "case", then referenced coverage of them making such comparisons would be coverage of the controversy, which is (rightfully) the title/scope of the article North8000 (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alecmconroy. We are writing an encyclopedia. We should be covering all controversies that have been about the BSA and not just current ones. The question of women leaders, now resolved, is just as important as the question on gays, now not resolved. He is is correct on "The positions of other scouting organizations balance the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting". It is only necessary to give the position of a few large Scouting associations, to demonstrate this point. It is one reason why there there is controversy and why some people do not accept the BSA position. They do not see that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting. North has argued for covering only the current BSA position, but this in, in my opinion, all wrong. The article is about controversies. We focus on those whenever they occurred and we give the BSA's position to show what people are disagreeing with. They can then be sourced by primary sources. The current position only needs to be covered to explain the controversy. The controversies have to be covered by independent sources. So the section should not be headed "Position on religion". It should be "Position on atheists and agnostics" because that is the controversy. "Position on religion" would have to be current. "Position on atheists and agnostics" should cover controversies at any time, and explain them by giving the BSA position at that time. Shifting the emphasis from controversies to positions is what was wrong with North's other article, now rightly deleted. Let us not make the same mistake here and try to change this article to be like the one that was deleted. NPOV on controversies does not mean giving the BSA position as such. That is too wide. It means giving all sides of the controversy. It is the controversy that determines what we say about the position of the BSA. The latter does not determine the former. That would indeed by POV. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that blending two topics will make it harder to discuss them, and so, if I may separate them: .

Regarding the inclusion of prior controversies and prior policies in the article, I agree (and have agree with both of you) with both of you, so let's call that settled. If you thought otherwise, then there was a misunderstanding. What I am saying is that there should be A section somewhere which describes the CURRENT BSA position on the controversial areas. And the "Position on" sections seemed a natural place for this. If a couple of main players like you two don't want a section that tries to clearly cover the CURRENT BSA position to exist, then I am going to figure that there is no hope for fixing this article. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the title "Religion" vs. "Atheists and Agnostics" I have no problem with either of them....with one term being essentially the opposite of the other, either would cover the topic. We should see what gadget850 say what they had in mind. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding including the positions of other organizations, Bduke, in a few areas, you seem to be making an arguement that is uncharacteristally unWikipedian of you. You are basically saying that the editor should select material for the purpose of "balancing" (arguing against) the BSA position?!?! If the article is about controversies, should it's be covering OTHERS "balancing" (arguing against) BSA policies? But either way, I think that there is some is nice easy middle ground. While the choice of foreign countries for comparison is certainly POV (e.g someone can select for comparison Scouts from a country where homosexuality is criminal to make BSA appear "liberal") And then debate ad infinitum about which ones get included in what is inherently editors bolstering a POV rather than covering a POV. I think that certain selections have an inherent relevancy to show context for the BSA position. I think that other very large USA youth organizaitons (such as Girl Scouts) is appropriate for that. Also, any postions of the World (umbrella) scout organization are certainly have a certain inherent NPOV legitimacy for inclusion. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bduke, when you said "It is the controversy that determines what we say about the position of the BSA." What exactly did you mean? Were you talking about which positions get covered , or were you saying that the controversy should color the content within that scope, or dictate that that there be no distinction of coverage of the present vs. historical coverage? Sounds like a red herring question, except I though that the scope (those position which are controversial) was obvious and agreed upon, so what else is there? 75.24.138.102 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try to cover these points. First and foremost, this is an article about controversies over BSA membership. It is not an article about the attitude of the BSA to religion or homosexuality or anything else. So we describe the controversies that have attracted good independent reliable sources. We describe both the criticism of the BSA and the defense by supporters of the BSA and the BSA itself. This means of course that we have to describe what the BSA policies are, but we do so in terms of describing that side of the controversy, not in a separate section. The current BSA position will arise while describing controversies that are still active, just as earlier positions will arise when describing controversies that were active when the BSA position was different. We do not give a privileged position to the current position of the BSA on religion or homosexuality or whatever.

Am I saying that the editor should select material. I think not, but of course I imagine a consensus will develop. We are talking about "the BSA's claim that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting". OK so we say something like this - "The BSA claims that homosexuality is inconsistent with the values of Scouting (give source), but critics disagree with this position (give source) and point to similar Scouting organizations who take a different view, such as the Girl Scouts (give source). Internationally there are Scouting organizations in countries where homosexuality is illegal, so Scouting need have no position except the general one of supporting the law; and Scouting organizations in countries where homosexuality is legal. The latter range from agreeing with the BSA, though making no mention of homosexuality in any publication of the organization, to supporting homosexuals as members and in leadership positions". The last sentence needs examples that can be sourced. Any position that WOSM or WAGGS has on these issues should also be mentioned.

Finally, I may be quite wrong on this, but I do not see that you have learnt any lessons from the deletion of the other article. You still want to focus on the position of the BSA on various issues. This article can be improved but it does not have the defects that you imagine it has. If you focus on the controversies, the way to improving its neutral stance is much clearer. I would also comment that it seems difficult for members of the BSA to see this article in clear wikipedia terms. Maybe you are all too close to the controversy. I am outside, from a different country, and I have not even been a full member of a Scouting organisation for 40 years. It would be good to get some comment from editors in other countries such as the UK and other European countries, but sadly the Scouting Project has lost its active UK participants.

BTW, why do you not get an account, so we have a name, even if a nickname, to respond to? --Bduke (Discussion) 01:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The above 4 paragraphs signed "75...." were me, I just forgot to log in, I think that this is the first time I forgot. I know that there's no consistency in which IP address shows up, but, as indicated before, there's one other person who works where I do who doesn't have an account who has participated here (I'll call him "TI" the instigator for getting me involved in this)and his posts have showed up with 75... numbers. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

History is important. The core policies on religion and gender have not changed in some time, whereas the homosexuality policies were introduced in the 1970s and have changed quite a bit. There has been some cry that the homosexual policies are recent, but there have been no sources relating that to the history of homosexuality in the US. Without that, it is difficult to understand that prior to the 1970s, the BSA did not need to formally ban homosexuals.

Comparisons are going to be tricky. With 160 organizations/federations within WOSM alone, a contrast with an organization with opposing views can be nulled by the addition of an organization with similar views. You can contrast the BSA with TSA on the homosexuality issue, then compare them on religion.[19][20] As I noted before, there used to be comparisons in the article of the BSA and Scouts Canada on the issues, until content was inconveniently added showing a drastic drop in SC membership.

What is needed is considered reaction to the BSA policies. Not just knee jerk anonymous rants, but scholarly works such as On Boy Scouts and Anti-Discrimination Law: The Associational Rights of Quasi-Religious Organizations. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment from the featured article review "The majority of the article (all but a tiny, unsourced paragraph at the end) focus on the issues of homosexuality, atheists and agnostics, all relatively recent issues. Information on the BSAs controversies with regards to race and gender are not explored at all, which they should be in an article that thoroughly covers the controversies of the membership of the organization." says something relevant to whether we cover history. I agree with the comment. It should cover all controversies about membership and I see "membership" including leaders. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that it would be all that difficult to draw a meaningful comparison with other Scouting bodies. An obvious thing to look for is whether homosexuality is even mentioned at all in a body's policies. Also obviously one can ignore those operating where homosexuality is illegal. (Although even there it seems probable that the Scouting body would not even mention homosexuality. There would be no need.) Clearly Girl Scouts of the USA would be a valid place to look. The others would be those from similar western democracies. But, as I said, the primary point of comparison would be to find any other Scouting body that mentions homosexuality in its policies. (Gadget, what is TSA?) HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Scout Association. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

:-) HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Per the analysis at the beginning of my proposal, with respect to both a precise reading of the title and Wikipedian standards, about 70% of this article is out of scope. Not talking about anyone in particular, but my general impression from the last few weeks on this article is that the 70% is OK, as long as it conforms with a pre-conceived POV. But come in with 1% of basic matter-of-fact info that is much more germane to the article than most of the 70% and then everybody suddenly "finds religion" on scope to keep it out.

I think that we are debating certain items that we already all agree on (e.g. inclusion of history). And one area where there is some disagreement (inclusion of comparisons to other organizations) which I think can clearly get resolved. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC) which leads to:

The second paragraph just above is clearly denied by the first. You lash out saying 70% of the article is "out of scope" and defended only by people with a preconceived POV, and then say we are only disagreeing on one matter which we can get resolved easily. Duh! They is clearly a wider disagreement. Can you start by stopping hand waving about "Wikipedian standards" and give specific parts of guidelines that indicate that specific parts of the article are "out of scope" (what ever that means). You might also recognise that your analysis at the beginning of your proposal, is not very clear and not likely to be widely accepted. Finally, could you please assume good faith. You give the impression that only you has the truth about this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I responded, but put it in the wrong place, it's the two paragraphs below that start with: "I meant.....". BTW, I didn't comment on whether or not folks were defending the 70%. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BDuke here. We trimmed some irrelevancies such as trademark protections, and the article is well focused on the religious and homosexual issues. The gender issue needs expansion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The toughest unresolved question

I think that being the object of current controversies, and ostensibly already being "covered" in the article, that the BSA policies/position in the areas which are the object of the controversy should be covered in clear, un-occluded, fact-laden, referenced section. And by "position" I don't mean providing a venue for BSA statements supporting their position/policies, I mean just the position / policies. Do y'all agree or disagree? North8000 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have tried to make clear above, I disagree. We should focus on the controversies and add the position/policies of the BSA where it is appropriate. To do otherwise, focuses too much on the "recent" as the positions you talk about would be current. It would be very difficult to include past positions in a stand-alone section that gave no context to those past positions. As the comment on featured article review said, this article is too focused on the recent. A separate section is also giving undue weight to the BSA positions. Please stop trying to change this article into the one you wrote before which was deleted for good reason. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I meant that except for that one item, I see a clear path to agreement on what to do next. For example, and the 2nd-to-most contentions issue (inclusion on comparisons to selected other organizations) I was basically saying that even through I think it shouldn't be in there, to leave it in.

On the main open issue, this was about matters of fact e.g. such as what BSA's written policies are (with an un-obfuscated light shined in all of the good, bad, vague, non-vague glory) Not matters of BSA opinion or BSA's supporting verbiage. I know that there are folks that don't want that covered clearly. I made my case that this should be covered clearly, and that it is important and germane to the article. And I posed it as a question in order to see what the "lay of the land" here is regarding this. If we have hit the end of the road on this, so be it. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Even when looking at current policies, they are not clear nor "un-occluded" anyway. They are easily open to different interpretations (e.g. "morally straight") thereby allowing those with more extreme views to take very anti-gay or other rxtreme positions without technically breaching the policies, while others will argue that they are not anti-gay policies. For the current situation it's the practice that matters, not the policies. HiLo48 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By "unoccluded" I meant I meant un-occluded coverage of the occluded policies :-) I agree with you 100%, but what are you suggesting we do? North8000 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's crystallize the toughest open question

I though I'd chrystalize a bare bones version of the toughest question and ask y'all to weigh in on it. My proposal would be to have two subsections that cover BSA written policies related to restriction on membership or leadership based on 1. homosexuality and 2. atheism/agnosticism. Any other material (commentaries, interpretation, paraphrasing, derivaitons) would be seperated so as to not confuse the issue of what those written policies are. The one on Atheistm/Agnosticism would be the 4 paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at [21]. The one on homosexuality would be the three paragraphs, with their headings as found under "Policies" at http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp. And so my question to each of you is, would you say to "allow this" or "not allow this" ? North8000 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are just raising the same point that you raised at the top of the previous paragraph. My response is still the same - I do not agree. You are not taking into account the criticism of this article for emphasis on recent events (a section on current policies would just make that worse), nor are you showing that you have learnt anything from the deletion of your other artcicle. The policies can be references and they can be discussed to explain the nature of the controversy, but to have a separate section on just current policies is not acceptable. I see nothing close to consensus agreeing with you. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello BDuke, Thanks for the straight answer. Actually, I'm no longer pushing for anything on this except for final clarity on what the "lay of the land" here amongst the regulars here is on this topic. To that end I asked my friend "TI" (usually 75....) not to weigh in on this.

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke. Note that a major aim of the BSA is to develop leaders hence one can't make a clear division between members and leaders (and it is only on the question of gay youth members that the BSA even makes that distinction). Members are expected to be or become leaders sooner or later. We do need to pull in more history to the article and one problem with having the current separate policy sections even though they do include history about the changes is they are separate from the historical events that led to changes. However previous attempts IIRC to integrate the two led to major battles over balance. A few years ago I experimented with a Timeline for this article (more for trying out a timeline than actual inclusion) though I put it aside, but, perhaps that might be an idea.be --Erp (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anybody else? North8000 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)