Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 2

message: Does anyone else have a copy of On the Front Line of the Culture War: Recent Attacks on the Boy Scouts of America, written by William A. Donohue, published by The Claremont Institute,  ? There are good summaries for the legal cases brought up dealing with homosexuality and atheism. Donohue is (was?) a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Sociology at La Roche College. The pamphlet (which is about 40 pages or so, total) also has an excellent Churchill quote that might be used elsewhere here: "It [the Scouting movement] speaks to every heart its message of duty and honor: "Be Prepared" to stand up faithfully for Right and Truth, however the winds may blow." This same quote is cited on many pages about scouting, as I quickly verified through Google. --JohnDBuell 16:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printed pamphlet 

message: Wikipedia uses the "neutral point of view", which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view.  Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution.  (See: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and also Wikipedia:Five pillars)
:This means that everything should not be written from the point of veiw of the BSA, World Organization of the Scout Movement, your church, Baden-Powell, or you.--Jagz 18:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy 

message: I sent an email to SCOUT eh! regarding the accuracy of a couple of statements in the article about Scouts Canada.  SCOUT eh! is a group of "registered Scouts Canada members from across Canada dedicated to transforming Scouts Canada into a democratic association".  Here is my email and their reply:
>I am from USA.  I was hoping you could answer some questions about 
>Scouts Canada.
>I'm working on the Wikipedia article, "Controversies about the Boy 
>Scouts of America" at 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America. 
>There are some references to Scouts Canada. Are these statements true 
>about Scouts Canada?
I'm glad to help. I have done some work on Wikipedia myself. My 
username is lkmorlan
>1. Since deciding to to admit females, atheists, agnostics, gays, 
>lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals into troops in 1998, Scouts 
>Canada's membership has dramatically decreased, leading to fiscal 
>problems.[1] (Was this the reason for the decline in membership?)
Simply, no. Membership decline has been an ongoing problem for decades. 
In the statistics, there is nothing to distinguish 1998 from any other 
year. There certainly are fiscal problems now caused by membership 
decline. See: http://scouteh.ca/resources/2006-02-03-sc_finances.php
The article referenced in the footnote in the article contains many 
errors and misconceptions and is not a reliable source of information 
about Scouts Canada.
There are other serious problems with the statement. Let's take them 
one at a time.
Females: In 1971, Rover Crews (ages 18-26) were given the option of 
admitting female members. In 1984, this "local option" was extended to 
Venturers (ages 14-17). In 1992, local option was extended to Beavers 
(5-7), Wolf Cubs (8-10), and Scouts (11-14). In 1998, local option was 
removed. From that time, all sections have been required to admit 
female members. This was the only change of consequence that happened in 1998.
Atheists and agnostics: Religious activities are an almost non-existent 
part Scouts Canada programs, in practise. Unless an adult is vocally an 
atheist, they will have no problems in Scouts Canada. Many people who 
are atheists or agnostics are members, both as youth and adults. The 
Scouts Canada program contains no Board of Review were youth could be 
asked about their Duty to God, so this doesn't come up as a issue for 
them. If a youth member voiced something, this would be dismissed as 
the youth "still seeking".
I have only heard of one case where a Scouter was dismissed for his 
religious beliefs. In this case, the Scouter called an open line radio 
program and made it known that he was an atheist and a Scouter. His 
District Commissioner revoked his membership and the Scouter accepted 
this. If it had been fought either internally or at the Human Rights 
Tribunal, I am confident it would have been over-turned.
Remember that only about one-third of Canadians attend church once a 
month or more and the number has been falling for decades. Canadian 
society is not very religious and Scouting has followed the broader 
trend. Scouts Canada's written policies have not been significantly 
adjusted in many years. Their is no DRP equivalent. The policies are 
vague.
Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals: With the exception of 
their current general non-discrimination statement, there has never been any 
official Scouts Canada policy about any of these. It is not reasonable 
to point to any particular date and say that after this date, gays have 
been allowed to join. Their acceptance within Scouting mirrors their 
acceptance within society at large. More below.
>2. Scouts Canada allows homosexuals as members and in leadership 
>positions, however, individual units can restrict homosexuals. (How 
>should this sentence be worded?)
Individual units in Scouts Canada may not discriminate on the basis of 
sexual orientation. It's both illegal and inconsistent with Scouts 
Canada policy. I am sure that some individual groups do so anyway, at 
least in quiet way of making people feel unwelcome. In the case of the 
Mormons, I understand that Mormon-sponsored groups have all-Mormon 
leaders, so this takes care of the issue from their perspective.
The entire issue about sexual orientation is much less polarized here 
then in the US. There is more of a "live and let live" attitude 
generally. Even the leader of our Conservative Party, which recently 
won the election, has said that he is not interested in re-opening the 
debate on same-sex marriage, which was recently made legal in Canada.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
--End of email--Jagz 03:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouts Canada 

message: With apologies for forgetting to do this earlier, as pointed out by Jagz, I am now posting why I believe this article should be checked for POV.
It seems to me from reading the article, that everything is being expressed from the point of view of everyone else looking at the BSA.  There seems to be nothing balancing this pov against the Boy Scouts of America's reason for all these policies.  
The article also seems to compare the BSA's policy with those of other organisations, such as Scouting in the UK and Scout Canada.  Comparing other organisations is no basis for the issues of the BSA.  In my opinion, I think it would be good for this article if the POV of the outside world was balanced against the BSA's own perceptions of these problems, so that the article may be balanced.  
I stress it is only my view that the POV of the article is unbalanced, since I nominated it.  You are free to discuss this as you please, as always.  Thor Malmjursson 02:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could contain BSA's reasons for these policies, however, for every BSA point there is a counter-point from the opposing point of view.  To keep the article concise, an extensive debate on the merits of the controversial issues has been avoided.--Jagz 03:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a section on BSA Membership Standards.--Jagz 07:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the POV check template. I added a section on BSA Membership Standards (the section has since been renamed) and afterwards there was no further discussion on the POV check so I assume I took care of it. The article is "politically correct" in that it doesn't discuss details of why it may or may not be good to deny BSA membership to avowed homosexuals for example. It simply says other countries do it differently, but maybe it is because those countries have stronger anti-discrimination laws for gays.--Jagz 15:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check on this article 

message: I went ahead and removed the Definitions section because I couldn't see how most of the definitions were in any way related to the controversy (e.g. "Adult- A person 18 years of age and up, male or female.") (A secondary issues is-- I don't know if we're allowed to copy, verbatim, that much raw copyrighted text from a website-- I think using that much that MIGHT qualify as copyright violation.  But that's completely besides the point.) 
If there's controversy directly stemming from any of the definitions, by all means, let's discuss it in the article, in prose form. 
The "Origins of Standards" section is a bit confusing-- I also added a sentence explaining what I think is the purpose the section-- namely, to demonstrate that principles which led to the controversies are "long-standing and well-established in the history of scouting", not some recent fad.  But we really need to explain the controversy before this section can have relevance.   -Alecmconroy 04:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definitions are intended to be used by readers unfamiliar with BSA terminology.  Also it is for use by people contributing to the article. Some terminology is ambiguous even to those familiar with the BSA. It is a way to standardize the terminology used in the article.--Jagz 16:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the definitions back in with some modifications.--Jagz 21:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah-- I definitely believe in putting useful reference material for editors when the article is in this amount of state of flux--  e.g.  Some of the gender-based lawsuits may not come up in the final article, but I listed them for the time being.  So, which of the definitions are unfamiliar?   In this little research I've done, i've come up with "Adult" (many might thing an 18 year old recent-eagle-scout didn't qualify) and "Leader" (many might think only adults are leaders). -Alecmconroy 10:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article an adult is male or female, while a youth is male. The note at the bottom states that the definitions may not apply to the Venturing program; this was done to keep things simple.  Otherwise we would have to put exceptions to the definitions and it would be more confusing than helpful. A member is a youth or an adult. A lot of the terms are not familiar to people with no Scouting experience.--Jagz 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Definitions Section 

message: So, let's say for a minute that we split this into two pages:  "Page One" about the Gays & Atheists policy, the reasons for each of the policies, the legal challenges (and their being successfully upheld), the resulting uproar and rallying of support.  "Page Two" about this new attempt to deny the scouts access to governmental support, its ongoing legal challenges, yadda yadda yadda.  Page One, of course, has to have separate sub-sections explaining the Duty to God values behing the atheism policy and the Morally Straight and Clean values underlying the homosexuality policy.  But the litigation is absolutely identical (sometimes down to the same court on the same day), almost all of the "banter" against the scouts addresses both atheism & homosexuality, most of the voices of support equally relates to both, .  
So, what's been driving me crazy is:  What do we call "Page One".  I've been loooking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions and trying to brainstorm a list.  Here are just some VERY ROUGH ideas:
*Boy Scouts of America and gays and atheists
*Boy Scouts of America, gays and atheists
*Boy Scouts of America and atheism and homosexuality
*Boy Scouts of America policies on gays and atheists
*Boy Scouts of America policies on atheism and homosexuality
*Boy Scouts of America policies regarding religion and sexual orientation
*Boy Scouts of America and its controversial membership policies
*Boy Scouts of America and its exclusion of gays and atheists
*Boy Scouts of America's exclusion of gays and atheists
*Boy Scouts of America membership and employment controversy
*Boy Scouts of America's treatment of gays and atheists
Any preferences or other ideas? 
-Alecmconroy 01:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only controversy in the article not related to the BSA's standards on spirituality and sexuality is that of "Membership numbers reporting".  Really "Membership numbers reporting" isn't much of a controversy anymore, it's a problem that BSA has acknowledged and that they're working to correct.--Jagz 20:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Boy Scouts of America's controversial policies"--Jagz 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you saying that we can squeeze everything onto one page?  if we only have the one, then I think either our current title or the one you suggest would both be fine.  -Alecmconroy 00:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be preferable to keep everything in one article. I think "Membership numbers reporting" could be deleted if it improves continuity in an overhauled article.  Girls seeking membership wasn't mentioned but I'm not sure if it is a big controversy right now.  Girls 14 and up can join the Venturing program--Jagz 01:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainstorm for New Article Names 

message: The merge proposer didn't post reasons here, so I'll star the discussion. I don't think it should be merged because the group is more than a "Controversy about the BSA". This would be like Merging Citizen's Debate Commission into Controversies about the United States Presidential Debates. I would be fine with merging an article that just talked about one controversy but not articles about notable organizations. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting for All Merge 

message: References and links as checked by Linkchecker:   --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Folks, Texas Governor Rick Perry has just come out (Feb 12, 2008) with a book relevant to this page.  Consider if/how it should be added.  Here's a link to 
*
I learned about this listening to WABC radio, 11AM hour, Feb 21, 2008, interview of Gov. Rick Perry by radio talk show host John R. Gambling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What information in this book is relevant? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazon says it's not available yet. --evrik (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read it.  It's just a suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this ends the discussion. --Jagz (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's no discussion really, just a suggestion where people might want to go to get further info with which to improve this article. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This book has been available at my local Barnes & Noble here in Beaumont, TX, for about a week.  The title is self-explanatory.  The relevant content would be from where he rails against "liberals" and groups that have attacked the BSA.  Deatonjr (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I just read it.  It's very good history of Scouting, organization and mission of BSA and a history of all of the lawsuits.  He then adds why he thinks the ACLU is singling out the Boy Scouts.  I've added it to the reference list. GCW50 (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting for, by TX Gov. Rick Perry 

message: The citation used to justify this claim in the article doesn't agree. The text doesn't mention the oath/law at all. Rather, it expresses the view that leadership positions are not appropriate for homosexuals. It may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it is quite different. The relevant text is reproduced below:
A 1978 position statement to the Boy Scouts' Executive Committee, signed by Downing B. Jenks, the President of the Boy Scouts, and Harvey L. Price, the Chief Scout Executive, expresses the Boy Scouts' "official position" with regard to "homosexuality and Scouting":
"Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?
"A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership." App. 453-454.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.153.199 (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1978 Memo on Incompatibility of Homosexuality and the Scout Oath/Law 

message: I have removed the paragraph which read
and which, until recently, read
My understanding is that both those rights are individual rights and, while individuals inside and outside of the BSA organization have those rights, the BSA organization itself does not. Perhaps some judicious rewording can fix this. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the first case involving the BSA and freedom of association: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  23:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragriph assigning individual rights to the BSA organization 

message: Do the Boy Scouts ever do any backup research on the possibility of pedophile priests serving with the organization ? I was reading a few horror stories about pedophile priests, some of them involving the Boy Scouts.   ADM (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, the BSA itself has never publicly released any studies. You really want Scouting sex abuse cases which notes the only real study of sexual abuse in the BSA by the Washington Times in 1991, but it will not answer your specific question. --Gadget850 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Those are dreadful sources to use, please provide any reliable sources to entertain this content before it goes any further.  -- Banjeboi 02:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which sources?  Which content?  --Erp (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until any reliable sources are presented it doesn't matter.  -- Banjeboi 02:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pedophile priests 

message: The BSA is planning to move their national Jamborees from Fort A.P. Hill (a military center) to their own property, starting in 2013.  Should this be mentioned in the section about government support of Jamborees?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Westley (talk • contribs) 04:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Jamboree 

message: I love it!  The inferrence correlating Scouts Canada "Inclusive" Membership Policy and Membership Size as a comparison to BSA's was originally added to this article by critics of BSA about four years ago when BSA membership had a slight dip.  But now that Scouts Canada membership has fallen off the cliff (by it's own admission in it's annual report) while BSA's membership has stayed relatively stable, reference to Scouts Canada membership size in this article is no longer "relevant".  We wouldn't want the the facts to get in the way of bias, would we?  GCW50 (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jergen reverted the content added by Silesia just before I got to it. Scouts Canada has had a drop in membership, but there is nothing that conclusively documents the reasons. Scouts Canada went through a major restructuring around the same time with a lot of opposition; I would be surprised if this was not involved, but I have no references. Unless there are reliable sources, that content is original research. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone added it with a reference, but the reference didn't mention any correlation with the openly homosexual leader policy therefore I removed that bit Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The attempt to correlate membership size to membership policies has no real basis in any study. If you look at traditional membership, there is an immediate drop in 1998 when Exploring move to LfL. There is another small drop around 2006 after membership verification policies were enacted. BSA traditional had a small drop in the 2008 membership, but LfL participants are down by almost 25%. I can make guesses as to why, bu I have not seen anything published. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the entire section discussing other countries again. As I hinted above and mentioned directly to the person who added it, this is WP:OR as the sources don't discuss the reason for the drop in the other countries nor do they compare it to the US drop. (One of the sources did mention the LGBT policy but also mentioned other changes in relation to the membership increase.) I've left the bit about the US membership size for now since it's obviously relevant to this article (being about the BSA not the scouts of Canada, United Kingdom or any other country) and the sources do discuss it in the context of the LGBT membership controversy. The sources aren't great so I have no great interest in keeping it stay but it doesn't clearly not belong unlike the other stuff. The bit on inflated membership is obviously a controversy suitable for mention in this article, even if not related to the main controversies. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouts Canada 

message: In the intro, a section reads that girls are prohibited from joining. This is undoubtedly true, but I don't think this belongs in the Controversies section. After all, there is a Girl Scouts organization. Females are also permitted to be on the troop committee, and serve several leadership positions (for instance, my Committee Chairman is a female, as is the treasurer, and a lot of merit badge counselors and other, lesser positions. Should that part be removed? It does seem rather ridiculous; you wouldn't find boys joining the Girl Scouts. Abyssalstudios (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://www.bsalegal.org/gender-cases-226.asp.  Women could not be a Webelos den leader, Scoutmaster or Coach until 1988. The BSA won a lawsuit in 1987, but changed their policy policy in 1988. The BSA has been sued at least four times for denying amission to girls in Cub Scouting or Boy Scouting. Within the Scouting community, this is part of the 3Gs: God, gays and girls. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that explains it. Abyssalstudios (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sound like this needs some expansion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Girls may not be youth members in Cub Scouting or Boy Scouting, but can be members in Venturing. Women may serve as leaders in all of the divisions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also possible he saw Girl Scouts; they are members of a separate organization but are still scouts.  It is also not unknown for them to work together (e.g., recruited to help with an eagle or gold award project).  --Erp (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are even joint outdoor events with Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Personally I think it rather shizo of both GSUSA and BSA to allow adults of the opposite sex to join but not youths. — Rlevse • Talk •  20:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading various history texts, I get hints that the BSA made overtures to the GSUSA for a merge in the 1970s but was rebuffed. Regardless, the BSA policies on girls as members are clear. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in the earliest days there were girls in the Boy Scouts (probably unofficially but I'm not sure much was official then).  Hunting down some history of Girl Scouts in various states I found at least one reference mentioned an all-girl patrol in a Boy Scout troop (this would have been circa 1910).  Not to mention the origin of Girl Guides (the girls who showed up at a Boy Scout event and announced to Baden-Powell they were Girl Scouts).   --Erp (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girls are prohibited 

message: This section is based on one source, that covers only the Chicago Area Council. There are no sources showing that this is a National position or that other councils are doing this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should surely go then. The preceding paragraph discusses general policy but has no reference. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position on illegal aliens 

message: Perhaps regarding other youth organizations, mention should be made of the Masonic youth organizations (DeMolay, Job's Daughters, and the International Order of Rainbow for Girls).  Although not as numerous, they are very widespread in the United States.  Like the Boy Scouts, they require a belief in a Supreme Being, but do not have any position on homosexuality in their membership requirements.  This is most likely due to the Freemasons themselves, who have no mention of homosexuality in their landmarks.
Their membership, though, it elected by the current members, and it is expected that the boys and girls be "of good character".  It also is expected that by joining, members are to accept, at least externally, the tenets of the orders, which tend to emphasize service, citizenship, leadership, and character development. 
Masonic methods of inculcation of values rely on ritual.  This method of external development, as opposed to personal development, could make the gay question in these organizations less of a controversy.
I have gone through each of these organizations' youth protection program.  They each properly emphasized that the danger of sexual abuse comes from unexpected places, and that it is important to "keep the appearances" correct, and not take shortcuts or rely on trust.
I suspect that the Boy Scouts have explicitly banned homosexuals in consequence of the organization's infiltration by a number of pedophiles.  Perhaps they are confusing the two.  I think the Masonic organizations haven't been as confused.PhilD86 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Youth Organizations 

message: "Position on illegal aliens"
wtf? IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: illegal alien GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hold up 

message: This article warrants inclusion into the Homophobia category, the reasoning behind which is clearly self evident and adequately sourced. Since the article has achieved Featured Article status (with the category included) then removing the category will be considered vandalism. I'm sure that there are some editors who do not agree with the categorisation (and even the term "homophobia" itself), and you are entitled to your opinion, but please familiarise yourselves with the accepted definition of homophobia and its uses on Wikipedia before contemplating a pointless edit war. Thank you. 80.41.80.89 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the :Category:Homophobia explicitly states that inclusion should not imply that the organization or person is actually homophobic just that the issue is significant in the article.  --Erp (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homophobia category 

message: I strongly suggest removing the featured status until the neutrality issues have been addressed. Is this article a joke? It's full of weasel words: some argue that, has been criticized by many, has been questioned by some... all the way, nearly in every sentence of the article.
Could you possibly imagine what will happen to the neutrality and factual accuracy in Wikipedia, if we continued editing like this? Someone who hates or disagrees with something, goes on searching the web for any ultra-liberal on anarchist blog even with less than a few dozen readers which attacks it. Now it's possible to link it as a source, and write: it is controversial, as it has been criticized by XY.
Don't misunderstand me: if a really well known source criticized it, we can include it. But not in this propaganda style present in this article. Now the pattern is this:
"XY criticized them that ...... . They answered that ...... This, however, is wrong and evil and unjust". 
Could we do it a bit more neutral and less propagandistic please?
I would like to make clear that I'm not a Scout and I never was. However, I think it is unacceptable to demonize an organization like this because of its membership criteria:
* 1. It is a religious or semi-religious organization. So I think it is appropriate for them to make restriction based on some religious criteria. How silly would it be, to put the following to the "Jews" article: "They are controversial because they only accept Jews to become rabbis. They also don't accept atheists. This is clearly discriminative". Would this make any sense?
* 2. They are an organization based on old cultural values. Of course they will restrict their membership to those people who accept those values. If you question those values, you're free to do it. But then look for an organization which suits your political and moral affiliation. There are a LOT of organizations centered on drug liberalization, gay rights, etc, etc, then go and join them, and don't throw mud at those who are happy to follow their old, more traditional values. They are the only bigger organization to follow this lifestyle, why hate and discredit them? And if you really really hate them so much, reconsider your ability to write in a neutral and encyclopedic manner about them. --217.91.40.206 (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia does not decide what is appropriate criticism and what isn't.  GregorB (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? This? 

message: This article is an essay, pure and simple.  The fact that I and a lot of other people think this is a good topic for discussion does not change the fact that it is an essay.  This kind of thing is EXACTLY why I think wikipedia is ultimately a farce.  There is certainly a place in the world for this kind of analysis, and maybe wikipedia actually IS the place, but in my opinion that makes wikipedia, by definition, not an encyclopedia.  I really hope the "powers that be" at wikipedia come to terms with this sooner or later and stop pretending that any essay or discussion topic, as long as it has a bunch of footnotes attached, can automatically be called an "encyclopedia article."  18:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just try to think of this page as a section of a larger article (Boy Scouts) that was split off to make it more readable and to speed up load time for those of us who might not have the fastest internet connections. I therefor see no problem with this type of article whatsoever. If you think wikipedia is a "farce", you could also try to help improve its contents. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

text: It's called assuming good faith. If he or she thought the article had a problem with point of view (as apparently you do), he or she could point out the specific language and that issue could be addressed by trying to find consensus. You say that the article is an attack on the Boy Scouts from start to finish. Maybe some people argue that the Boy Scouts should be attacked for their discriminatory policies. I think you will find similar attacks on other private organizations that discriminate based on religion. (See the Ku Klux Klan). Other people, including the founder of the Boy Scouts, think that you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in God, and plenty of people seem to agree with him. I see no problem whatsoever with wikipedia documenting those conflicting viewpoints as long as the article is properly sourced. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: The article claims that the oath has remained unchanged since 1911, and has the following text:
:On my honor I will do my best
:To do my duty to God and my country
:and to obey the Scout Law;
:To help other people at all times;
:To keep myself physically strong,
:mentally awake, and morally straight.
My memory, from when I was a Scout in the Seventies, has only the first three lines.  I can't seem to find my BSA manual to check this.  The citation for "unchanged" seems to be a legal case, which is a bit suspicious.  Can anyone check on this? --Trovatore (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same in all the handbooks from 1911 through 2009. Your manual was probably the plain green one from 1972. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a Scout in the 70's also (both before and after the famous (infamous?) 1972 handbook came out), and am an adult leader today, and I can tell you that the Oath has never changed.  Neutron (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor have the Scout Law, Scout Motto, or Scout Slogan.  I will admit that the Outdoor Code is new, at least from when I started in Scouting, although it was starting to be discussed later in my scout years (late 1970s, early-mid 1980s).  Even now, when I'm doing boards of review, I need to concentrate on it to remember the full words, as opposed to the Oath and Law being automatic.  I did not need to recite the Outdoor Code at my Eagle board, for example.  Bill Ward (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  unchanged oath? 

message: I reverted the change made by GCW50  here . The laws etc involved are clearly about stopping organizations from practicing what is considered discriminatory by the drafters of said laws etc. Whether or not other people agree and whether or not they are legally allowed to do so is somewhat irrelevant. I'm pretty sure most of these are not blanket laws etc that stop organisations restricting membership. E.g. it's likely many of them having nothing on age discrimination. Thinking of the issue above, I doubt many stop an organisation from restricting membership to citizens. And I'm pretty sure MENSA is allowed restrict by "IQ". And a coal miners unions (for example) is allowed to restrict itself to coal miners. While this is mostly irrelevant, I should add that GCW50 appears to be mistaken anyway. From what I can tell the US Supreme Court has not yet really ruled on these laws. They've ruled the scouting membership policies aren't unconstitutional and that it's unconstitutional compel the scouts to accept a LGBT member however they haven't ruled that you can't punish or restrict access to organisations who don't accept such members or otherwise practice forms or discrimination forbidden by whatever state/country/whatever. The cases mention in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies#Recent litigation don't provide much help either if anything, they suggest it may be okay. There are ongoing cases which may provide additional clarity and additional federal laws as mentioned in the article, so in some cases it may come down to a federal vs state issue I guess Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is when we make the comparison. Who has published material comparing the BSA to other Scouting organizations? What is mainstream Scouting? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Another way of saying what has just been posted above is that homosexuals and atheists can be members of BSA so long as they lie about it or hide the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that many see a conflict between the first Scout Law and asking people to not speak of their atheism or homosexuality. To a strongly principled person, to pretend to be something they're not is an example of not behaving honourably. I'm wondering about how to reflect the point you're making (which is largely valid) and the personal conflict involved for some people in following that approach. HiLo48 (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Were there any suggestions to improve the article? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a forum. The discussion needs to move towards how to improve the article. You can continue this over at Scouter.com or another forum. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Gadget850 - I agree that this isn't the place to present opinions alone, but from polite discussions such have occured here, encyclopaedic material can arise. These can be in the form of descriptions of the various views held and the reasons those holding each view use to justify their positions. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, if there were any references  presented, or any specific changes discussed. The last half of this discussion has been speculation. I can agree with some of it, but there is nothing that will help the article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

text: That response highlights the difficulties of writing an article such as this. It describes those with different opinions to the writer as being anti-Scout and Scout-hating. I know that's not an accurate description of many of those holding such positions. Many are members of Scouting themselves. To say that those you disagree with are wrong simply proves that there are controversies, which is the basic point of the article. And it certainly highlights the difficulty of finding citations acceptable to all for topics like this. HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I have to agree. Facts are essential regarding those situations where BSA has directly and formally impacted on someone in one of the categories in question. HiLo48 (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination