Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 1

message: # 20:36, 11 September 2005 . . Smack (Talk | contribs | block) (moving text to Boy Scouts of America controversies (article namespace))
# 17:52, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points)
# 17:46, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points - added point)
# 17:11, 11 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introductory points - added point)
# 16:50, 11 September 2005 . . 146.201.175.93 (Talk | block) (Introductory points - added link)
# 16:50, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
# 16:47, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
# 16:45, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz (Talk | contribs | block) (Introduction)
# 16:40, 10 September 2005 . . Jagz(Talk | contribs | block) (added introductory points)
# 22:40, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block)
# 21:42, 9 September 2005 . . Johntex (Talk | contribs | block) (categories are not articles)
# 21:07, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block) (Responses)
# 21:06, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block)
# 20:57, 9 September 2005 . . Evrik (Talk | contribs | block) ( Establish page)
(requested by Evrik on my talk page.  cut and pasted because we cannot do a history merge on categories due to Mediawiki limitations). Syrthiss 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: I think that merging Scouting For All into this article is a bad idea.  This article discusses the controversies while making no recommendation for change whereas the stated purpose of the non-profit organization Scouting For All is to eliminate the Boy Scouts of America's policies on not allowing members into their organization who are gay/lesbian, non-theist, and/or girls/women.  People may favor some change in the BSA's policies while not necessarily supporting Scouting For All's goals.--Jagz 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion that Scouting For All be merged into this article 

message: There are a lot of bulleted lists in this article and many claims made without inline citations.  There are obviously many people contributing to this article, which is great.  However, the referencing system used in inconsistent. Please follow [{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards|Scouting Project Guidelines]] and also please work on these issues: using more prose, less list oriented, and better documented.  Thank you. Rlevse 20:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulleted lists and citations 

message: Since the cites requested six weeks ago about the supposed "Goshen Incident" haven't been provided, I've removed the Violence section and moved the safe scouting section. - GCW
Since some seem to think that removing this totally unsubstantiated section might be "vandalism" I've flagged it with a Wikipedia disclaimer that the "facts" in it haven't been cited. - GCW 
=== Example of Loss of BSA Access in San Diego===
This for those who say there's never been a case of BSA being denied access to a public facility.  The city has similar leases with other non-profit groups, so BSA didn't have any preferential treatment.
:That isn't what the court found.  "Access to a public facility" means anyone can use it, but San Diego has many requirements for getting subsidized leases (for example, some are only available to non-profit groups).  This is not "access to a public facility".  Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The city is not denying the BSA access to facilities; when the lease is broken, I'm sure the BSA can use the land on the same basis as any other group (and not have first choice as they have now, where only BSA members can use this public parkland during the summer months when the use of this public parkland is reserved exclusively for BSA members only). Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: instead of violating copyright, I'll just post this link that points out many of the errors Pulliam makes.  Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence 

message: This for those who say there's never been a case of BSA being denied access to a public facility.  The city has similar leases with other non-profit groups, so BSA didn't have any preferential treatment.
:That isn't what the court found.  "Access to a public facility" means anyone can use it, but San Diego has many requirements for getting subsidized leases (for example, some are only available to non-profit groups).  This is not "access to a public facility".  Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The city is not denying the BSA access to facilities; when the lease is broken, I'm sure the BSA can use the land on the same basis as any other group (and not have first choice as they have now, where only BSA members can use this public parkland during the summer months when the use of this public parkland is reserved exclusively for BSA members only). Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: instead of violating copyright, I'll just post this link that points out many of the errors Pulliam makes.  Brian Westley 22:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of Loss of BSA Access in San Diego

message: The current page reads "Similarly, less than twelve other leaders and members have been asked to leave a BSA Council because of engaging in public dissent in the media."  As I know of no official BSA announcement as to how many people they have kicked out due to public dissent in the media, where does the very specific "less than twelve" come from?  I would not accept the writer's only hearing of 11 or fewer cases as sufficient support to state "less than twelve".
From your own postings of who has been kicked out over this. GCW
:Huh?  Just because someone has posted fewer than twelve examples doesn't mean that there *are* fewer than twelve, it just means he hasn't *posted* fewer than twelve. Ken Arromdee 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since GCW has no cite, I've removed that sentence. Brian Westley 23:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't add that section; I'm not responsible for citing other people's work. Brian Westley 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: I've just put BACK a sentence changed from:
The BSA's policies have made it the target of costly litigation, notably lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Back to:
There have also been a number of lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union over such issues as BSA recruiting in public schools and government involvement with the BSA.
It is NOT accurate to summarize the BSA as the "target" of costly litigation, as MOST current lawsuits involving the Boy Scouts are against OTHER entities, and do NOT have the BSA as a party:
Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al
Scalise v. Mount Pleasant Public Schools
Powell v. Portland Public School District
Notice the above lawsuits lack "Boy Scouts of America" as a party.
:But the actual intent is for ACLU to force restrictions on BSA through proxies because BSA successfully won the "Dale" case!  Let's be honest!  ACLU hated losing that one. 
::Let's be honest.  Government entities such as public schools and military bases can't discriminate on the basis of religion, and the ACLU is litigating where government involvement with the BSA raises issues with government support of religious discrimination.  The BSA certainly didn't surrender its public school charters willingly, even though that would have been the only honest thing to do.  Brian Westley 03:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point by posting this link here? Do you have a suggestion for this article? --jergen 19:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination against "[[Infidel]]s" and [[Bisexual]]/[[Gay]] people: 

message: Is there some evidence to back this up? Claims such as "in reality, a woman who is a scoutmaster must deal with prejudice from both volunteer and professional scouters. Women who are employees of the BSA deal with strong prejudices." need backing up, as does the claim that the BSA does not offer equal opportunities to both male and female employees. Mdwh 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discrimination against and distrust of women is perfectly compatible with religious teachings that say to "respect" women, because "respect" is ill-defined enough that it needn't include what we would usually consider discrimination.  If the scriptures said "equal treatment", that would be different. Ken Arromdee 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrimination Within BSA -- Against Women 

message: I removed "the BSA is conservative" statement.  BSA has always been strictly apolitical and requires it's leaders to be so in public remarks, following the military officer corps model on which Scouting originally derived from.  
Some of the controversy about removing leaders who speak publicly on political or controversial issues comes from folks who don't understand that they hold their commissions at both the pleasure of BSA and their chartered organization.  If they wish to "speak out", then they need to first resign their commissions.  Exactly the same as the military. I'm a retired USAFR Lt. Colonel and couldn't speak on political issues there either.
Historically, BSA tends to be pretty traditional and mainstream in keeping with it's charter to be a patriotic society and tends to reflect mainstream societal values, not lead them. For example, I'm a moderate Republican and when I was a Scoutmaster, my good friend and Assistant Scoutmaster was a moderate Democrat.  We had interesting personal discussions round the campfire after the Scouts went to sleep, but neither of us would ever use our positions in Scouting to advance our political beliefs to the Scouts or publicly.
Now as Scouting has come under attack from folks on the left, folks on the right have rallied to support Scouting. But that's outside of Scouting as folks try to grab some of the motherhood and apple pie aura to support their positions.  -GCW 23 Jan.
While I agree with the removal of  that statement, due to their official apolitical policies, and I'm sure "conservative" does not really apply to every Scout, Scout Leader, Troop etc, discrimination against homosexuals and requiring a "duty to God" does seem just a tad conservative ;) --Naha|(talk) 21:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA is Conservative 

message: Why the older Strategic Plan logo? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "timeless values". The section discusses values and how the Scout Oath and Law have not changed since 1911. --Jagz 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <blink> I have some of these going back to the Scouting/USA logo of the 1970s then.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the previous logo, Character Counts.  Theat fits in as well.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Character Counts". It is too vague as to what this means. --Jagz 19:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: For historical purposes, here is the article as it was on 27 February 2006  and here it is on 28 February 2006 after Alecmconroy rewrote it . --Jagz 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old versions of this article 

message: The article now says:
"In 2001, nine BSA local councils requested permission to sign nondiscrimination statements but were denied by the BSA National Council. Since then, at least one council in New Jersey has signed such a statement in order to continue receiving United Way funding by complying with their nondiscrimination policy."
How many local councils have adopted nondiscrimination policies to continue to get funding, such as United Way funding? See . Do the councils really adhere to the policies? --Jagz 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My previous comments seem to have been deleted here.  As long as the wording of the non-discrimantion agreement is designed to prevent "illegal discrimination" there usually is no conflict, as post-Dale, BSA doesn't engage in "illegal discrimination".  GCW50 16:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section needs to point out that a BSA nondiscrimination policy that only talks about "illegal discrimination" is a meaningless policy, since the BSA cannot engage in illegal discrimination, and it only appears to be used to try and deceive United Ways and other agencies into believing that they will not discriminate.Brian Westley 02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The "Reaction to nondiscrimination policies" section needs a rewrite. --Jagz 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, the nondiscrimination statements that the national BSA allows local councils to sign typically refer to "illegal discrimination," which is meaningless as far as the BSA is concerned, as they engage in legal discrimination.Brian Westley 02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the sentence on nondiscrimination statements back to its original wording. It is true according to its cited source. --Jagz 16:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nondiscrimination policies and statements 

message: A quick review of references:
*Coalition For Inclusive Scouting
:Since their site is dead and the domain has been jacked, the links for references 1 and 64 are dead. 
*No listed work or publisher
:References 4, 6, 13, 14, 23, 51, 71, 86
*UUA
:The UUA site has been in reorganization for quite a while.  References 13, 21 and 97 are 404.
*Scouting for All
:As noted above, the links for references 42, 52, 54, 58, 59, 65, 66 and 86 are 404.
*Other dead links
:14, 23 (error 500, may be a VML block on my side), 35, 47, 57, 81 (three uses)
*Other issues
:22 - listed title does not match actual article title
:26 - what is "in-line citation"; date is malformed
:27 - should be split into two proper references
:37 - seems to be trying to encompass several references in one
:38 - title is incomplete
:43 - "discussed here" is just a few sentences- this can be better
:48 - retrieval date, but no link
:49 - returns a blank page
:55 - page no longer available
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to fix it. --Jagz 09:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. --Jagz 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: * Since references have been added and deleted, the above numbers are now off.
* Current references 26 and 27 are now the same- they should use a named reference.  I still do not understand the use of "in-line citation" in these references.  There is a pipe (|) missing between date and accessdate.
::I'll try to fix it. --Jagz 09:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it. --Jagz 23:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update 1

message: People are getting expelled from the BSA or Scouting units. "Removed" is too vague of a word to use in this article. --Jagz 17:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently it said that memberships were being revoked but GCW50 changed it to the memberships are not being renewed. That may be true but they are getting kicked out prior to their registrations expiring. --Jagz 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, thus the use of revocation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they really revoke their memberships though? How about expel? That is the word used when someone gets kicked out of school. --Jagz 18:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Schools are different- attendance is generally mandatory and expulsion is covered by law.  The BSA is like a club in this case- they can only revoke membership.  The YMCA could revoke your membership and expel you from the building and tell you not to come back.  But, BSA units do not own the building- it belongs to the chartered organization.  The CO could tell a person they could no longer enter the building, but that isn't "expel".  I think expel would only apply if you were a member of a church and a troop for example; if your BSA membership was revoked and the church revoked your membership and told you to go away, then I would use the word expel.  From my reading, I don't recall this scenario ever happening.  As I understand it, in these instances the BSA has returned the latest registration fee and given a letter revoking membership.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say "youth and adults have had their memberships revoked as a result"- I have no idea one way or the other if any Venturer females have been affected.  "The BSA also prohibits girls from participating at all program levels.  Since the girl issues is a policy, it should go after the first sentence.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with moving the girls issue up is that this sentence is not applicable to it, "The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law." --Jagz 08:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So- we have a statement that the BSA justifies the God and gays issue, but not one for girls? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article covers the girls issue in more depth. I don't think we have to address it in the introduction. You can rewrite it if you want to. --Jagz 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How about now? --Jagz 20:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we also note that girls are prohibited from being on Varsity Teams, or would that be included under Boy Scouting? meamemg 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Varsity Scouts are part of the Boy Scouting program division, as is the Order of the Arrow.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kicked out 

message: When did the BSA start admiting blacks, Jews, and other historic candidates for discrimination in the United States?  Did this correspond with any official or unofficial policy changes?  (For example, who was the first black boy scout and when did he join?)  Does anyone know how this has changed by geographic region over time?
:Much of this is in History of the Boy Scouts of America- see the Early controversies section.  The BSA did not track ethnicity then, so there is no way to know the first black Scout- see Edgar Cunningham for example.  As far as Jews and Catholics, you have the question backwards- those groups only allowed their members to join the BSA (which had strong ties to the Protestant YMCA) after much discussion.  --Gadget850 ( Ed)
:: Ok, thanks for the info.
::: Pretty much from day one the BSA was open to all such minorities.  The Catholics 'approved' scouting around 1912.  There were many Jews involved from pretty much the begining (the Schiffs, who were heavily involved at the national level are Jewish).  The BSA worked hard to make scouting available to blacks early one.  American Indian youth were also involved early on.  Many Americans were impressed that Scouting allowed for Protestant, Catholics, Jews, etc, to be involved together early on.  --Emb021 19:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct.  BTW, the dreaded Declaration of Religious Principles only dates from the time of trying to get the Catholic Church to approve Scouting.  The Catholic Church was afraid that the YMCA founded BSA would try to convert Catholic kids to Protestanism.  Hence the DRP was drafted to require leaders to agree that that religious education belongs to the kids parents and church to assuage the Catholic church.  BSA was open to all religions and races from day one, however local norms in some areas (such as the South) resulted in some local councils setting up separate but not equal troops and camps for Blacks.  National Council started applying pressure on local councils to correct this in the 1940's ahead of the US Military (1948), public schools (1954) and places of public accomodation (1964).  BSA has nothing to be ashamed of in this regard. See "The Boy Scouts, An American Adventure" published by American Heritage in 1985 for a good discussion of this issue.GCW50 18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to remember that Scouting in the US was started by a committee of the YMCA.  West was their employee assigned to work for that committee.  Similarly, even Baden-Powell when first writing "Scouting for Boys" was doing so as a leader of the "Boys Brigade" in the UK.  Scouting most definitely was started as an adjunct method for non-denominational religious organizations.  Trying to take support of non-specific religion out of Scouting is like trying to take the concept of promoting physical fitness out of basketball. GCW50 12:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not recall that B-P was a leader of the Boys brigade but he certainly talked to the leader of the BB and hoped that they would make use of his ideas. Indeed many BB Companies did use his ideas, but after a few years they either changed to be Scout Troops or moved back to the old more religious-based program of the BB. --Bduke 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minority group inclusion? 

message: In the Reaction to nondiscrimination policies section it says that in 2001, "nine BSA local councils requested permission to sign nondiscrimination statements but were denied by the BSA National Council".  Is this a true statement?  (The citation link is no longer good.) --Jagz 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be a bit pedantic here: it is "chartered organization".  Chartered means the charter is granted by the council to the organization, chartering is the other way around.  I see "chartering organization" in the newspapers fairly often.  "Sponsoring organization" is not used by the BSA, but it is not necessarily an incorrect term.  These terms are misused by many Scouters, so it is not surprising that it propagates.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be an unlikely coincidence if 9 Pack committees in the same town just happened to adopt non-discrimination policies at about the same time without the encouragement or at least the blessing of their chartered organizations, especially if the chartered organizations were the same or related. --Jagz 18:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  It was a concerted effort of pressure on the local PTA council by those activists who filed the Winkler suit at about the same time and location.  Of course, no one at National Council would have even known about it (it takes a lot of work to get their interest in a unit out of tens of thousands of them) except for the fact that, as always, the activists ego required them to call a news conference to proclaim their "victory". That guaranteed that their victory would be short lived.  Of course, if the packs just went about their business normally, no one would ever question whom they appointed as leaders. GCW50 18:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The new youth application states: 
"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation of God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to these precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle and to the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of membership." --Jagz 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the update.  Any idea when that was added to the youth application?  I know it had been removed from the Tiger Cub application after the Welsh case  GCW50 15:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure but I don't think it was in the previous youth application.  Here's the link to the new application: http://www.scouting.org/forms/ --Jagz 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link.  It's interesting.  The adult application requires the applicant to actually agree to the BSA policies, but such an agreement is not required of a youth applicant nor their parent.  GCW50 20:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  True statement? 

message: Can anybody explain what the connection between membership controversies and Scouting sex abuse cases was? I have removed this link since the two subjects seem completely unrelated to me. Tim Vickers 00:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also link 

message: The article currently states, "The Unitarian Universalist Association opposes the BSA's membership exclusions and this has led to a dispute and dissolution of ties between the organizations". I know there is a dispute over the UUA's religious emblems program but has there really been a total dissolution of ties between UUA and BSA? If so, what citation can we use in the article for this issue? --Jagz 15:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) 

message: As it stands in the article at present, the sentance:
:Atheism is inconsistent with the beliefs of most religions and some religions regard homosexuality as immoral (see Homosexuality and religion).
is Original Research implying that any religion that sees homosexuality as immoral somehow automatically supports the discriminatory policies of the BSA. This isn't true. There are religious sects that do not condone homosexuality, but believe that the discriminatory polices of the BSA are also wrong and many sects that belive that discrimination against atheists is also wrong. The sentance above needs to be reworded, cited or removed.207.69.137.20 23:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support by religious groups 

message: right|75px|thumb|Original image
I do not understand why the 1910-2010 BSA 'Strategic Plan' logo is included in this article. The inclusion of 2002-2005 logo might be justified by the 'Timeless Values' tie in to the reasoning the BSA has its controversial membership policies - but unless the current strategic plan is somehow incorporated into the article, I think that the other logo should go.207.69.137.39 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "When Tradition Meets Tomorrow" is appropriate for this article. It has only been relatively recently that these membership controversies have become public issues. The BSA's old fashioned traditional values have met with nontraditional values of the present, the result being controversy. --Jagz 02:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Non-free content policy, the non-free use of the image is acceptable if along with the other conditions the image has "8. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The logo of the BSA strategic plan(s) do not illuminate anything about the membership controversies. If you wish to add some specific content from the Strategic Plan and place the logo within that context in the article, or if you can produce a free-use image, the logos can stay, otherwise I intend to remove them.207.69.137.10 12:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remove the image after properly tagging it first, I'll restore the original image. However, I think it is better to use the current image. --Jagz 13:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what reasoning is the strategic plan logo better related to this article?207.69.137.10 13:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reason I list above but this ends my discussion on this topic. --Jagz 14:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Strategic Plan Logo? 

message: I removed the tags on some procedural points:
*  is for the image page only, it does not belong in articles.
*  is to be applied to images that are to be deleted *after* going though the deletion process.  These images have not been prodded, thus the tag is inappropriate.
* :Image:BSA 2006-2010 Strategic Plan.png is used in two articles and has non-free media rationales for both.  If it is inappropriate for this article, simply delete it from here and update the non-free media rationale on the image page.  The image should be prodded *only* if it is inappropriate for both articles.
* :Image:American Civil Liberties Union logo.png was missing the non-free media rationale.  I have updated it for the American Civil Liberties Union article.  If the image is determined to be inappropriate for this article, simply delete it from the article; if it is kept, please update the non-free media rationale on the image page.
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image tags

message: What is the BSA Strategic Plan? --Jagz 15:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006-2010 National Strategic Plan --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone else find it ironic that one of the stated strategic goals is to 'Increase Membership Opportunities'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.28 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic plan 

message: Re the in-body "see also" sections; I recommend replacing them with .  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: Here is a shortcut to the Wikipedia policy regarding the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Jagz 21:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: Just finished a huge cleanup of the references.  There are four marked with —these need templates.  Some of them I was unsure as to the intent (and my brain is hurting after all that).  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References