Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 6

message: I haven't been able to get onto Scouting for All for several days now.  Anyone know whats going on? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but ping can't even find it, so either it's been taken down or they have server problems.Rlevse 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's working now. --Jagz 16:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouting for All 

message: Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America, 05-1260. 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13047756/from/RSS
--evrik 12:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another case 

message: I just reverted a few of GCW's recent edits-- specifically those involving "openly-gay" vs "gay" and those that added  "out of a total of".  Jagz beat me to the punch on one of those, but I reverted the others. Both these issues are discussed in the talk pages icons, because they're issues we considered in the vetting of this page for FAC, so you can observe the whole consensus building process and full debate on these two issues in the archive, but let me try to summarize.
===Openly gay===
GCW added the qualified "openly gay" when describing the policy.  There is actually a pretty substantial debate about whether non-openly gays men are welcome in BSA.  The official policy statement only mentions openly gay men, and it is silent on how non-openly gay men should be treated.  This leaves the possibility open that perhaps non-openly gay men are welcome in BSA.   
As of now, however, that doesn't seem to be the case, at least not a nation-wide basis.  Some troups have mentioned they have "don't ask don't tell", presumably welcoming non-open gays. But there have been many other cases in which non-open gays were expelled.  One notable case involved a high-level employee of the National Council who was NOT openly gay but who was fired for homosexuality.  there are other less notable cases.  
In trying to get to the heart of the matter when writing this article, I contacted BSA and asked them to comment on whether non-openly gay men are welcome, but I didn't receive a response.  I in turn contacted webmasters of the leading Pro-policy and Anti-policy advocacy sites and asked them their opinion on the issue-- they both were in agreement that in general, non-openly gay males are not welcome in BSA under the current policy.  
So, the long and the short of it is:  we have no reliable source specifying that BSA nationals allows non-open gays.  We have a number of reliable sources in agreement that non-open gays can be expelled in some circumstances.  So, until we have a reliable statement from the BSA officially allowing non-open gays to participate, it's OR to claim that only the openly gay are excluded.  Obviously, if BSA makes some statement officially allowing them, all that would change.  Until they do, we have only their actions to speak for them, and those actions are clear that in some cases, members can be directly confronted with suspicions of homosexuality and expelled on that basis.
===Percentages===
In several other cases, when numbers were cited, GCW added "out of a total of".  For example, 100 of the 1,500,000 eagle badges issues have been returned in protest.   I reverted these sorts of additions as well, and this issue also came up when we were doing the run up to FAC.  
The problem with these sorts of statistics is that they imply everyone NOT in the minority disagrees with the minority's position.  So, in the eagle scout badge example,  the implication is that the other 1,499,900 eagle scouts support the policy.  The truth is, that number is simply undecided, and in general, has not weighed in on either side of the issue.  Many are no longer living, and cannot weigh in on one side or the other.  Most are probably not involved with Scouting anymore, and don't keep up with the policies.  Many other oppose the policies, but simply never considered making the gesture of returning their badges in protest.  So, as much as we would like to have a statistic that talks about the former eagle scout position on this, we don't have such a survey, and to list the full number of eagle badges only falsely implies that we do.   
Let me give this an example, let's say I'm talking about the 2004 US Presidential Election. Suppose I say this:
:"Only 60 million Americans (out of the 300 million Americans total) voted to re-elect President Bush."
This sentence is technically true, and it is technically factual, but it is also misleading and unfair to President Bush. The sentence implies that while only 60 million supported the President, the other 240 million didn't vote for him. This is technically true, but it's totally unfair and misleading. The fact is, most American's don't vote, and the majority of those 300 million were "undecided", not "opposed to Bush". And as we know, Bush was, in fact, the most popular candidate. So to say "60 million out of 300 million total supported Bush" is simply very, very  misleading-- even if every word of it happens to be true.  
So, that's our reasoning.  We gave serious consideration to both these issues, and the consensus was to do things this way for a good reason.  So, GCW, I applaud you for having the keen eye to realize that both these issues might be points of interest, or ways the article COULD be different.  BUt in general, once an article has reached FAC-- if you think you detect a systemic NPOV problem with the article, there's probably a good reason it's being done that way.   But of course-- it never hurts to raise the issue. 
--Alecmconroy 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "few" where?   --Alecmconroy 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking objectively at the facts, I question the notability of the turning in of Eagle badges.  As currently written, that fact was used to support the statement that some within the BSA do not support its policies.  I don't think that makes much sense as there is no source to show that the badges were sent in by members (current or past) of the BSA.  It is a strange fact that you can buy badges at 2nd hand stores, yard sales, etc.  And I could walk into a Scout Shop and buy a duplicate badge today, if I wanted to.  What I might find notable about that fact is that it dispels the common myth of there being wide-spread protest by past Eagle Scouts, maybe.  In that case, it should be placed somewhere else, but there really isn't a place for it.  My vote is to remove it as not-notable. --NThurston 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another concern for me - the citation for the "30 percent of parents" is a simple statement in the Boston Globe.  It does not clarify when this survey was done, whether it was national or just a local council, etc.  I have been misconstrued and misquoted on statistics and facts by the press many times, so I am a little iffy on what that quote should mean.  This is the primary fact supporting the statement that there is opposition within, and probably should be a little more firm.  Any chance that someone has access to a direct source on the survey data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThurston (talk • contribs) 
I see Jagz has put in the compromise wording "several"-- that seems fine to me.  I can't really compare 100 out of the 1.5 million since who knows how many of that million are still around, but they give out 40 thousand of these things a year, so 100 or so obviously isn't "a lot" based just on that one.  At the same time, it's at least in the triple digits, so a few might not get at the fact that it's a group doing it, not just a couple.  
As to the concern that the badges aren't being returned by Eagle Scout-- I think you're taking the "returned badges" a little too literally.  I believe, though admittedly perhaps I'm wrong, that you have to submit your name in order to declare your officially "returning" the badge.  I don't think they're counting just any old badge that people found somewhere and mailed in.  Since our source for the badge returning is notable media and the BSA itself, we don't have any reason to suspect that badges are falsely acquired.
About the 30 percent disapproval--  it was an internal poll conducted by the BSA.  It's quoted in the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and probably others.  But no, I haven't been able to find any details about sample size, etc.  BSA would presumably have that info, so you could write them for it.  Some of the other webmasters on this issue might know.        Of course, I'd predict that over time, that statistic is going to drop towards zero, as those who oppose the policy leave BSA and others who are specifically attracted to the policy join BSA.  Since gays, atheists, and some people who publically oppose the policy are being expelled, that right off the bat, that should substantially decrease the numbers within BSA who oppose.
In the real world of Scouting (which I suspect you're not a member of) this is an issue that rarely comes up.   
Well, there's a whole cottage industry built up on guessing what ties I do and don't have.  In the end, it doesn't matter, but you might be surprised.  But about the issue in general-- yeah, I'm aware that within Scouting itself, this really doesn't come up.  Scouts don't sit around all take talking about how much they hate gays or atheists-- the focus is on the boys and making a great program for the boys, and it's really not about this.   This is a common theme whenever you talk to people in scouting-- most feel like this isn't an issue that comes up a lot at the local level.  And I think that's a very valid point.  This isn't just a "Scouting issue"-- rather, this is a larger societal debate, of which the BSA are but one part.  That's a big part of why this is a separate article, rather than just being a large portion of the main BSA article.     
--Alecmconroy 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Openly Gay and Percentages 

message: In several other cases, when numbers were cited, GCW added "out of a total of".  For example, 100 of the 1,500,000 eagle badges issues have been returned in protest.   I reverted these sorts of additions as well, and this issue also came up when we were doing the run up to FAC.  
The problem with these sorts of statistics is that they imply everyone NOT in the minority disagrees with the minority's position.  So, in the eagle scout badge example,  the implication is that the other 1,499,900 eagle scouts support the policy.  The truth is, that number is simply undecided, and in general, has not weighed in on either side of the issue.  Many are no longer living, and cannot weigh in on one side or the other.  Most are probably not involved with Scouting anymore, and don't keep up with the policies.  Many other oppose the policies, but simply never considered making the gesture of returning their badges in protest.  So, as much as we would like to have a statistic that talks about the former eagle scout position on this, we don't have such a survey, and to list the full number of eagle badges only falsely implies that we do.   
Let me give this an example, let's say I'm talking about the 2004 US Presidential Election. Suppose I say this:
:"Only 60 million Americans (out of the 300 million Americans total) voted to re-elect President Bush."
This sentence is technically true, and it is technically factual, but it is also misleading and unfair to President Bush. The sentence implies that while only 60 million supported the President, the other 240 million didn't vote for him. This is technically true, but it's totally unfair and misleading. The fact is, most American's don't vote, and the majority of those 300 million were "undecided", not "opposed to Bush". And as we know, Bush was, in fact, the most popular candidate. So to say "60 million out of 300 million total supported Bush" is simply very, very  misleading-- even if every word of it happens to be true.  
So, that's our reasoning.  We gave serious consideration to both these issues, and the consensus was to do things this way for a good reason.  So, GCW, I applaud you for having the keen eye to realize that both these issues might be points of interest, or ways the article COULD be different.  BUt in general, once an article has reached FAC-- if you think you detect a systemic NPOV problem with the article, there's probably a good reason it's being done that way.   But of course-- it never hurts to raise the issue. 
--Alecmconroy 15:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "few" where?   --Alecmconroy 15:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking objectively at the facts, I question the notability of the turning in of Eagle badges.  As currently written, that fact was used to support the statement that some within the BSA do not support its policies.  I don't think that makes much sense as there is no source to show that the badges were sent in by members (current or past) of the BSA.  It is a strange fact that you can buy badges at 2nd hand stores, yard sales, etc.  And I could walk into a Scout Shop and buy a duplicate badge today, if I wanted to.  What I might find notable about that fact is that it dispels the common myth of there being wide-spread protest by past Eagle Scouts, maybe.  In that case, it should be placed somewhere else, but there really isn't a place for it.  My vote is to remove it as not-notable. --NThurston 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another concern for me - the citation for the "30 percent of parents" is a simple statement in the Boston Globe.  It does not clarify when this survey was done, whether it was national or just a local council, etc.  I have been misconstrued and misquoted on statistics and facts by the press many times, so I am a little iffy on what that quote should mean.  This is the primary fact supporting the statement that there is opposition within, and probably should be a little more firm.  Any chance that someone has access to a direct source on the survey data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NThurston (talk • contribs) 
I see Jagz has put in the compromise wording "several"-- that seems fine to me.  I can't really compare 100 out of the 1.5 million since who knows how many of that million are still around, but they give out 40 thousand of these things a year, so 100 or so obviously isn't "a lot" based just on that one.  At the same time, it's at least in the triple digits, so a few might not get at the fact that it's a group doing it, not just a couple.  
As to the concern that the badges aren't being returned by Eagle Scout-- I think you're taking the "returned badges" a little too literally.  I believe, though admittedly perhaps I'm wrong, that you have to submit your name in order to declare your officially "returning" the badge.  I don't think they're counting just any old badge that people found somewhere and mailed in.  Since our source for the badge returning is notable media and the BSA itself, we don't have any reason to suspect that badges are falsely acquired.
About the 30 percent disapproval--  it was an internal poll conducted by the BSA.  It's quoted in the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and probably others.  But no, I haven't been able to find any details about sample size, etc.  BSA would presumably have that info, so you could write them for it.  Some of the other webmasters on this issue might know.        Of course, I'd predict that over time, that statistic is going to drop towards zero, as those who oppose the policy leave BSA and others who are specifically attracted to the policy join BSA.  Since gays, atheists, and some people who publically oppose the policy are being expelled, that right off the bat, that should substantially decrease the numbers within BSA who oppose.
In the real world of Scouting (which I suspect you're not a member of) this is an issue that rarely comes up.   
Well, there's a whole cottage industry built up on guessing what ties I do and don't have.  In the end, it doesn't matter, but you might be surprised.  But about the issue in general-- yeah, I'm aware that within Scouting itself, this really doesn't come up.  Scouts don't sit around all take talking about how much they hate gays or atheists-- the focus is on the boys and making a great program for the boys, and it's really not about this.   This is a common theme whenever you talk to people in scouting-- most feel like this isn't an issue that comes up a lot at the local level.  And I think that's a very valid point.  This isn't just a "Scouting issue"-- rather, this is a larger societal debate, of which the BSA are but one part.  That's a big part of why this is a separate article, rather than just being a large portion of the main BSA article.     
--Alecmconroy 08:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Percentages

message: Just curious - according to statements that Heqwm has made, one would infer that the ACLU does not officially "oppose" the BSA policies per se, rather they view themselves as a legal resource for defending people's rights.  This policy has led them to offer their services to groups that you might not expect, such as the KKK.  So - is it really accurate to say that the ACLU opposes the policies?  Or should we re-word to say that the ACLU has been active in assisting others in cases that challenge BSA policies (not much success there) and cases that challenge prefential treatment of the BSA? --NThurston 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think we can say that the ACLU does indeed oppose the policies.  See for example the Amicus brief the ACLU filed in the Dale case, where it spoke for itself, not in the direct representation of a party.  The ACLU is an advocacy group, not just a legal representation, and they take a wide array of stances on all kinds of issues.  For example, the sometimes issue voters guides endorsing or opposing certain measures.  I think you would be correct in saying that the ACLU does not endorse the KKK, homosexuality, or atheism themselves, but the ACLU has spoken out on the BSA issue a number of times.   --Alecmconroy 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACLU Position 

message: All of these cases are related to Special Access and should have a more direct link to the Access section.  A transition paragraph would do the trick.  I also understand that the federal actions (paragraph 5 in Access section) are in reaction to some of "these" cases, so again we have a problem of misplaced antecedents.  I recommend moving these paragraphs into the Access section, perhaps as a subsection, and putting them right before 5 (Federal Congressional action). --NThurston 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If (Federal action) is to remain just the laws passed, then it should be renamed to differenciate it from USSC actions, which are also federal. CovenantD 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually would go a step further-- it seems to me that there's room for a whole article on just the access controversy.  We _mention_ this access issue, because it is so closely linked with the membership controversy.  But strictly speaking, it's really its own issue, aand I dont' htink we can't fully cover all the intricacies of the issue on this page.  Right now this page is the central nexus for discussing this issue, but it would be better, I think, if we could briefly summarize this acccess issue, and leave all the nitty gritty legal details, specific cases, etc of the access issue to the some other page.  --Alecmconroy 03:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a decent idea.  Let's start a new article Boy Scouts of America access to government resources  All of the current text from "The conditions under which.." down to the last of the litigation would form the seed for the new article.  There would be a "main article" link here and a sync'ed summary header from the main article.  At present, there isn't a suitable summary header, so that would have to be written there (and here) as a top priority in order to preserve the integrity of this article.  Anybody want to do it?--NThurston 14:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Litigation

message: GCW50: What is the point you are trying to make about this? You need to provide citations with statements you add. --Jagz 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should provide a link to the information you reference instead of expecting us to search around for it. You could have provided a link in your above message for example. --Jagz 17:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union for Reform Judaism 

message: How do you cite something so the cites are not duplicated in the References list? --Jagz 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all the dup cites I can find.  --NThurston 17:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: So, I replied to all the proposed changes.  One big room for improvement I see expanding the "access to governmental resources" section into a full article, and if anyone wanted to do that, that would be very cool, because as NT correctly points out-- we basically do a very quick rundown, and there is  lot more to say about it.
I also definitely can tell that have a sort of awkward organization when it comes to the girls issue, and there might be room for improvement for where we put that girls issue.  So, I'd really like to hear feedback on which options people like.    
At the same time, I note that some of the recent editors feel that the page has widespread problems of logic and NPOV, and there has been very aggressive editing in that direction.  I personally disagree that these problems.  If Jagz, Rlevse, and other agree with the edits, I certainly won't be the one to insist.   But in general, the page is a very good one, if you disagree, you've should be focusing on convincing, not editing. 
Anyway, the edits are so much that I can't keep up, so keep in mind my comments are more on 'general principle' at this time, not so much on the specific edits.   In a few days, when the editing has settled down and people feel like they've done what edits they want to do-- I'll go through it and compare that version with the pre-rewrite version, and try to keep the changes that I personnally agree are improvements or which are supported by strong consensus.   
Please try too respect the current article and the current balance, and if you feel this article is unbalanced, do an RFC / talk.  Trying to change the POV of the article to make a point, won't likely be successful, as Heq. found out.  Just on a hunch, I checked the article to see if the much-contested 30%-oppose survey was still in the article, and as I suspected-- it has been removed.  I realize some (but not necessarily all) of the new editors very strongly  disagree with opposition, but this does not cause such opposition to not exist. :) ---Alecmconroy 05:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary 

message: This case has no link in the article. Not sure if it did at one time. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America --Jagz 07:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The case is discussed the subpages of bsa discrimination and bsa legal.  The appeals court decision is here (pdf).  --Alecmconroy 08:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put a link to the Wikipedia article in See Also. --Jagz 08:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America 

message: Alec raises an important point - What is this article really about?  Is it about membership controversies generally or the current membership controversies(orientation & theism)?  Please use this section to help us find consensus.
Comment The article should be about the totality of membership controversies in the BSA.  The girls issue is a historical important feature for two reasons - 1) It was the beginning of case law establishing right to association, and 2) The BSA's policy on girls and women has changed significantly over time.  Even though they presumably have the right to do otherwise, they now allow women leaders in all positions, and girls to be members of some programs.  --NThurston 14:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the girls issue should be covered somewhere. The BSA is different than some other countries, see the Coeducational Scouting link. I believe the lack of success in past litigation is the reason we are not seeing lawsuits on this issue today. Although BSA lets older girls into the Venturing program, girls may not be interested in a high-adventure type program or the program may not be available locally. I think there is a somewhat silent controversy out there on this issue. --Jagz 16:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, the question is no longer "Is it revelant or should we cover it at all"-- one of the very clear feedbacks that came out of vetting the article was that we SHOULD mention it.   The question is where should we cover it?  I think my favorite right now is listing it as on of the related issues, so we can present all the girl issues & litigiation in one coherent narrative, and also mention the later admission of women into BSA and mention the venture scouts.  I sorta feel like all this information should be together in one place, and I can't we anywhere else to put it other than in the "related issues".  At the same time, it would be wrong of us to treat the girls just like a third, equal issue-- by and large, it seems like the exclusion of girls aren't controversial, and we shouldn't make it out that this is a huge isssue.  What would people think about adding girls as a third "related issue".  --Alecmconroy 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely cover it here on a par with the other issues. It has been going on longer than the religious and sexuality issues--in fact all the way back to the earliest days. There have been several court cases on the matter. To me, it's somewhat schizophrenic of BSA to say boys need women as role models so they allow them as adult leaders and it's okay to have them at 14 and up in Venturing, but not at 13 and below in the troops and packs.  This article is about membership controversies and this is certainly a membership controversey. Rlevse 19:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking Consensus - Is Girls Issue Relevant? 

message: Both occur in the Litigation section
* Re-word the paragraph on how case law established freedom of association:
:Through case law, the right of the BSA to set their own membership standards has been firmly established. Federal courts have repeatedly held that the Boys Scouts of America, and all private organizations, have a right to set membership standards under the First Amendment protected concept of freedom of association. The Supreme Court firmly established the BSA's right to freedom of association in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)."
* Two paragraph re-structuring in Access to allow for two main ideas:
:Some local governments have adopted policies and ordinances which limit special access to organizations that do not follow acceptable nondiscrimination policies.[citation needed] Often, the BSA's membership policies are not consistent with local requirements for nondiscrimination. This has led some government organizations to limit or eliminate special access privileges for the BSA.[citation needed] In other cases, private individuals have filed lawsuits to prevent governmental entities from granting special access to the BSA.[38]
:There is not always agreement about whether these cases involve "special access" versus "equal access." The BSA has sued governmental entities that deny them "special access" to resources while giving special access to other organizations.[33] They argue that such policies deny their right to "equal access" and amount to discrimination based on their constitutionally protected right to freedom of association.
--NThurston 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is going to be a new article or articles created using the information in this article, maybe you should work on them now. When they are finalized and the blitz of edits slows down, we can delete the corresponding information in this article and link to the new article/s. That way this article can remain stable. --Jagz 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this approach though is making people aware of the article/s that are under development. We could include links to them in See Also or on the Talk page I suppose. Maybe you can draft the new article and request a review on the Talk page of this article and maybe the BSA article too. --Jagz 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Major re-wording (for consensus) 

message: So, I finally found the time to go through and sort through the recent edits.  There were lot of WikiGnome edits that had been made lately-- replacing duplicate links, fixing capitalization, and other such thigs--- so thanks for those!  THe "Support for" and "Opposition for" order was swapped-- it took me a second, but I think it's actually a really good improvment.  There were a lot of really good introductory statments that made things a little smoother.  
A few of the changes I disagreed with, so I reverted or altered them.  Here's the changes I made and why:   
*altered girls statement in into to reflect the girls are NOT the main controversy, and that the excusion of girls is only controversial "to some".   everyone can agree there's a huge amount of coverage of the gay/atheist issue.  in contrst, single-gendered organizations are so commonplace that i don't know it's verifiable that this is a societal controversy.
*reinstated briefer  mission  quote.  The critical element here is that they want to instill values-- not their full statement. 
*social discrimination is odd term.  "disrimination" is by far more common. 
*Explicitly attributed mission statement quote to the BSA mission statement
*Removed that GSUSA have gotten special access.  This is true, but more of an aside for our purposes.  
*I changed the Access to Government resources, but this is an area that merits further discussion, so i'll address it below.
*Much was mad of the fact that the DOJ filed an amicus brief-- i removed it, because the DOJ doesn't speak for the US Government in this matter-- the courts do, and the DOJ amicus carries no more legal authority than any other party's briefs.
*Removed "in recent years" from opposition.  Opposition is at least 15+ years old, so recent is relative.  Removed a similar recentness from Support.  
*The 30% opposition citation was deleted.  I realize in an ideal world, we'd have more data on sample size and sample population, but the report on it IS from a very reliable source, so it stays, absence information from a reliable source that the Boston Globe story is wrong. 
*The unsourced claim was introduced that William Boyce Mueller has never been a scout.  This claim appearts to be false according to this Boston Globe article. article
*The claim was made that the forgotten scouts no longer exist.  The claim is unsourced and probably irrelvant anyway. 
*The NJ coucil non-discriminatory statement is intesting-- i'll looking into it, and left a reference to it intact.  We should try to find a good source that talks about why that one was accepted when others were not.  Presumably the statements were different. I know that some sort of statement was also signed in the San Diego case, but the courts so far have found that whatever statement it was, it did not constitute a legal non-discrimination statement under the relevant laws.    
*A fact tag had been added requesting cites for the Coalitions for Inclusive Scouting.  I re-instated a link to one of the coalitions with the largest presence.  If links to more are required, you can find them with    this Google seach.  
*I re-added that Dave Rice isn't gay or atheist.  
*I returned the organization with nondiscriminatory polcies to the opposition section again.  I added a paragraph making the relevance to the opposition more explicit.
*I added that the Public Expression of Religion Act actually directly mention the BSA, and shortened the description overall.  Certainly, if the act becomes law, we'll have to discuss it the access article, but at this point in time nad this point in the text, we're just mentioning it in so far as it's a show of support from the government.
One main area of discussion right now is the Access to Government Resoureces section.  One way the article could be better is if we moved some of the specific details about the access issue to the Government Resources article.  RIght now, this article is hte only place to put that stuff, so we're putting each specific case here.  The stuff should be in wikipedia somewhere, but this article probably doesn't need that level of specificity.  I tweaked the sentence about "many localities" so that it is more vague about what kinds of laws they have--  it used to be ordinance is, but perhaps that's less accurate sinse ordinances implies only local laws-- not necessarily all the federal and state ones.  I also changed "BSA policies are sometimes contrary to these laws" to "may sometimes be contrary", to be as NPOV on the issue as possible. 
Another main area of dispute right now is the removal of text from the opposition section.  I've addressed most of those above, but in particular, let me object to the removal of the Youth Organizations that don't exclude gays/atheists.   The claim was basically made that these organizations don't actually OPPOSE discriminating against gays or atheists, and their non-discriminatory policies don't, in anyway, imply that those organizations oppose such discrimination.  Structurally, the text was basically implying that these organizations feel "There's nothing wrong with the BSA's policies at all, there's nothing wrong with discriminations-- we just don't do it".  I think this is a very original and unique intepretation of non-discrimination statements.  When a government, university, business, or organization says "we do not practice discrimination", I think the logical conclusion is they don't believe in such discrimination-- not that they are cool with it, they just don't feel like doing it themselves.
In any case, that point is moot, because even if you don't think "prohibiting discrimination" necessarily implies "disapproving of discrimination", the fact remains that lots of the organizations (Girl Scouts and 4-H most notably) have explicitly stated their disapproval of the BSA's policy.  Opponents also reference these organizations as pieces of evidence in their own argument that counter hte BSA's interpretation of Scouting (and youth-organization) values, so any way you swing it, these organization's prohibition of such discrimnation is a relevant part of the opposition.  
--Alecmconroy 03:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an important point that the BSA did not adopt their policies because they were required to by WOSM and that other countries do not necessarily use the same policies. The policies are not universal in the Scouting movement. The section also touches on all 3 controversies. I'm tired of moving things around right now but it may need to be moved eventually. --Jagz 23:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I am appreciative of Alec's careful documentation of what was done, rather that wholesale reverting.  Of course, I disagree with some of the changes, and will respond as time permits.  On the whole, we are converging, however, as most of the disagreements are about minor wording (some reintroduced POV) and such.  One big issue still to be resolved is the impact of the girls issue.  Per the discussion above, it is clear that everyone that commented (except Alec) recognizes that the girls issue was and is a relevant controversy, even though it is less visible than others at the moment.  Watch the article for my updates and corrections.  --NThurston 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Going through 

message: If you haven't figured it out yet, one of the primary purposes of this website, http://www.bsalegal.org/, is to disseminate biased propaganda. I was involved with this article for several months before it became obvious to me. People for the most part believe what they want to believe. --Jagz 22:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather that we cite articles directly instead of referring to the adopted versions on any advocacy web site, wherever possible.  --NThurston 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  If a news article is on the original author's site AND mirrored on another site, we should always try to cite the original source, rather than the mirror of it.  That's true in any case, but especially in cases here, where the mirror sites have their own non-neutral agenda on subject of the article. --Alecmconroy 02:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BSA Legal Issues Website 

message: Here are some discussions on my latest round of changes:
*GCW replaced my term "other youth organizations which prohibit discrimination" with  "other organizations with different policies"--  yeah, that probably is a good call.  I don't think it's necessarily a literal violation of NPOV to call the policies discrimination-- they clearly are discriminating, the only question is whether the policies are immoral discrimination or justified,necessarly discrimination.  But in a larger sense-- yeah, "discrimination" has such a negative connotation that it's shorthand for "bad discrimination", and I shouldn't have used it-- I apologize for that, and thanks for pointing it out.   I was trying to emphasize how the "different policies" are ipso facto a disagreement with the BSA's policies, since that didn't seem to be clear enough, but labelling the exclusion of homosexuals as "discrimination" shouldn't have been the way I did it.  Thanks GC.
*There's a debate about whether "many" localities has laws that limit gov't support of organizations that practice discrimination.  I actually think it's the case that all localities have some sort of laws of this kind (e.g.  1964 Civil Rights act). With regard to the BSA, the most relevant law here is the Establishment clause, its case-law intepretation (e.g. Torcaso v. Watkins), and a variety of different portions of US Code--- all together, these (it would seem) prohibit direct government sponsorship of the BSA.     But ya know, I actually can live with "some" rather than many here, because I don't think it's ironclad, and if we go "some", we avoid the whole debate entirely about exactly which laws are appliciable, how many of them are there, are the laws constitutional, etc.   The termination of all direct sponsorship strongly suggests, to me, that the answer to this question is "all", because Federal law is applicable to the entire nation.   But, since that case never went to trial, it's not a done deal, there's still a lot of haziness about this issue, so I think "some" is acceptable.  We'll know a lot more after Wikler v. Rumsfeld is concluded.
*WHOA--  I don't know where we (or more likely, I) got the idea that the oakland park Cub Scouts made such a dramatic defiance of policy and were punitively disbanded for it.  The reference we had for it didn't say anything of the sort-- apparently they just informed BSA that the local laws over government sponsorship wouldn't allow the school to continue as  the charter organization.  Somehow I had it in my mind that some packs, unaffiliated with the school, boldly announced they were breaking with policy and got smacked down for it-- but googling around, I can't find any indication that anything even remotely that dramatic took place.  Very embarassing for me, particular since I believe I reverted this particular change the just a few days ago.  As it is, this seems like it's just a specific instance of the nation-wide  "no direct governmental sponsorship of BSA".  I left the text as is, but if this really is just a governmental sponsorship issue (not a "disagreement with BSA National issue"), then we probably don't need to even mention it.  10,000 packs/troops lost charter hosts-- there's wouldn't be any need to mention these few specific Oakland Park packs.  
*Dave Rice being a "a married grandfather who is an active christian" got changed to "neither gay or atheist".  That's a probably good change-- I think I didn't use that terminology because the sources don't explicitly say he's not gay or atheist, but it's strongly implied.  In any case, I see now what you meant, NT, about a "martyr" paragraph--  implicit in the old wording is "Rice is a GRANDFATHER who's a GOOD CHRISTIAN-- would you want the bad old BSA being mean to a sweet little grandfather who goes to church and loves children, and american and freedom and apple pies?!?"  lol.   So, our NOR need to be literally accurate here ('married procreater' not necessarily implying 'not gay') is probably outweighed by our NPOV need to avoid portraying Rice as an adorable American Hero.  
*"Other organizations which prohibit the exclusion of atheists or homosexuals." was changed to "Other organizations which have different membership policies".  I tend to favor the former wording for reasons we've discussed, but if people think the latter is clear enough, I'm content not to beat people over the head the the point that other organizations explicitly disagree with BSA on this point.  But I think the "prohibit exclusion" is more accurate-- a non-discrimination policy typically means "we actively don't let members of our business/university/organization discriminate"--- it usually doesn't mean "we have chosen not to require that our members discriminate".   But if people think it's sufficiently clear in the text that the the organizations have disagreed with BSA-like policies, then I can live with simply characterizing them "different policies" in order for the text to seem less "lectury".  
*Regarding "discrimination" vs "social discrimination".  "Discrimination" is the term the critics use-- not "social discrimination".  Organizations don't have "non-social-discrimination" policies, governments don't have "anti-social-discrimination" laws.  If the social scientists use a more technical term, that's fine for the social science articles, but simple "discrimination" is the term used in this context.  Personally, I find the term "social discrimination" misleading here-- when I hear it, I hear connotations of cliques and ostracism than race/religion/orientation issues.
*A reference was removed to "Discrimination in the BSA" which showed that critics regard the BSA policies as discriminatory.   The claim is made that we need a reference to show that the Critics of these policies feel these policies are wrong/immoral/whatever.  By all means, feel free to find and add one-- you can never have too many references-- I personally think it goes without saying that the critics feels the policies are wrong.   Scouting for All's statment explicitly calls the policy immoral,  as I'm sure most of the critics do. Do a google search and take our pick of your favorite cite.
*I believe the Coalition(s) for Inclusive Scouting are a series of affliated local chapters.  So the link you're looking for-- one main unified page for all of the local groups "Coalition for Inclusive Scouting Official Site" emblazened across the top, is something I don't think exists.  I re-added the reference-- if you look at hte bottom, the website explicitly mentions The Coalition for Inclusive Scouting is a program of G/LEARN, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization.. Again, this may not be the BEST reference for the existence of the organization, so feel free to replace it with a better one if they're out there--- but it does prove the organization exists.
 
Let me also say something about the referencing.   In general dealing when dealing with references (not just on this page, but in general), if a reference link goes dead, don't remove it, because the reference still exists and can be useful to editors and readers who want to know where that information is.  Additionally, most websites are stored in various archives (like here), so they are still accessable to researchers.  We should of course look for new references that doesn't have a broken link, but don't delete the reference outright just because the link is dead-- then we won't remeber where we got what from where.  Instead, just look for a new ref that says the same thing, adding the Fact tag as needed, and deleting the broken link only when the new references have made the old one superfluous.  The situation is analgous to a book going out of print-- if you are writing a paper and you used that book as a source, you should still list it in your bibliography-- but it would be BETTER if you could use a non-out-of-print book instead. 
Additionally, if you think a reference isn't sufficient to justify a statment, add a Citation Requested tag, but don't delete the reference. (With an obvious exception in cases where the reference is so unrelated that you think it's a mistake).  This will signal to readers that the statement is not, in your eyes, justified by the reference, but they can still see what reference there is for it.  It may be that the reference does in fact fully justify the sentence, but you didn't notice it.  It may be that the reference partially-- but not completely justifies the sentence. 
With regard to this specific issue-- I would't work to hard to find replacement links/archival links for all the Scouting For All references.  Their main page says they're just having temporary server trouble.
--Alecmconroy 02:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other changes 

message: Why does the ACLU logo keep getting removed? The only objection raised during the featured article candidate review was its location. It was relocated and the person who commented was satisfied. There were no additional comments. Not being a fan of the ACLU is not a sufficient reason for removing the logo. --Jagz 02:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should the ACLU logo be included?--Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ACLU has had a major role concerning the membership controversies in recent times. Graphics and photos are sometimes used to make an article less boring. --Jagz 22:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put the logo back in the article since there were no reasons given here for taking it out. --Jagz 15:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but I believe it was removed because it doesn't really "illustrate" anything in that section.  At the time, there was just a brief mention of the ACLU, then a great deal of talk about former Scouts, etc., hence the SFA logo was left in.  I'm sort of split.  I don't really think it adds anything informative to that section.  At the same time, FA's usually have some good illustrations.  I'm surprised that it made FA without some quality images to illustrate the articles.  Certainly, we ought to be able to come up with something better. --NThurston 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's not that the ACLU image is incredible, but, there oughta be a few images, and that one worked.  This is a really hard topic to illustrate.  There are a few political cartoons that represent the criticisms well  , but I worry that the evil laws of Copyright would probably prevent us from making use of them, and I worry they'd be more "prejudicial" than helpful in illustrating the discussion.  A picture of some people with signs protesting for or against the policy might be useful, but back when I looked, I didn't find any that seems like they had the right combination of size, legibility, and copyright-not-owned-by-big-company status.  --Alecmconroy 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACLU logo 

message: Is Winkler v. Rumsfeld just about the issue of federal government funding of national Scout jamborees or does it also consider the issue of the BSA's special access to the Army base, Fort A.P. Hill, the home location of jamborees. --Jagz 17:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.   I think realistically, the opponents do consider the mere access to be special and therefore objectionable, since there aren't  any other gatherings of that magnitude at the base.   Legally, however, the argument seems to center on the FUNDS that are spent, rather than just the land access permission, because that's a much more overt form of support than merely issuing a permit.  It think both aspects are controversial, but the overt funding is an easier argument to make, legally, than just the land access. --Alecmconroy 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winkler v. Rumsfeld 

message: Can this category be removed from the bottom of this page? --Jagz 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old requests for peer review