Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 8

Membership controversy: update
According to website PinkNews (17th July 2012):-

"US: Boy Scouts will keep ban on gay people"

The Boy Scouts of America has announced it will retain its ban on gay members, volunteers and staff. [...]

''Bob Mazzuca, chief scout executive, said: “The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting.

“While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society.”

There is discussion which includes this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting North8000 (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Page Is More Informative
I would like to also comment on the article in that the discussion page tends to be more informative than the actual article page insofar as the contemporary Boy Scouts of America. There is a great deal of information missing in the article which makes the article fairly irrelevant. The Boy Scouts of America of 20 years ago is nothing like the Boy Scouts of America today. The Mormon Christianic organization has pretty much taken over the BSofA at the National Level to the point where hatred and bigotry has swamped the otherwise good and beneficial BSofA that used to exist.

Scout Leaders across the country lament this problem, in fact, and discussions held on Scout forums such as on LinkedIn routinely have Scout Leaders asking members of the forums what can be done to try to wrest the organization from the brink of extinction caused by religious extremism "hijacking" the organization. Membership is dropping even as world-wide condemnation of the organization increases -- which is unfair to the boys who wish to learn and camp and hike without the baggage of the oppressive bigotries and hatreds that their parents' religious leaders wish to impose.

Has there been a problem with updating the article to be more informative and inclusive of contemporary information about the national organization? It seems highly likely that cult followers will oppose any updates which cover and reference what the organization has become. The article will have to remain a description of what the organization used to be since it seems likely that any informative update that brings the article up-to-date will be challenged, reversed, and vandalized.

On the other hand the problems with the organization tend to exist at the National Level, not the Troop Level so much. At the Troop Level things are quite a bit different depending upon the specific cult that charters a Troop. The core ideologies of hatred, bigotry, and division that we see advocated at the National Level is seen mirrored at the Troop Level perhaps half of the time, with half of the Troops and their leaders obeying the hate-centric dictates and policies of their National leaders, but the other half clinging to the core beneficial, love-inspired aspects of the BSofA as they used to exist prior to the organization's take-over by right wing religious zealots.

I should note that I don't wish to offend anyone, discussion about religious-motivated hatred, bigotry, and division can be done in an adult fashion with calm reason. To be sure the article here does not need to be complete yet if it's to be an historic examination in to what the organization used to be, it might be reasonable to note the fact that the article here is very much historic rather than contemporary. Damotclese (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This sounds more like an implausible personal opinion rant rather than any potential source material to be added. Do you have any wp:reliably sourced material that you are proposing to add? North8000 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: reliable sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, just off the top of my head Penn & Teller: Bullshit! did a whole episode on the topic. (S4E1) I dunno if it qualifies as a "reliable source" but it proves Damotclese isn't just pulling it out of thin air. 64.83.197.250 (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen the P&T episode— while it touches on these topics, in my opinion it is not a reliable source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything about thin air. I think that all of that mis-sumarization/exagggeration/ranting grew from actual opinions of some people. Which in turn grew from the actual "no avowed atheists" policy, the now-disappeared policy against avowed homosexuals in leadership positions, and cases of enforcement of both. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recently added "whistles" external link
Considering the shortness of the list and the broad scope of items on it, this entry may be too specialized for adding here. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes in lead / state of lead
First, as a sidebar, the recent changes back and forth in the lead caused me to take a closer look at the lead overall. I think that it may need a look overall that it represents a summary of the overall article. Right now it seems to just cover some selected items, some of them very narrow. This is a wide ranging 100+ year old multi-million person organization, so there is a lot of material.

That leads to noting that about 20% of the lead is currently devoted membership requirement related controversies/court case etc. If not too much, this may be borderline. One of the two big problems with the most recent (reverted) insertion was that it makes the percentage of the lead devoted to this narrow area even larger.

The second challenge with the reverted addition to the lead is that such an attempt to create a brief personal summary of the current policies (including the qualifiers on the exclusions and which parts of BSA they do and don't apply to) is inevitably innacurate, probably syntheses, and very prone to spin.

Other than IMO the recent major attempted changes to the lead are not good/beneficial, I'm not sure of the answers, just some of the questions. Again, this the top level article on a wide ranging 100+ year old multi-million person organization, with lots of sub-articles, so we have to be judicious about the amount of coverage what gets in the article and doubly so for the the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We are a global encyclopaedia. From a global Scouting perspective, rather than just an American one, what makes Scouting in America notable is precisely its very conservative and blatantly discriminatory approach to membership. American Scouting people may not like the image, but it is a sad reality that their position is an extreme one within the global Scouting movement. Many see it as a breach of the basic principles of Scouting. This global encyclopaedia needs to highlight that, rather than just taking the perspective of American Scouting supporters. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with HiLo, but suggest that the discriminatory approach to membership is what makes the BSA most notable, in our WP terms, in the USA also. There seems to have been a lot of recent press notice about the latest announcement that the BSA is not changing its policy. Of course the BSA does lots of other things and they are good things, but these will get noticed in the local press for local events, not the national press. I have no problem with the change that was being proposed, as it addresses this very notable activity within the USA about the BSA. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I locked the article for 24 hours due to the edit warring. Please make proposals here. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the global Scouting movement's perception of American scouting to know whether discrimination is part of BSA's international image, but I rather think that it forms part of its American image. That said, my main concern here is that we toss the SCOTUS case into the lede with no context - it's all very well to say wooo! free association! but it's downright weird and possibly POV to suppress the content of the membership controversies. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to do this right and not suppress anything. My main concerns are accuracy of any summary and weight for the article and for the lead.  Also even though I reverted the removal of the SCOTUS sentence, I did that because it took away half of a two sentence item; I don't necessarily say that the SCOTUS sentence should be in the lead, but it probably should be there if that overall topic is covered there because it is very salient/notable with respect to that topic.     We should work out something here in talk. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some consensus that it doesn't belong in the lead, I moved it. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You went to the most problematic version, including truncating half of the two sentence coverage where the halves are dependent on each other. Again, let's develop what we want to do in talk. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

While not too thrilled about the process (I think we needed to develop it in talk first) the most recent change does leave what's left in the lead as a complete thought. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've reached a compromise. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm. It's pretty shallow. It says nothing about who those "critics" are. The mention of litigation and federal courts is all about America, not the global situation. It's all parochial. The issue of ignoring what the rest of the world thinks is now both the problem with the BSA, and with the article. HiLo48 (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you improve it? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sex abuse
I'd like to give North800 a chance to explain why they believe this is undue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Because we have an entire article on this subject: Scouting sex abuse cases. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 09:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but the summary of the subject is insufficient, there is entire articles on several subjects


 * Also, speaking in general, this is the top level article on an organization whose scope includes 110 million members over 100+ years, and all of an immense range of material, topics and aspects within that covered by millions of coverages in RS's. .     IMHO to take an already-included item on one person of the 110 million and start expanding it in this article is certainly undue, as well as expanding the probably already wp:undue coverage of that one particular aspect.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't this section even scratch the surface of well documented, in the courts and media sexual abuse instances in the BSA. There is no mention of not a single specific incident which I added, arguably the most infamous Dykes case which resulted in a $18 million settlement and was mentioned in the news just a couple of days ago which prompted me to come to wikipedia to read up further on the subject only to find a sub-section lacking NPOV as is it written as theory. I made an Ernest effort not to elaborate to much on the topic and be mindful of the main article of subject, but to only have whats reads as if sexual abuse in the scouts is only a theory and an elaborate paragraph touting there prevention program is not NPOV and is trying to show the subject in a glorified positive light giving undue weight to positive side that a minority of supporters of the subject wants to see. Sorry but I think NPOV trumps undue. But I will agree undue is in order as the section gives undue weight to the minority scouting community who wanst to only show the subject in a positive light ignoring NPOV and facts. Also as a side note reviewCOI. If by some chance a COI arises which may be overly influencing POV I recommend considering your edits and reverts a little more before acting on them.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it is important to get every recent news bite included and munging a bunch of news articles into something approaching coherency. Have there been any further studies since Scout's Honor (1995). ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to 0pen$0urce, well as a starting point, the discussion should come first, not you trying to war in the material prior to the discussion. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to your accusations of war, you may want to look in the mirror sir. I made 1 revert, you sir have made 3.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * North, what is your specific objection and what would it take to satisfy you? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about this recent addition. Taking the BSA as a whole, i.e. the entirety of their history and associated coverage, this does seem to be a blip. Thus unless someone can provide a good reason, the addition should be deleted.– Lionel (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The undue weight added by the new material is pretty obvious and there are also some pretty glaring POV issues with the added material.. As others have said, there is an entire separate article to cover this side-topic.   Belch fire - TALK  02:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating what he said without improving on it. Specifically, what changes would you recommend and why? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, wait, good faith just went out the window because you edit-warred. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I edit-warred? Show us a diff, please.   Belch fire - TALK  03:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you Lionelt? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * When you say "you", that usually means you're talking to the person just above you. On most planets, anyway.


 * It seems you're still having trouble with this very simple concept. Lionel made one edit.  That's not edit-warring, ever.  That's BRD.   Belch fire - TALK  04:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Add that to the list of things we disagree about. I looked at the new material and found that it's all well-cited and appropriate. In particular, it seems neutral and due. Should we skip the part where you disagree but refuse to give a reason? We can just go to WP:NPOVN immediately. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Answering an earlier note, wp:undue is wp:npov, so someone saying that wp:npov trumps wp:undue to me indicates not actually having read it and instead just looking for things to lob. The insertion that the two folks have been tryng to war in is problematic on several levels. It's undue per the details above. There is a article dedicated to this which where such level of detail would be more appropriate. Selected comments about a case regarding abuse committed by one individual 27 years ago. Even then it is a POV construction, and deceptive by it's omissions. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am raising NPOV and WP:COI concerns here. Again the bulk of the section discussed in equal length to what I added touting the youth protection program. --0pen$0urce (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I share these concerns, but it looks like the only way we can get Wikipedia policy enforced here is to move beyond trying to get people to agree to follow it. I suggest WP:NPOVN. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More on scope of and degree of summarization in top level BSA article
More on my "Also, speaking in general, this is the top level article on an organization whose scope includes 110 million members over 100+ years, and all of an immense range of material, topics and aspects within that covered by millions of coverages in RS's."

An example of this is individual Jamborees. An individual jamboree involves about 45,000 scouts, multiples of that in visitors, has coverage in thousands of sources, but individual jamborees are not even mentioned much less covered in this article because of the above. Instead, there is a short paragraph summarizing ALL jamborees, and a "main article at:" link is given to the article on jamborees. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring
Protected for 24 hours due to edit warring. If this behavior reoccurs, I will get a third party in to mediate. In the meantime, please act like resposible editors and discuss the issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will remind folks of Conflict of interest, which includes Suggestions for COI compliance. For those interested, my disclosure statement is at User:Gadget850/about. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 09:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank You!--0pen$0urce (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
There doesn't seem to be a consensus either for or against my edit, with those discussing divided. My proposed compromise to abridge my contribution. Based on the current state of the section and the lack of balance as it seems to give undue weight and has no mention of specific incidents. I still have huge WP:NPOV and WP:COI concerns based on this dispute which those concerns seemed be conveniently getting ignored. --0pen$0urce (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not having any trouble seeing a consensus. It's 4-2 against, by my count.   Belch fire - TALK  18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I've reminded you before, consensus is not voting. This is why we're going to need WP:NPOVN. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay so that is 1 minority opinion of the millions of wikedpedia editors, because 4 people, some of who raise massive WP:NPOV and WP:COI concerns are against my original edit. So what about my compromise proposal? I agree it is 4 against 2 as some editors are warring and in the same breath making the same accusations to detract for there own actions.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll just point out again that I have not edited this article. So you'll have to direct your edit-warring concerns elsewhere.  As to your proposal, I feel the section involved should be made smaller, not expanded.   Belch fire - TALK  18:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 0pen$0urce, it great to put out an idea like that but in this article where even huge widely covered stuff has been left out (see my example above on individual jamborees.) due to the level of the article and the scope of the topic I have a hard time seeing it to be appropriate to expand coverage about a case of what one bad apple did 27 years ago. And undue wasn't the only issue.   The text that you've ben trying to put in is POV construction as it currently is with selective omissions, selected misleading quotes, spun wording etc.. If someone had a proposal for 1-2 summary type sentences without those issues I'm sure folks would sincerley, consider it.       Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This honestly sounds like one editor (with the backing of another) trying to force their edits down people's throats instead of discussing it with people that may have a different viewpoint. As someone who hasn't been involved in the edit war, the proposed addition has weight issues as well isn't really written in encyclopedia style.  Statements like "However several abusers have slipped through the cracks." have major issues with POV, and style.  They almost sound like if they weren't stripped directly from a news article, they were paraphrased.  Just a small summary should be in this article and the remainder left for the article that actually deals with the topics.Marauder40 (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'll ask you the question that I've repeatedly asked North8000: What specific changes would satisfy you? I'm not against fixing problems with the new material, but I don't see any justification for a blanket rejection, as that would directly violate WP:NPOV. Would you like me to copy the sentences here and work with you to edit them into a mutually acceptable form? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That has too many serious problems to use as a starting point. And your question is designed so that answering it is also agreeing to do so. North8000 (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you're categorically opposed to adding well-cited information about BSA sexual abuse? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quit the crap. See above for what I said. North8000 (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Be WP:CIVIL. I'm asking a serious question. How does your stance differ from my summary? I ask because I don't see any willingness on your part to entertain the inclusion of any of this material under any circumstances. Am I wrong? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I said.  I said that the material that you are trying to war in is so problematic that it, en masse, should not be used as the starting point for anything, and your previous question was an attempt to position it (en masse) as such. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a penchant for this article like some, based on my history I move about and make contributions when I think they are in order. So lets focus on the content and avoid WP:WPA and discontinue trying to detract a reasonable discussion to the editor. Here is my position on this section and my edits, the section as is lacks NPOV. Touts the scouting protection program to great length, about as long as my edit using a single poor quality reference, as I still cannot find mention of the scouts at that reference. Ok I looked at organizations with similar sections that also have main articles, Penn State Sex Abuse, the Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cases, going off those as a template of sorts, I will work a draft of the entire section with an emphasis from a neutral pov. I think we can resolve this in a Civil manner.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have two sentences in the article. It seems adequate.  The addition is entirely too long.  Some additional material (no more than two additional sentences) might be appropriate, but without mention of any specific incident.  I can't see any of the material discussed which would be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok who is we? Why can't a specific incident be mentioned? The addition is too long? Ok its about the same size as the scouting protection program, which only has 1 bad reference. I inserted what 4 references from reliable sources.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Belch fire - TALK  07:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Having been in the BSA myself including getting my Eagle award, it seems to me that the entire addition of this paragraph which is a large amount of information would give it too much undue weight. Being from the Portland/Vancouver area, I did know about this incident which is a very old one from the 80's although it did come to light about 7 years ago.  Inserting it to me at least would be giving it too much recognition over the entire organization as a whole.  Hence the purpose of the daughter article being there as a separate page from the parent article.  It's one thing being the board of directors supporting organizations that are opposed to same-sex marriage (Chick-fil-A) but a local incident out of all groups out there?  It needs to be trimmed down to a couple sentences or should not exist at all in this parent article.  Now I await the |"You must recuse yourself" claim due to "conflict of interest" accusation which I will ignore.  Thank you.  ViriiK (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO such a claim is more of the abusive behavior that Still-24 has been exhibiting.  See my talk page (on this topic) for a bunch more of it. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COI has some relevance here. Again my concerns are lack of NPOV in this section and {{WP:COI]]. Again looking at the Penn State Article and Catholic church article, touting an organizations size and age doesn't mean such events are not encyclopedic and should be swept under the rug. Penn State was the actions of one person. BSA's own documents identify around 100.--0pen$0urce (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that you don't see that your edits have an issue with NPOV, I listed one problem above with NPOV and encyclopedia styling. It also has weight issues.  Comparing this page to either of the pages you list isn't a valid compare since neither of those articles are at a GA status.  This one is.  One is B-class article, the other is a C-class article. The Catholic Church page itself however only has one paragraph, the rest is left for the child story.  This isn't sweeping things under the rug, it is following WP policies.  Child stories are supposed to only be summarized in the parent story, not rehashed.  Several people are saying that. Marauder40 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So no comment about WP:COI and that section as is lacks NPOV. I still have huge WP:NPOV concerns and how several editors raced to remove this edit and fling accusations around, in my opinion as an attempt to discourage an editor from adding something that is factual, relevant, and encyclopedic. So Again I have huge concerns about WP:COI and WP:NPOV. To say other articles are not relevant based on grade, I highly disagree, sorry. So one more time WP:COI and WP:NPOV.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't address COI because I don't have one. You keep waiving it around like it is a weapon.  It is up to you to take people to a COI board or prove it. Otherwise stop bringing it up.  It honestly sounds like you are taking the opinion that this edit goes in as is, no matter what. The edit is not encyclopedic.  How is talking about things "slipping through the cracks" encyclopedic?  Phrases like that are editorializing, not just stating facts. People aren't talking about hiding, just giving things the weight that is due.  Again, parents articles are only supposed to have summary of child articles.  This is something that the details belong in the child article.  To try to compare articles of different grades to this one is relevant.  Those articles haven't successfully gone through any type of peer review, this one has.  In the case of the Catholic Church page it lost it status due to how badly structured the page is after the last round of BOLD guttings, how can you compare that to this which is still a GA? Marauder40 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Also the molesting story at Penn State because it was a prominent leadership person of the organization that committed it. You don't see articles about crimes that the individual students committed. Also, regarding due /undue, numbers and frequencies,  what is more on the same order of magnitude of size to BSA would not be Penn State, but the State of Pennsylvania. Now lets look at the Pennsylvania article and see if we see stories about individual court cases about individual child molesters from now or 25 years ago. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My "conflict of interest" is irrelevant if any. I haven't been a member for more than a decade and I don't give a hoot in hell about it anymore.  Using that as an argument won't dissuade me from saying my piece.  The Penn State University is a huge example because Joe Paterno was a huge icon in Happy Valley, PA where he was almost literally the institution itself.  He had such a huge cult following where they were dismissing even the slightest flaws in Joe Paterno and that's why the school was penalized for it recently.  Especially when he contributed millions of dollars himself to a building after him (the library) and had a monument dedicated for him (until it was torn down).  Now a local incident does not make the national organization because this Timur Dykes was a local scoutmaster and more than likely had little or no connection to the national organization itself.  After all his position was a volunteer position.  As unfortunate as it is, it should belong in the daughter articles.  ViriiK (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COI has potential relevance, but clearly doesn't have any effect on the edits made here. The "child abuse" section is an acceptable length; it could be increased slightly without violating WP:UNDUE, but not much.  It's all at the local level (again, unlike Penn State, where the head coach is (apparently) involved.)  "Child abuse" is not what the organization is known for, unlike the Church (from time to time) and Penn State (at the moment).  And no specific incident should be mentioned because no one specific incident stands out as the child abuse incident to be listed, and there's room for (at most) one.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The abuse only at the local level, they have files retained at the national level, and over 100 reported cases spamming decades according BSAs own internal records. So this isn't a rogue member or two. Also like Penn State leadership was informed and did not respond as in the Dykes case in which a convicted pedophile was allowed continued membership. Also Lewis won $18 million dollar judgement, one of several large publicized settlements as many were settle out of court against the national organization who failed to adequately protect children. Even the BSA has gone on the record "The Boy Scouts of America believes even a single instance of abuse is unacceptable, and we regret there have been times when the BSA?s best efforts to protect children were insufficient.... "--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

WOW! I finally got to post something, Anyway let get my proposals before the rest of scouting project and there admins and allies come out of the woodwork to run me off there territory.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex Abuse (Proposal 1) Scouting sex abuse cases are situations where youth involved in scouting programs have been sexually abused by someone who is also involved in the scouting program. J.L. Tarr, a Chief Scout Executive in the United States, was quoted in the 1980s in an article regarding sexual assault cases against Scout leaders across all 50 states: "That's been an issue since the Boy Scouts began.” [80] Several reports have surfaced over the years regarding incidents of sexual abuse within the Boy Scouts of America to include incidents of repeat offenders.(insert ref)There have also been several high profile court cases that resulted in convictions and settlements involving such incidents. (insert ref). Scouting was among the first national youth organizations to address the issue of sexual abuse of its members {{fact}}and in the 1980s developed its Youth Protection program, to educate youth, leaders and parents about the problem as a whole, and to introduce barriers to pedophiles using the Scout program to reach victims. The Boy Scouts of America Youth Protection Plan was cited as a resource that other youth organizations might use in the Centers For Disease Control' s publication "Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-serving Organizations: Getting Started on Policies and Procedures" [81]

Sex Abuse (Proposal 2) Scouting sex abuse cases are situations where youth involved in scouting programs have been sexually abused by someone who is also involved in the scouting program. Several reports and high profile court cases have surfaced over the years regarding incidents of sexual abuse within the Boy Scouts of America. (insert ref)  To address the issue of sexual abuse within the organization, in the 1980s, Boy Scouts of America developed its Youth Protection Program, to educate youth, leaders and parents about the problem as a whole, and to introduce barriers to pedophiles using the Scout program to reach victims. (insert ref)
 * My opinion is proposal 2 might be the better as it is shorter, but still as my original contribution factual, I will let this simmer a little, see what the comments are and probably add it with quality references. For those making the argument for undue, while I don't agree, but you have generally submitted better arguments than just blindly accusing me of warring because I made 1 revert, or even more of a stretch WP:POV. The section in its current state is definitely WP:POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Unlike your ridiculuous & insulting preface, (which missed wp:agf by two miles, including IBF (inventing bad faith))  proposal #1 doesn't look bad. But I'd define it in terms of additions, not expanding to a include a rework of the second paragraph which cover the youth protection program. Maybe the first paragraph needs to be intertwined with any addition, but the second doesn't. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you should try being more Civil, shouting down someone in text is not very effective. I am not going to be baited into a confrontation, sorry. Maybe if you approached a disagreement in a more civil manner, you wouldn't invite confrontation. Also sometimes you have to just drop it--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think proposal 2 makes some sense, if replacing the entire section. There's more there than I remember seeing before protection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 represents removal of material about the youth protection program. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And..Youth protection program also has its own article, this gives equal mention, now your argument screams WP:POV. Which is the current state of the section. Lets sweep factual abuse under the rug, but tout the program that is supposed to prevent it. The mention of the youth protect program is very WP:POV as written, and the one reference is terrible. Also has its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You are mixing timelines. The stuff you were trying to inject with wording that implied currency happened 25+  years ago and prior to the youth protection program.  North8000 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not seeing your argument, what wording exactly, just approaching ridiculous now. Youth protection program that has its own article by the way, was started in the 1980s. BSA has confirmed in court document abuse cases 125, from 1970-1991, there has even been an incident as recent as 2006. Where are you getting 25+ years. First off stop making accusations, really stop, absolutely ridiculous. I am not injecting anything. You need to be  civil.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) The "mixing timelines" was referring to your comment here "sweep factual abuse under the rug, but tout the program that is supposed to prevent it." The "inject" part  was referring to the content that folks were trying to war in.  Specifically, the coatrack for that material insertion was a one case about abuse that occurred 27 years ago.  North8000 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! What is being wared in, factual material was was better referenced than the standingWP:POV stuff, what is next, injecting, warring, coactracking, how about WP:COI sorry but making endless accusations on intent is not being civil. I didn't make 3 reverts in 29 hours and then run around accusing others of warring Lets focus on content and stop trying to inject little insinuations of intent. RIDICULOUS! Back to the contecnt. --0pen$0urce (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand how he was not being civil? Also please do link your references.  I'm not going to go googling your arguments.  ViriiK (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're injecting stuff, and it's not uncivil to simply point that out, so don't try to deflect by making your own accusation. Since everything you are trying to insert here has its own article, why aren't you editing those articles?  I think the true answer to that question would be quite instructive.   Belch fire - TALK  18:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Try focusing on content, I disagree flinging accusations endlessly is not civil. Implying I have some intention and not offering good faith is not civil, PERIOD. I should make 3 reverts in just over 24 hours and accuse everyone else of warring, why not. We can start focusing on content any-day now. lets stop running in circles, stop focusing on me, focus on content please. Here is a good example "When you find a passage in an article that is biased or inaccurate, don't just delete it, improve it if you can. So this is what I was attempting when I came here and I seemed to have stirred a project group needs to ease off a little. --0pen$0urce (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Others have criticized specific behavior, but 0pen$0urce & User:Still-24-45-42-125 have gone far beyond that here; exhibiting nasty, out of line atrocious behavior. 0pen$0urce's last post alone had 8 false accusations (most in as false implied premises) and one spun ad hominem attack. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not focusing on content, not good faith, and yet another accusation. So again lets be civil and try to focus on content --0pen$0urce (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So about that compromise, from glance and after letting those suggestions simmer, I think they are fine. #2 is short, doesn't seem to sway in any bias, still keeps the summary of the information. Has balance of briefly mentioning abuse, not elaborating and also mention the the BSAs response in the scout protection program. I have good reliable 3rd party references on deck for everything including scout pro program. I think satisfies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0pen$0urce (talk • contribs) 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The other stuff aside, your work is pretty good. IMO #1 looks pretty good. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see much need for compromise here. We have two editors trying to buck a broad consensus without presenting a valid argument.  That makes compromise a dead letter as far as I'm concerned.  Kick rocks, dudes.   Belch fire - TALK  02:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in making progress, so I'll support any compromise that Open$0urce is happy with. However, Belchfire, your comment reveals a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed on compromise, North8000 has settled for proposal #1, that is fine by me as well. I prefer #2 but either or works as my concern was the lack of balance and WP:NPOV in the current state. Let me gather references for proposal #1.
 * I added some referances that have more than 1 part Lang wise to fit. I think the small section now is fine. Not to large but still has enouhg information to not seem like its being hidden. 90moredays (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am still having trouble finding scout/youth protection program as the original reference was not good. I will find something, I am finicky on references. Again thanks for the assistance, and glad to see we are making progress on a dispute.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Scout Oath, Law, Motto, Slogan, and The Outdoor Code
Scout Oath, Law, Motto, Slogan, and The Outdoor Code - Not sure why this section is in this article as it primarily pertains to the Boy Scouts division, which I have added to that article. Cub Scouts have a different set of laws, promise, etc. Spshu (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct. There is a proposal to go to one oath and law, but it will be at least two years. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Update on the proposal - The resolution was approved. Venturers will recite the Boy Scout Oath and Law instead of the Venturing Oath and Code as well as use the Boy Scout sign and salute instead of the Venturing sign and salute.  This change will happen late 2013 or early 2014.  Cub Scouts will recite the Boy Scout Oath and Law instead of the Cub Scout Promise and Law of the Pack.  This change will happen May 2015.  Blog post with link to resolution.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive Recommendation
I think the recent edit dispute could be archived off as it overwhelmed the talk page, but I will let the scouting project folks decide on that since this is there baby.--0pen$0urce (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Best to leave it for a month or so for transparency. It is rather long, so please start a new thread if this comes up again. I will archive older discussions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints Fact-Checking
This article states that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the first partner to sponsor Scouting in the United States, adopting the program in 1913 as part of its Mutual Improvement Association program for young men" (emphasis mine), whereas the article on History of the Boy Scouts of America says, "The Catholics accepted the BSA in 1913, but troops would be Catholic only under Catholic adult leadership. Later that year, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affiliated their Mutual Improvement Association with the BSA with similar restrictions."

I have no idea which is more accurate, but the way the main BSA article is written leaves the reader with the impression that the first US troops were LDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.57.184 (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point. The source for that statement seems rather weak. The LDS started their own M.I.A. Scouts in 1912, then adopted the BSA program in 1913. The LDS adopted Boy Scouting as an integrated program of the church— no other organization has done that. Need to rework and resource that. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Eagle Scouts
When people think about scouts, one of the first things they think about is Eagle Scouts. I think that there should be a summary of Boy Scout ranks and Eagle Scouts in the article. Us441(talk)(contribs) 18:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The summary of Boy Scout ranks and Eagle Scouts appears in the Boy Scouting article. This particular article is about the BSA, and Boy Scouting is only one of three main branches of the BSA.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 18:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Newer Boy Scouts helped
Here is new remark dates 16-September-2012 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-boy-scouts-files-20120916,0,6937684.story? Can other one update based on new information? 88.146.161.215 (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are probably 1-2 more specialized BSA articles where this would be a good addition, but not here. This is the top level article on an organization whose scope includes 110 million members over 100+ years, and all of an immense range of material, topics and aspects within that covered by millions of coverages in RS's. The amount on this in there is already probably wp:undue.  For example even things such as individual Jamborees are not covered in this article. An individual jamboree involves about 45,000 scouts, multiples of that in visitors, has coverage in thousands of sources, but individual jamborees are not even mentioned much less covered in this article because of the above. Instead, there is a short paragraph summarizing ALL jamborees, and a "main article at:" link is given to the article on jamborees.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Stance on gay scouts?
The BSA's stance should at least be included in the section impact on America. 69.43.88.2 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It's already in the article. IMHO "membership controversies" area is a better place for it. North8000 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

News on sex abuse policy
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/01/boy-scouts-to-notify-police-departments-suspected-pedophiles/

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Membership Controversies Question
In the MEMBERSHIP CONTROVERSIES section, the second paragraph states, "At the Scouts annual meeting in April 2012, a leader from the Northeast presented a resolution that 'would allow individual units to accept gays as adult leaders'. After a two-year evaluation, the organization announced that no further action would be taken on the resolution." This makes no sense. It is currently 2012, so an April 2012 resolution could not have had a two-year evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammywik (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that the second sentence was referring to a different review started in 2010. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 02:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)