Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 7

message: This statement in the subject section is not properly cited:  
"The Boy Scouts of America forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public or to youth members." Someone said it may be in the Scoutmasters Handbook but I don't have a copy of it. --Jagz 21:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can probably check out Dave Rice's story on Scouting for All. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking for the official BSA policy that says something to the effect that the BSA forbids its adult members from using their leader status to express political views to the public. The Scouting for All site is down temporarily but I don't think there is anything there that makes that general of a statement; it says Dave Rice was removed for "involving Scouting youth" in his effort to have a BSA policy changed. I think that there needs to be clarification here. What does the Scoutmaster's Handbook say exactly, etc.? --Jagz 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the latest SMH at home- I will try to remember to check it out tonight.  I do not recall any policy of this nature.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone commented that the "Scoutmaster Handbbook page 153 under uniforms alludes to it". --Jagz 15:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As no one has found any since you first asked it it 4 months ago, the answer seems to be "No".  No one has been to my knowledge, but then the discussions I heard about the issue followed BSA procedure through the districts and councils (not creating you own organization and encouraging Scouts to then promote it), thus there would be no reason to not renew a Leader's commission for the next year. (the more correct term than "being expelled") GCW50 13:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsions for public disagreement with the policies 

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

message: The following sentence was removed from the subject section:
"The practice, presumably done to obtain more grant money and so that paid professional Scouters can retain their positions, may have been going on for years but only recently has it been reported by the media."
Let's put in the findings of the various investigations and/or litigation on this issue instead. --Jagz 18:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I substituted in another sentence a while back. Does anyone know the results of the FBI investigation into some BSA councils' practice of padding of membership numbers to get more money from the United Way, etc.? --Jagz 10:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership size 

message: How about the idea of adding a section on historical membership controversies? It can mention racial segregation and how women were excluded from leadership positions, then just Scoutmaster positions before being being allowed to hold all positions. --Jagz 19:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those subjects and more are covered in History of the Boy Scouts of America.  I added a section on Early Controversies that covers a bunch of stuff that suprised me.  The women in leadership is covered later in the article.  I need to get back to this and add the sources and do some more expansion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the following in an old version of this article. Not sure if you can use any of it in the History of the BSA article:
"The Boy Scouts give female adult leaders all of the privileges of male adult leaders. Although this was not true in decades past, the policy was instituted in response to a shortage of adult males willing to participate actively in running the troops. While many scouting adults do have their own children in the program, it is not necessary to have a child in the program to be actively involved with a scout unit.
Until 1954, the Boy Scouts of America was a racially segregated organization. Colored Troops, as they were officially known, were given little support from Districts, Councils and the national offices. Some scouting executives and leaders believed that Colored Scouts and Leaders would be less able to live up to the ideals of the Boy Scouts.
In the 1980s, some Boy Scout troops in the Eastern United States were involved in a scandal resulting in violence occurring on campout trips. In Virginia, a report surfaced that a scout had been badly beaten by fellow scouts at the Goshen, Virginia Boy Scout Camp. Further reports followed of bullying of younger scouts by older scouts, especially on prolonged outdoor trips where adult supervision was limited. Parents challenged the Boy Scouts attitude to such instances, since several adult leaders were quoted as saying that scouts in the field should "know how to take care of themselves" and that "natural horseplay" on campout trips was not a problem.
To prevent such incidents and other forms of child abuse, the BSA developed an extensive Youth Protection Plan in the mid-eighties that actively teaches both youth members and adult leaders in how to recognise, resist and report child abuse in both Scout and non-Scout venues. In addition, it provides tight requirements on adult leadership and activities to help ensure that Scouting is a safe venue for its participants. Several Scouts have been expelled from the organization for violence." --Jagz 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is from the BSA legal site:
"Quinnipiac Council v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 528 A.2d 352 (Conn. 1987)
A female volunteer leader sued a Boy Scout council alleging that the then policy of limited Scoutmaster positions to men violated the Connecticut public accommodations law. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the public accommodations law did not apply to Scouting’s leadership positions because volunteering to serve youth was not a right protected under that law.
In 1988, Boy Scouts of America changed the policy and allowed women to be Scoutmasters." --Jagz 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical membership controversies 

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

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

message: Woman who opened doors to women in Boy Scout leadership dies:
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female leaders 

message: The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies from countries and regions around the world. --Jagz 09:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the article changed to Scouting controversy and conflict. --Jagz 09:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting Controversies and Concerns article needs expansion 

message: The following comment was posted in the article so I moved it to the Talk page: --Jagz 06:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article say that prior to a certain year, atheists/agnostics and/or gays were not necessarily expelled from the BSA? Maybe things were more lenient until recent years? --Jagz 19:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think to be exact many (but not all) local groups turned a blind eye to atheists and agnostics in the ranks; this is probably still true (and gays have probably been added to the list that blind eyes are turned to).  The difference seems to have been that in the past National also turned a blind eye.  However this is speculation and without evidence or reference this should not be in the article. --Erp 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I added a new section to the article called Break up of Explorer Scouts. --Jagz 08:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section but referred to the issue in the History article. --Jagz 12:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new section 

message: Does anyone know about Star Scouting America? I wonder how many members they have, etc. --Jagz 04:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Star Scouting America from the "Scouting and youth organizations with different policies" section because it seems to be a fledgling organization and I don't know how many members it has. Feel free to replace it with another organization if you can think of one. --Jagz 20:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not do the same for Youthscouts? GCW50 14:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is active and pending litigation. --Jagz 15:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Scouting America 

message: Someone should update the "Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program" section, here's a site on the current status of that program: http://www.uuscouters.org/
:Actually there are two competing programs.  The one you list above recognized by the BSA but not by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the one developed by the UUA but not recognized by the BSA.  You might find UUA comment on the new program--Erp 01:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is explained on the main article at Unitarian Universalist religious emblems program. --Jagz 01:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UUA 

message: Camp Fire USA is listed in the article as not excluding atheists. Is this true? See their Law below. --Jagz 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes for a meaningful experience for kids .  "We stand for something, but you get to pick and choose which rules you like" GCW50 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Camp Fire USA 

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

message: Their new website is set to go live on 15 March 2007.  References linking to the site should be checked at that point. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new website is live.  The reference links from here are still 404.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting for All 

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

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

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

message: Is it fair of the BSA to not allow certain segments of the US population to become members while maintaining a monopoly of Scouting for boys? --Jagz 04:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page is not for debating, the talk pages are for discussing improvements to the articles. JoshuaZ 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find reliable sources that discuss that, I don't see why not, but I think as an organizational matter it would make  more sense to quote what critics have to say about each individual issue within the sections on those issues. JoshuaZ 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the Monopoly section is a circular argument - "BSA is a monopoly because it is a monopoly". While it may appear to be a monopoly to you, it is not the only Scouting organization for boys - it's just the most successful. Using the term monopoly means there are no other similar programs and implies that the BSA is making efforts to make sure no other similar program can succeed. It implies at least a nefarious intent, which would seem to be a POV statement. --Habap 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct - The Royal Rangers is very similar to Scouting (with much more religion than BSA's non-denominational stance) but BSA doesn't care because they don't use the word Scout. Hence BSA doesn't have a monopoly on youth outdoor programs.  And as we said, monopoly is an economic term, not applicable in this contest.  If you go down the fairness route, that section would be entirely a POV battleground.  One person's fairness is anothers outrage GCW50 20:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A good point. I single organisation with name ownership not only prevents the use of the known and attractive term "Scouting" for its activities but in the case of BSA prevents other organisations from taking part in the very attractive international activities of Scouting such as Jamborees. Whether this is a sufficient issue in the USA backed up with sources to discuss it on WP I do not know. --Bduke 21:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It applies to almost every country.  Only WOSM member organizations can send contingents to International Jamborees GCW50 13:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness 

message: The fact that the Girl Scouts is for girls and young women only is clearly stated in the Coeducational Scouting section that is linked in the Mainstream Scouting membership policies section. I believe I am the one who wrote it. It does not need to be included in the article again.
The Opposition to Boy Scouts of America's membership policies section is by design slanted against the BSA in the same way that the Support for the Boy Scouts of America section is slanted in favor of the BSA. The two sections were designed to balance each other out. I am opposed to anyone going into either of the sections and start trying to neutralize them or otherwise change the slant of the sections. --Jagz 21:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girl Scouts of the USA 

message: Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit filed by Youthscouts in U.S. District Court? --Jagz 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can register for PACER and look it up. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youthscouts lawsuit 

message: I changed the first paragraph to: "The Boy Scouts of America is by far the largest supplier of Scouting to boys in the United States of America. The BSA is the only Scouting association of significance in the United States that boys can join and there are no comparable alternative organizations available to them throughout most of the country. The situation is different in some other countries where a number of Scouting associations with varying membership criteria are available to boys." Is the last sentence worded correctly? Should it say many other countries or some other countries? --Jagz 10:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some, unless you define ten percent as "many" GCW50 13:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are referring to WOSM Scouting associations. --Jagz 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And WOSM is the major player. As a practical matter, small splinter groups such as Baden-Powell Scouts are TINY in comparison and rarely have troops in more than a few locales in a given country.  Thus local alternative organizations are NOT available to most boys in countries that also have non-WOSM organizations.  And once again, the bulk of the multiple organization WOSM federations are due to pre-existing troops SEGREGATED by religion or ethnicity.  You keep trying to infer in the article that inclusive multiple organizations are widely available to most boys around the world.  They are not, unless the kid's parents are willing to drive them hundreds of miles each week to a  meeting.  GCW50 12:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting membership in the United States section 

message: *Information on what to do with long articles can be found here: Wikipedia:Article size. --Jagz 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for trying to improve Jagz private biased article.  Obviously, any edits by others have to be approved by him first, otherwise they get reverted. GCW50 14:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I suppose you would consider an article that looks like it came out of a BSA manual an improvement. --Jagz 14:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Maybe you should try to get a consensus on whether others consider the article biased first. --Jagz 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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