Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 2

message: ===Boys' Life===
*Boys' Life — Keep and expand this article. It has a wide circulation (more than 1.3 million ) and, therefore, is certaintly notable enough to deserve its own page. For example, we have an article about The Economist; with one million readers, it certaintly is also notable enought to deserve its own article. It has a long history - but so does Boys' Life. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Current Merge Discussions (1/28/2006)

message: *Boys' Life — Keep and expand this article. It has a wide circulation (more than 1.3 million ) and, therefore, is certaintly notable enough to deserve its own page. For example, we have an article about The Economist; with one million readers, it certaintly is also notable enought to deserve its own article. It has a long history - but so does Boys' Life. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boys' Life

message: I'm troubled by the recent addition of a link to .  For what it's worth, I've never heard of this organization, and the site makes no effort to substantiate itself.  Is this really anything more than a pernicious rumor? --Smack (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not heard of the organization. I'll remove the link until facts that support it's existence and relevance to the page are posted here. GreggHilferding 18:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It strikes me as vindictive nonsense. --Habap 20:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turtles? 

message: I just added the http://www.noturtlescouts.com Parallel Scouting Organization stuff, as I removed it from the World Scouting article, where it most definitely didn't belong Chris 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Other issues above. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For discussion relating to the current merge templates in the article, see Organization of page. -Rebelguys2 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking this over, but Rebelguys2 is probably right. Rlevse 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: *Scout Executive — Merge. I don't think this position is really notable enough; it might do better to mention this position in a description somewhere about the structure of Scout leadership. Certaintly, Chief Scout Executive deserves its own article - and it does have one - but these lower-tier leadership positions are largely non-notable. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scout Executive

message: *Scoutstuff.org — Merge. This site surely fails WP:WEB, which sets the bar of notability for Wikipedia articles about websites. It's traffic rank is 1,259,773 (), and is not an important site. It is not referenced in publications, save for the BSA's own. Unless I'm missing something big, we should merge this - it would certaintly not survive when someone found it and nominated it for deletion. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking this over, but Rebelguys2 is probably right. Rlevse 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scoutstuff.org

message: Merge, one para doesn't warrant an article when it's also discussed in a more comprehensive article. Rlevse 03:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Council article

message: *Lead-in
::Purpose, target, etc.
*Aims and principles
::creed, symbols, etc.
*History
::foundation, changes, growth, etc.
*Organization
*Uniform
*Advancement / recognition / honors
::lead-in to main advancement article for large programs
*Activities
*Training
*See also
*Footnotes
*References
*External links
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline for division articles

message: *Boy Scouts of America (I)
**Alpha Phi Omega brothers
**BSA National High Adventure Bases
***Philmont Scout Ranch (I)
**Boy Scout reservations
**Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America
**Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (I)
**Eagle Scouts
***Distinguished Eagle Scouts
**Order of the Arrow (I)
***Vigil Brother Wikipedians propose move
**Silver Buffalo awardees
(I) indicates this category includes images
Any article placed in a subcategory should not include a higher level category.  It may include multiple categories on the ame level, or sub categories thereof.  For example:
*An article should not be in both the Philmont and High Adventure Base categories.
*An article could be in the Eagle Scout, Distinguished Eagle Scouts, and Silver Buffalo cats.
:: ED HA and RES are now at the same level, sub cats of BSA cat. Rlevse 17:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current categories and subcategories of Boy Scouts of America

message: I'd just like to throw my two cents into here to say that the controversy section is woefully underrepresented in the current article. 
Scouting has only one lone link to its controvery page, and Boys Scouts of America has the link and one solitary sentence buried way down at Section #12.  I think this may be strikingly disproportionate to what most readers actually are seeking when they come to this page. 
For example, if you do a  
CNN search for stories on "Boy Scouts of America", at least 85% of the stories are about the legal / political controveries involving BSA.  
I certainly don't object to having a separate page as a centralized locus, but the main pages probably should say more than one lonely sentence or two, hidden away at the bottom of the article.  Maybe I'm overly-focused on the controveries, but if I were writing it, I'd put sentence or two about the controveries (along with the linke) right up there in the introductory paragraph.  I'd also have one or two "really solid" paragraphs about the controveries in the Controversy section on the main page.
It's not that I want the page to be anti-scouting POV by harping on the controversies, but  I think the current article _woefully_ underestimates the gravity of the controversies.  
Consider what's been going on: 
* Several major supreme court precidents have come from the BSA-related litigation.
* Congress has had at least two major "approval" votes for BSA, two acts of congress have been passed, and President Bush has given speeches on the matter.
* Government entities are no longer supporting BSA
* BSA have been kicked out of public schools in New York 
* Steven Spielberg, who was about the most famous eagle scout ever when I was in scouting, has resigned in protest from some sort of advisory board?
* Two major religious organizations have withdrawn their support of BSA 
These are HUGE issues.  For Scouts and Supporters of Scouting who agree with the BSA's position, they should be made aware of what a big deal this is.  For those who oppose BSA's position, the controversy is probably their #1 reason to visit this page.  Like it or not, the controvery is huge part of what BSA is right now in mainstream america.   
In its current form, this article makes it seems like the controversies are absolutely "no big deal".  In reality, for better or for worse, the controversies are the #1 thing that most people outside of scouting hear about with regard to BSA these days.  I'm not saying make the whole page about the controveries, but at least let the article reflect that the controversies are at least half as important as the Totin' Chip and the Firem'n Chit.  :)
-Alecmconroy 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why controversy has its own article, because they're big issues.  Also, note that SUPPORT OUR SCOUTS was passed in Dec and signed into law.  The Senate passed it by 98-0, which is a pretty emphatic vote to me.  When's the last time the Senate passed anything 98-0?  Maybe on Dec 8, 1941. On the contrary to your view, I think the article's saying "this is so big, it warrants its own article. Rlevse 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me-- I'm not trying to say "Scouts are evil".   I'm trying to say "this is a critical issue-- are you guys really sure you don't need even one full paragraph about it in the main article?" The 98-0 vote is my point exactly-- when something political happens and the entire US sentate votes on it--  there's something really big going on, and ya oughta mention it more prominently than half a sentence in Section #12.  Obviously, it does deserve it's own article-- but what's the point of a whole article if no one can find it?  Just be on guard that you don't, in effect, "sweep it under the rug" --Alecmconroy 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow this--what do you mean no one can find it?  Controversies has a section heading with a direct link to the controversy article and that article is in a category of other articles on contentious issues dealing with the BSA, which is a subcat of the BSA cat. The controversy section of the BSA article has gone through a series of edit wars before on how much should be mentioned.  It's actually been stable for awhile recently. If you want to take a stab at a NPOV para of 3-4 sentences in the BSA article, go ahead, but don't be surprised if it starts a revert war again.  FYI, I myself almost never edit the BSA controversy section or the controversy article as there are plenty of others interested in those areas. Rlevse 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you regarding the danger of revert wars.  One look at history and I wasn't about to touch this article's controversy section with a ten-foot pole.  If no one more knowledgable does it, i'll take a stab at it once the Controversy article itself has stabilized, and see if people like it :)  -Alecmconroy 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The BSA controversy article is one of the most unstable ones on Wiki---look at its history.  There are true believers on both sides of every issue, I mean all six sides of every issue-;).  It will probably never be stable, so you may as well jump into the controversy article-;).  Rlevse 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Woefully Underrepresented

message: The article makes two cryptic mentions of Webelos, but does not even try to explain what Webelos is.  I was a Boy Scout, but never a Cub Scout, so I don't know what it is either.  Could someone put in a blurb in the right section? --Smack (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I threw in my two cents. Rlevse 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Webelos 

message: Recommend that this page be split.  This article would deal with the National Council level of the BSA and Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (this is currently on my user subpage) would deal with the troop level program. The national article would have an overview of each program linking to a main article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure of this one. Rlevse 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, now it makes more sense. Rlevse 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's buried at the top of the previous re-org proposal.  I just want to put formal notice for a week or so that I want to do this; and solicit comments.  If you take a look at the proposed article on my userspace at Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) you will see that it follows the same format as Cub Scouts and Venturing.  You may go ahead and edit it as desired: when I make the move the history and talk will move with it.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like where Ed is headed with this. Rlevse 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Overall looks good, but has too much organization history that really belong in the main BSA page.  history section of the Boy Scout page should focus on the history of the Boy Scout program.  Things like the changes brought in by Green Bar Bill, uniform changes, basic rank changes, etc.  --Emb021 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: As is well known, when a Boy Scout or Varsity Scout turns 18, they are out of the program.  Venturing is a bit different; per Venturer Application 28-303K:
Venturers registered in a crew or ship prior to their 21st birthday may continue as members after their 21st birthday until the crew or ship recharters or they reach their 22nd birthday, whichever comes first.
This is now footnoted twice in this article and once in the Venturing and Sea Scout articles.  I'm not enthused with the use of inclusive here as it is heavily used in the controversies article and I don't want to get it mixed into this article.  I also think it can be misconstrued: per the Wictionary definition, it means "including (almost) everything within its scope" or "including the extremes as well as the area between".  I'm going to pick up a Boy Scout application later today and will note the age requirements in a footnote. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again, more flip flopping about how to write the age limits for BSA. Rlevse 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: The intro section shouldn't be four paragraphs long.  I'm tempted to put a heading saying "Membership divisions" after the first paragraph, but on the other hand, I don't want to hide this very important content under such a dull heading. --Smack (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy you cite is a "general guideline," not a solid rule.  Each introduction should be judged by its content.  According to the policy page, an intro should "provide overview;" in other words, briefly sketch what the rest of the article will describe in detail.  The intro to this article clearly does not do that. --Smack (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro too long 

message: I removed the category tag for LGBT Rights Opposition. The BSA has no position papers on this subject (see BSA Legal Site), and has never filed a court brief in any court case regarding rights of LGBTs. There is no evidence that the BSA opposes "LGBT Rights." The BSA National Organization article does not belong in this category.
I assume this link was added because the BSA does not allow LGBT as members in the organization. Be aware that this does not demonstrate opposition to "LGBT Rights" either, as membership in a private organization, which the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees BSA is, is a privilege, not a right (see BSA v Dale). --Swalker2000 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT Rights Opposition 

message: A recent episode of Bullshit! was devoted to the BSA, and they made it clear that mormons are practically running the BSA these days (thus the emphasis on anti-LGBT which didn't exist only a few decades ago). And yet, there's no mention of it in our article? I wonder how many families would pull their kids out of the BSA if they knew that mormons were (at least at the upper echelons) determining what their kids should believe or to what they should be exposed. --BRIAN0918
: I'd sure like to see some evidence of that claim. Nothing that is presented on that show, without evidence to back it up, is of any importance or concern to me or anyone I know that is involved in Scouting. 
: As a registered Scout leader for 8 years now, I haven't ever seen or heard anything at any of the meetings, training sessions, etc. that I have attended that makes me think that even if true, this is adversely affecting the program. And I am located in the Dallas area, near the Irving headquarters, and have met and spoken at length with several of the "upper echelon" Scout executives. This is the first time I've ever heard anything about it.
: Further, there are special programming elements for mormon Scouts as there are for certain other religions/sects such as Roman Catholics. If what you say is true, why wouldn't those special progams just be integrated into the whole of the Scouting experience? --Swalker2000 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of mormons?

message: Merge of expand the museum article. Rlevse 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Museum

message: Merge. Rlevse 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, maybe we want to list all 304 councils in one place. --Smack (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Council merge

message: Since the ages are getting edited back and for:th
*Cub Scouts: first-grade through fifth-grade, or 7 through 10 years
*Boy Scouts/Varsity Scouts: ages 10 through 17.  The day the boy turns 18, he is out.
*Venturing/Sea Scouts: ages 14 through 21.  From their 21st birthday, their membership ends at the end of the unit charter: see the footnote.
:I know many BSA publications show the Venturing age as up to 20, but that is not correct.
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Age

message: I've just made two changes that pertain to controversy.
# Contrary to popular belief, no BSA program or membership division features controversy or scandal as a central program element.  This article spends one paragraph talking about the Explorers.  It does not make sense to spend half of that paragraph talking about sexual abuse.
# BSA's membership policies are controversial: that's a fact, not an opinion.  It's a contradiction in terms to say that "some consider [them] controversial."
--Smack (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about controversy 

message: I'm not sure how to fix this, but Exploring is apparently not one of the BSA divisions.  It actually is part of Learning for Life, which really isn't a division of the BSA.  As far as I can figure out, it is an entirely separate entity that operates parallel to the BSA's three program divisions.  See .  The 2005 Annual Report  doesn't mention LFL or Exploring (while the 1997 report does).  Hopefully someone who knows more about this can fix the recent edits.  I even wonder if LFL counts as "scouting"?
*Exploring was a BSA program from the 50s until 1998.  Exploring recieved a lot of support from government agencies and it adhered to the BSA religious priciple; thus it ran afoul of the lawsuits of the era.  BSA split the career oriented section of Exploring and put it under LFL.  The outdoor/adventure parts of Exploring became Venturing.  Exploring does belong under the BSA history section, but is not a current program.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploring 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.  See footnote
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.See footnote (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Please alphabetize the categories.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.  See footnote 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
**Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW Peer Review Output

message: Propose that the history section be split into a a new article: History of the Boy Scouts of America.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please support or oppose and comment below:
Support
#Support split and link both main and project BSA articles to it, with summaries in each one.Rlevse 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: I was planning to expand the preface to the history section with mention of progressivism and "racial life".  The article Progressivism in the United States doesn't define the pre-cursor concepts of the BSA very well.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressivism

message: I suggest that the word "theistic" be used to describe the BSA, if not in the opening sentence, then at least in the opening paragraph. One reviewer deleted my insertion of this word, with the comment: "Scouting organizations are ALL theistic, so this one is not unique." First of all, this is not true. Please see the page regarding membership controversies to verify that there are several nontheistic scouting organizations. Furthermore, an organization that zealously polices its members by expelling those who differ from theistic beliefs deserves to be labeled with the appellation. Lastly, an attribute doesn't have to be "unique" to be part of the definition of what an organization is dedicated to. --Uroshnor 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but the adjective theistic is being used to modify Scouting organization, so for theistic to be necessary, Scouting organizations need to come in both theistic and non-theistic varieties. Despite a few examples, this is not a prominent division among Scouting organizations. It might be appropriate for those unusual ones to be listed as non-theistic, but when the default is to be theistic, labelling the ones that are is redundant. --Habap 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theism 

message: Perhaps the article on Scouting needs to be modified to remove reference to spiritual development? While I recently learned that Scouts Canada opened it's membership completely in 1998, I don't know the policy of other WOSM groups on theism. I still don't think that BSA's policy makes them unique in the Scouting Movement as theistic. --Habap 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My post was in response to the wish to label BSA as theistic. My question is, if BSA is theistic and Scouting is not, then don't we need to have this discussion over on Talk:Scouting and the changes be made to remove the word spiritual from the Scouting article. I concur that BSA is not unique in being theistic. Pardon my inability to express it clearly in the original. --Habap 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: First read the WOMS constitution, it includes a duty to God Rlevse 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. As such, identifying something as a theistic Scouting movement is redundant. Would it be accurate to say that the non-theistic groups may be Scout-like, but they are not Scouting organizations? --Habap 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One could, but that opens another big debate as some associations have allowed atheists in. But the movement historically does a belief in a higher being, however one defines that. You're also assuming all Scout are WOSM associatiates, but they're not. God was certainly a part of BP-s vision. Rlevse 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: spiritual development

message: Is there any council out there with an actual council executive?  The prime professional in a council is the Scout executive, but council executive has been added to a few articles.  Also see the Language of Scouting. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We call our lead council professional the "council executive"; whether or not that's his official title, I can find out if you like.Rlevse 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your newsletter, Bill Deany is the Scout executive.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We always refer to ours that way. But I see that our Key 3 at the Council level are the Council President, Council Commissioner and Scout Executive. Odd that they don't stick with the some adjective (which they do at the District level). --Habap 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure which came first: National Scout Executive or Scout executive, but one probably derives from the other. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But very few call him the Scout exective, most people, in actual usage, call him the Council executive.Rlevse 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That's ambiguous.  It could mean the specific title ("the Council executive"), or a class of titles ("an executive of the council").  The "Language of Scouting" page seems to imply that Gadget850's footnote is accurate. --Smack (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Council executive

message: For some reason, a lot of details have been stuffed into the controversy section lately that really belong in the main article at Boy Scouts of America membership controversies.  Since the section has a main link to that article, the section should be a summary of the issues.  In my opinion, sections with main links should reflect the lead-in of the main article.  I recommend that this be pared back.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree totally.Rlevse 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, too. --NThurston 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been cleaned up. Most of it was already in the controversies article.Rlevse 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure how big SFA is, since though it is based in San Jose, California, they do not have a presence, or a huge one, in the San Diego North County area. If this is just coming from one IP address, I would not be surprised if we might have to do a semi-protect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this is registered to SBC, not AT&T. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you can cite a reference for that information, then yes, I think that this is a very pertinent point - however, if it is only that you think the fact about the only private organisation to receive public funding, then that would not be valid. Horus Kol 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: Oppose.  The American Boy Scouts were a separate organization that never merged with the BSA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairley well noted in the preface of the article now. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry - I meant to indicate that it probably ought to be in the See also  of this article. Or maybe in the Other United States Scout organizations section. --Habap 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Gadget850. Rlevse 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur. --Habap 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with American Boy Scouts 

message: The complete refusal to allow any mention of the BSA's dishonesty or hateful actions constitutes a deviation from NPOV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2006 October 8
:You need to provide a lot more than a sentence fragment.  The policy says "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Johntex\talk 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, it was not a fragment, I misread it.  However, it certainly does not qualify as "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Johntex\talk 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. --SafeLibraries 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: Heqwm has filed a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA. Johntex\talk 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heqwm has not responded to a mediator's offer to mediate, yet today he reinserted tags and the Pulliam piece without discussion, so the following two subsections: Fact tags on refs and Pulliam.Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Clearly a troll trying to be disruptive. The pre-existing refs were valid and there's no reason to re-tag them with a fact tag.Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this ref that you deleted, especially the second line from the bottom: http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv Rlevse 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a source given in the article for the good citizenship.  Do you have a source that says they "teach bad citizenship"? Johntex\talk 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation cabal case

message: Inserting fact tags on sentences that already have valid refs is clearly POV and disruptive. Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly a troll trying to be disruptive. The pre-existing refs were valid and there's no reason to re-tag them with a fact tag.Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See this ref that you deleted, especially the second line from the bottom: http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv Rlevse 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tags on refs

message: Setting aside the issue of whether this belongs in the article at all, it clearly does not belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There is a source given in the article for the good citizenship.  Do you have a source that says they "teach bad citizenship"? Johntex\talk 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulliam

message: I am not too sure but I know that our local American Legion Post 127 Glendale, with the Boy Scouts of America, funds the Military Explorers Post 2127. Are there any other such posts? Hovru 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy Scouts of America 

message: I've bee thinking of moving this to the history article.  Thoughts?  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm neutral, can see either way. Rlevse 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Turns 

message: Norman Rockwell is mentioned in passing on this page.  I suggest somehow highlighting his work for the Boy Scouts, his love for the Boy Scouts, etc.  It is yet another way to show how the BSA is a pillar of American life.  It includes wonderful pictures, one of which should appear on this page, perhaps one from the cover of Boys Life magazine.  Look at the description for A rated pages.  They say the article should have great pictures.  This article does not, in my opinion, have the best of pictures at this time.  A Norman Rockwell will really add quality in appearance and in tying in the BSA with American culture.  The BSA is not just an organization; it's a major factor in the American way of life and has been for a long time, and this article should reflect that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 17:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we can't use a Rockwell painting here just because it looks good.  Take a look at the  tag and check the useage.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't use a cover of Boys Life that happens to include a Rockwell painting? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Possibly.  Compare the one Rockwell image I know is loaded here to the Time cover of  West.  The licensing on the artwork only allows useage in an article that is specifically obout that piece.  The Time cover allows useage in an article that notes the issue represented by the cover.  Time may have released article covers in this manner. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just ask Rockwell's heirs and get permission to satify Wikipedia? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We can use a painting in an article if there is substantial discussion of the painting.  It does not have to be a complete article specifically about the painting, but it does need to be discussion, not just a mention.  So, depending on how much room we want to give to the topic, it would be possible to bring it in here.  I question, though, whether we want that much discussion here about one painter and his works in this top-level article.  Johntex\talk 00:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Rockwell is not just any painter.  He is the epitome of America.  The Boy Scouts are the epitome of America.  The two merge in beautiful paintings that really set the BSA apart from any other organization.  A sentence or two is enough, but it does set the stage for a deeply rooted American institution, and that's what I hope this article conveys, among other things, because it is true. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 01:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think the appropriate word for your two declarative sentances is: "Americana"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman Rockwell and pictures generally

message: I am under the impression that when a section in this article (such as origins/history, uniforms or advancement) is associated with a "main article" that it is customary for the lead-in paragraphs of the main article be used as the text in the referring article, as is done with the membership controversies.  I would make those changes myself, but they would be major changes so I brought it here to Talk.  I actually think that those lead-ins would work quite nicely and would like to see the changes made.  --204.113.19.8 22:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main Article" lead-ins 

message: The 4th paragraph, describing famous scouts, doesn't summerize the organization, does it?  Notice how the Girl Scouts of the USA page has a nice section "Impact on American life", which I think would hold these famous people, the Norman Rockwell reference mentioned on this talk page, mention of the List of notable Scouts (and Eagle Scouts) pages, etc, instead of trying to cram it into the organization's summary.  Doesn't "11 of the 12 men on the moon were scouts" read like a factoid, not an overview of the organization?  Wild Pansy 17:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it needs work. Actually A-class is above GA, but many people have been editing it. Rome wasn't built in a day-;) Rlevse 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Paragraph in Intro 

message: Here are a few thoughts, please comment and add as you see:
*Add "Impact on American life" like the Girl Scouts of the USA article.  Move the last paragraph of the lead-in  to this section. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an awkward sentence.  The astronaut info is pulled from the BSA fact sheet that is used as the reference.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I distinctly remember Armstrong discussing a link between his attaining Eagle Scout and being a pilot/astronaut... wish I could remember the article, though. Horus Kol 09:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Steven Spielberg says working on Cinematography merit badge is one reason he got into film making. He is the author of the modern Cinematography merit badge requirements.Rlevse 13:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Should we have a mention of David Hahn - the "Nuclear Boy Scout"? We tell this story to our Explorer Scouts whenever we get the chance... Horus Kol 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvements 

message: Again, not sure this is right, but I'd change the major sections to something like this:
* Origins  ..which leads to the BSA's unique...
* Ideals   ..which is implemented by ...
* Program Divisions  ..which REALLY is implemented by ...
* Organization
::I like that. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
The section on National Council confuses me a bit, does it mean that the Boy Scouts of America (the title of the page) is a non-profit organization known as the National Council, or are they two different things?  Does the National Council publish the two magazines referenced?  Does it run the museum?
::Obviously this needs work. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
The rest of the sections look fine to me, except that Good Turns section does stick out a bit, does a mention of that go under the new Impact on American Life section and the meat of it go into the new page proposed earlier?
::At least part should go under Impact.  Good thought. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Wild Pansy 03:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorder the sections?