Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Archive 9

Recent deletion of the petition material
Yes, the source does not meet wp:rs criteria. I was trying to avoid slipping into a regime of instantly knoking out material on fine points. In the past we've kept in plausible balancing material with borderline sources. For example, many items sourced to bsa-discrimination.org were left in for a long time until other sources could be substituted.

I don't have a strong opinion either way about retention of that particular item. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this article, so I'm not familiar with the history, but both of the items I deleted are quite old (~5 years) and have never been replaced by an RS. The online petition had been tagged for at ~3 years and seems unlikely to be supported by an RS if it hasn't already. The surveys were vague, are no longer there and were at best a self-published interpretation by a BSA council, so they should never have been there in the first place. The section seems well supported, so I don't see that much is lost by removing them. Glaucus (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Why keep outdated/correct incorrect information on homosexual youth in article?
BSA's policy is to include all youth regardless of sexuality. As the article points out, a statement had been released that may it appear that was not the case. BSA has since took that down. So what purpose does it serve to have this old information in the article. The current policy is to accept homosexual youth. Is this just bias?? --RobertGary1 (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still official BSA publications which state that BSA does not accept homosexuals, whether youth or adult, for membership. "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" (http://www.bsalegal.org/news-releases.asp) --Cwgmpls (talk • contribs) 21:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to do. I'm almost starting to think that it's a situation where a primary source statement is contrary to the actual situation, reinforcing Wikipedia's cautions about primary sources.  I look and see that it looks like BSA has NEVER taken any enforcement of excluding a YOUTH based on homosexuality and that BSA is full of homosexuals in every branch.  My own opinion is that the statement at that site  might be what the lawyers made them say to preserve their rights to exclude people who are out to make a high profile point  (after all "no such policy" was a basis argued against the Scouts in the big cases) or what they say to appease certain powerful groups, but the defacto situation is the opposite. I was hoping that this might get clarified by additional developments. Or maybe we should just make attributed statements like "according to BSALegal.org, XXXXXXXXXXXXX" rather than trying to make "BSA policy is" statements in the voice of Wikipedia.   And then there is the further complexity that whatever it is or isn't applies to some programs and not others.  North8000 (talk) 02:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The press release on bsalegal.org is very clear. "The BSA policy is:... we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals".  The Supreme Court in BSA vs. Dale clearly stated that even if a policy is not consistently applied across the group, or is not trumpeted "from the housetops", it still remains official group policy, just by virtue of the group saying so.  A weak standard, to be sure, but that is what the court said.  The statement "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" can not be more clear, and is found in at least three official BSA publications: bsalegal.org scouting.org and scoutingmagazine.org. I'm not sure what further clarification is needed.  Cwgmpls (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * If a clear BSA policy statement is not enough, here is a documented case of a 17-year-old boy being denied Eagle because he is gay. http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-let-the-boy-scouts-anti-gay-policy-deny-my-son-his-eagle-award Cases of gay boys being discriminated against by BSA are seldom heard of, part of that is due to privacy concerns of minors.  But it seems in the current climate, families are less afraid to speak out publicly. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As of right now, that petition does not even remotely hold up the reliable source standards. Even if you read that petition right now it is just handled at the troop level.  Nothing in there even remotely says that district, council or national has even got involved yet.  A local troop issue does not yet warrant notability for WP standards.Marauder40 (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can ignore the petition for now to see how that plays out. We still can't ignore clearly stated BSA policy that bars all gays from BSA, regardless of age. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already has the press release in it that specifically says, "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.” That is not ignoring anything.  However to include things like what you seem to be implying sounds like OR without any RS to back it up. Don't forget that applying for membership and dealing with people that are currently members are two different things and have been addressed differently and at different times.  You cannot use statements that talk about applying for membership and assume they also refer to members that joined BSA when they were 6.  Marauder40 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"Position on homosexuality" section needs rewrite, because it says that gays are only banned from leadership positions. They are banned from all membership (scout or leader).-- В и к и  T   18:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there is no RS that says they are banned from all membership. The only official policies say that they will not "grant membership".  It doesn't address current members that come out after already becoming members.  Previous policies that seemed to have disappeared from official pages mentioned that current members that come out can not hold leadership positions but do not talk about throwing them out or anything like that.  RS would be required for changes. Marauder40 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/us/boy-scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gay-members.html?_r=0

""The Boy Scouts of America has reaffirmed its longtime policy of barring openly gay boys from membership and gay or lesbian adults from serving as leaders...""

-- В и к и  T   18:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It still does not address those scouts that are currently members. As has been said before, current policy is that neither openly gay adults or youth can be granted membership.  That means they may not fill out an application to join.  Also previous policies said that current scouts that may come out after becoming leaders may not serve in leadership positions.  Nothing has come out to say any of that has changed.  The article you quote does not challenge that interpretation either.  "barring openly gay boys from membership" can be interpreted two ways.  One person can interpret it to mean that they are thrown out immediately, another person can interpret it to mean they can't apply.  The only things that clarify it have come from BSA directly that say that an openly gay youth just cannot hold a leadership position.Marauder40 (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also the statement that "the Boy Scouts of America as an organization has taken a consistent position that homosexuality is immoral and incompatible with the Boy Scout Oath and Law" that has been stated and re-phrased by BSA and its legal representatives, in various forms, since at least 1998. This quote comes from Curran vs. BSA in 1998. Certainly a current BSA member who comes out after already becoming a member cannot remain a member if he is unable to uphold the Boy Scout Oath and Law. Upholding the Boy Scout Oath and Law is a requirement for each level of advancement in BSA, and BSA states that a gay youth cannot fulfill this requirement. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you are doing OR. A scout can continue to be a member without advancing. Just because a scout may not be currently living up to the Oath and Law does not mean they will immediately be thrown out.  I know of scouts they obtained 1st Class rank as soon as they could and didn't advance again, but stayed in the troop until they were 18.  There is no requirement that a scout has to advance.  There is no requirement that says a scout has to live up to every point of the Scout Oath and Law to stay a member.  It is up to the troop committee and if called in scouting as a whole to determine if what they are doing warrants being thrown out.  I have known scouts that have shoplifted and still remained members of the troop after it was found out.  They didn't advance any more but still remained members.  It is a jump to say, just because they cannot hold a leadership position or live up to the scout Oath and Law that means they are no longer members.Marauder40 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question of ongoing membership after one joins BSA is beside the point. The core issue is whether or not BSA official policy discriminates against youth based on their sexual orientation.  The clear answer is yes, in at least three instances.  1) when a boy first applies to join BSA, (BSA press release, 2012) 2) when a Scout attempts to advance in rank within Scouting (homosexuality is contrary to Scout Oath and Law since 1998) and 3) when a Scout attempts to hold a leadership position within Scouting, as is required by every rank above First Class. (BSA Youth Leadership policy, 2010)  In all cases, it is well documented that the BSA official policy is to discriminate against youth based on their sexual orientation. Cwgmpls (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm here but not sure what to do overall.  But Cwgmpls, I do think that your comments above do go into deriving things / OR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost-Eagle Scout denied award because he is gay I am sure this will develop, so lets give it a few days. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Huge block of changes we've been going back and forward over
Wikiwind, why don't you just start by slowing down a bit. Put the less major / less likely-to-be-controversial changes in one by one, and take the others to talk here first. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Summary of changes being discussed - Adding a two sentence paragraph to the top of the 'Position on homosexuality' section stating that the BSA policy is "do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" {Edit summary - current policy should be at the top of the section}. Removing entire paragraph on non-discrimination policies {Edit summary - unsourced, unnecessary, original research}.  Finally removing references from World Net Daily and Concerned Women for America {Edit summaries - World Net Daily is not generally acceptable as a source for factual material see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_62, moreover, cited opinion piece does not support claims that it references - removing dead link which leads to advocacy group (Concerned Women for America) website}.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You really need to provide real sources for that paragraph, or I have every right to remove it per WP:BURDEN. If necessary, I will take this to WP:AN/I. Please provide sources and read Verifiability], No original research and Reliable sources.-- В и к и  T   18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiwind - Which paragraph exactly are you talking about? There are two paragraphs mentioned in my summary of your changes above and I want to be sure which one you are talking about before I reply to your specific points.
 * Onto the changes being discussed. The information in the added paragraph stating the current policy is definitely a good thing to have.  However I do have some issues with the phrasing and placement.  It really should be worked into a larger first paragraph in my opinion, not just tacked above it.  Basically starting the paragraph by stating the current policy and then transitioning into the history of the policy on homosexuality.  The precise wording of your two sentence paragraph also seems a bit clunky.  I may have time this evening to give thoughts on a better way to phrase it.  As to the paragraph that was removed, let me first say that it is actually sourced.  So I don't see how you're getting unsourced.  I also do not think it is unnecessary, although I do believe that the 'Positions on homosexuality' section is the inappropriate place for it - it should really be worked into the 'Reaction to nondiscrimination policies' further down the page.  The paragraph does contain original research which should be removed when the section is worked into the nondiscrimination section.  And finally, as to the two removed references - I agree with removing them.  And since this is turning into a larger discussion on the 'Positions on homosexuality' section, I just want to add that the end of the section with all the 2012 news in separate one sentence paragraphs should really be worked into a single paragraph.  Thoughts on my thoughts?  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 21:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me did you read "sources" for removed paragraph, because you say that "it is actually sourced"?-- В и к и  T   22:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good, a conversation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiwind - Looking back at the page's edit history, it seems I was looking at the incorrect paragraph about nondiscrimination policies in the 'Positions on homosexuality' section. The paragraph in question does have two references in it, which again runs counter to your claim of unsourced.  Granted, they are bad references in my opinion, and if alternative references are not included when the bad references are removed and the paragraph is reworked - then I will agree that it is unsourced.
 * North8000 - What do you thing about my thoughts on the changes? This whole section is just really clunky.  I think tomorrow night I may try to rework the whole section in my userspace and link to it on the talk page to see what everyone thinks of it.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 23:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your approach has been very factual and neutral.  But I don't know which potential changes you are speaking of.  North8000 (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much just clean up and tweaking ordering of some things. Some minor points are taken out because they don't seem to be mentioned in the refs.  Basically trying to come up with wording and presentation that is accurate while clarifying some of the distinctions brought up in the previous discussion.  Also moving all of the nondiscrimination policy stuff to the 'Reaction to nondiscrimination policies' section.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources #23 and #24 do not support what is contained in the article, I have read them twice. This is the only place where I must discuss to remove references that do not support what is contained in the article. Once again, I will politely ask that these references be removed from places with "failed verification" tags.-- В и к и  T   08:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikiwind - I'm assuming you're talking about the two removed references from the genesis of this discussion. As I stated before, I agree that they should be removed.  In fact, nobody in this conversation has suggested keeping them.
 * Everyone else - I've almost finished with my proposed rewrite of the section. I may be able to finish it in about five hours, although it could be another twelve hours at the latest.  I'll put a wikilink here for comments.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's start by getting clear on what potential changes we're talking about. I think that two possibilities are:


 * 1) Paragraph beginning with "Various BSA national and council policies either prohibit or mandate discrimination......."
 * 2) Paragraph beginning with "BSA local councils and Scouting units are required"

Regarding #1 I see it as a much-needed clarification and summary of the material which it prefaces. Material discussing "Discrimination" and "anti-discrimination" is immensely ambiguous /misleading / incomplete without something like this. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to start adding some of my reworks into the article. If there are any issues, we can revert them and discuss and rework them in the userspace.  I'm still working on the 'Reaction to nondiscrimination policies' section, and that will involve the most reworking, so I'm going to keep those changes out of the article until we're happy with it.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC:Position on homosexuality
Whether the following two sentences should be added to the top of the "Position on homosexuality" section:

''The current BSA policy is that they "do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals". This policy applies to Scouts (youth members) and Scouters (adult leaders). ''

Rationale:

The current opening sentence in "Position on homosexuality" section is: ′′Since 1991, openly homosexual individuals have been officially prohibited from leadership positions in the Boy Scouts of America′′. This creates false and misleading impression that this policy applies only to (adult) leaders, and not to all BSA members (Scouts and leaders).-- В и к и  T   19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Include, I already explained why this is necessary.-- В и к и  T   19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include - this seems like a no-brainer with respect to the NYT source. a13ean (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include - This press release is well-documented, having been published on three different BSA-run websites. It is clear and speaks for itself. Cwgmpls (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include - As A13ean said, this is a no-brainer. It's well-sourced and there's no controversy about its factuality. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include Perfectly straightforward, I'd say. Otherwise the statement that comes later -- We do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA-- surprises the reader by introducing an unfamiliar category midstream. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include Honestly I don't think there was a need to jump to bring this to RFC. I think all North8000 wanted people to do was discuss the changes before they were put in, one by one.  Personally I had no problem with this particular change.  I do think some of the other changes have "issues". Marauder40 (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Given the response, perhaps it would be expedient to simply close this RfC as being in favor of inclusion. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO, I think closing it would be good, but still allow the conversation to happen on the talk page before changing the article. It would be good to see what people's issues are.  There is no rush.  Its not like this article is about politics ;) Marauder40 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any dispute over the details of the content to be reincluded? I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This RFC will remain open because of strong ownership of this article by user North8000. Any edit that he/she doesn't like is reverted within minutes/hours. The only way to break this is to appeal to wider community.-- В и к и  T   21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be premature, but nobody -- not even North8000 -- has offered anything but strong support for inclusion. Even if North shows up the minute we close this and disputes it, there is a clear consensus against them. Of course, if others supported North, I would agree that the RFC should be extended. But this does not seem likely, and we can always reopen. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This RFC is completely unnecessary and inappropriate at the moment. From WP:RFC, "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page."  If anybody cares to look at the relevant section of the talk page, North8000 asked for discussion on Wikiwind's multiple changes to the article, I clarified the points to be discussed, and Wikiwind responded (In an unhelpful manner in my opinion).  In the last two days, there has been a large discussion on this very same section of the article.  But lack of a reply between 18:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC) and 19:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC) is enough to warrant a lack of discussion on the talk page and bringing to a RFC?  I am going to add my thoughts on these changes to the ongoing talk page discussion and leave this RFC solely for pointing out how Wikiwind's RFC is unnecessary and inappropriate.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include. I don't edit this page, and I came here from the RfC notice, and I agree with the rationale for including. I looked above to see what North has been saying, and I also think it would be reasonable, if there is sourcing for it, to say that the policy to exclude is not necessarily enforced, or something like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment  My main thought is let's make sure to get the details right (including details which divisions of BSA it applies to)  and not venture into OR/ Synth.  Most likely this will mean attributed information rather than editors trying build a statement in the voice of Wikipedia.  Trying to handle it via this RFC is inappropriate and too ham-handed  to get it right. North8000 (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include & Comment This is a global encyclopaedia. Within Scouting worldwide, the BSA's policy does stand out as being at the discriminatory anti-gay end of the spectrum. It is highly notable content for WIkipedia. North's point about "including details which divisions of BSA it applies to" is a bit of a distraction. Yes, of course we get the details as correct as we can, a challenge because of BSA's seeming obfuscation on the issue. If we can't get the details easily, it really ain't our problem. It's theirs for being deceptive. We cannot fail to include the general policy because the BSA is being confusing on the details.
 * I also support the existence of this RfC. Too often, controversial material like this is discussed in a fragmented way, in many threads, over a considerable timeframe. Opponents of inclusion have argued along the lines of "That was never formally or fully discussed". Well, this is it. The proper process. The chance to formally and fully discuss it. Go for it! HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see how including which divisions within the BSA the restrictions apply to is a distraction. I see it as being accurate.  And the details are pretty explicitly spelled out,  so I don't see why you do not wish to include them.  And this RFC is simply discussing the inclusion of two sentences as opposed to the entire section, like the above discussion on the talk page is.  I personally find the latter to be more useful.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say I "do not wish to include them"!!!!!! I really don't like it when what I write is misrepresented. It happens either because of, again, deliberate obfuscation and avoidance of the real issues, or incompetence of an editor. Both situations are hard to handle. Which theory should I go with this time? HiLo48 (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Include. Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include, obviously. I don't see why this is even the slightest bit controversial nor needing an RfC. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since everyone wants to talk about this specific change here as opposed to where the "conversation" started about all of User:Wikiwind's changes, I'll add a quick comment here about why those sentences are factually incorrect/misleading. Consider the following sources:, , , , .  The Boy Scouts of America's position is that open or avowed homosexuals will not be granted membership as Scouts or adult Scout Leaders in its traditional Scouting programs.  The proposed sentences imply that the restrictions apply to all programs with the BSA, including Learning for Life, which is blatantly false.  You're welcome for actually fact-checking things before including incorrect information in this article.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 11:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is already explained in Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies that "policies that are considered controversial apply only to the Scouting programs". But I don't oppose adding "in its traditional Scouting programs" at the end of the first sentence of the proposed addition. -- В и к и  T   12:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - "This policy applies to Scouts (youth members) and Scouters (adult leaders)." That statement is misleading even with the previous Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies section because Scout and Scouter are ambiguous terms used to either refer to any member of the BSA or to refer to members of the BSA's traditional Scouting programs.  And as I stated above in the talk page discussion for your multiple changes, I agree that a clear statement of the BSA's official policy should be at the beginning of the section.  And as I stated before, simply tacking on this single sentence to the beginning of the paragraph with no obvious transition or flow to the proceeding sentence is clunky and diminishes the quality of the section.  As I stated before, the current BSA policy should be intelligently worked into the top of the section.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then move "in its traditional Scouting programs" to the end of the second sentence of the proposed addition, and problem solved: The current BSA policy is that they "do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals".[1] This policy applies to Scouts (youth members) and Scouters (adult leaders) in its traditional Scouting programs.[2]-- В и к и  T   14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you mind addressing the specific points that I brought up? Which ones do you disagree with?  I'd prefer if you addressed them in the above discussion where I first brought them up, but I guess here works as well.  I already answered that question in my comment you just replied to.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I offered simple solution for your concerns (add "in its traditional Scouting programs" to the end of the second sentence), but you simply ignored that. Anyway, my proposed addition is factually correct, well sourced, and has nearly unanimous support. Filibustering will not work this time.-- В и к и  T   14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me be more blunt - I am not a fan of your proposed solution. I do not disagree that your revised statement is factually accurate, as you seem to imply.  I believe that a greater change is required, going beyond your simple addition.  I am curious why you are opposed to a larger change and have been asking for your input into a larger change.  And personally, refusing to answer any questions seems closer to filibustering than asking questions.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a larger change.-- В и к и  T   15:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Include, per HiLo48. Insomesia (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include with the correction discussed one post up. (adding "in its traditional Scouting programs" at the end of the first sentence of the proposed addition.) Without that correction it is blatantly false and should not be included. This RFC (with its timing and structure) is a poor and ham-handed way to work this out and this change should be considered just one step in developing accurate coverage /rewrite of this area. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bullshit and Obfuscation WARNING! WTF does "in its traditional Scouting programs" actually mean? I'm a Scouting person (though not American) and I don't know. Does it mean they let gays in some parts but not in others? Exactly which parts. "...traditional Scouting programs" doesn't tell us. From a global Scouting perspective, any ban on gays is an extreme, and to most, an unacceptable position. Don't hide what is actually being done. What's being proposed here makes it sound like the policy is "We don't really hate gays. We're only a little bit bigoted." Face and tell the SIMPLE truth. Not something hidden in unclear euphemisms like "traditional Scouting programs". So, precisely who is banned from what? (In clear, simple English, for people without present detailed knowledge.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could you calm down a bit? I believe this will answer this comment as well as the comment you left above for me.  Look at the Program differences section of the article.  In the BSA, the traditional Scouting programs are Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, and Venturing.  The restrictive membership policies apply to these programs.  There is also the Learning for Life program within the BSA for which the restrictive membership policies do not apply.  I hope this clears up your confusion.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 19:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll probably calm my posts down a bit now, because I seem to have got the attention of enough people to the need to keep this simple and clear for people with no connection to BSA, especially people from outside the USA, and outside Scouting. Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia. I'm involved with Scouting in another country. Even then, I have no idea what Explorers, Venture, Varsity & Learning for Life are. And please don't tell me here. That's not the point. The point is that details like that don't help. I suspect (very strongly) that some supporters of BSA want to be able to say "Look, we don't discriminate in Learning for Life, so all is well". Sorry, THAT'S where the bullshit and deception exist. BSA discriminates against gays across most of its organisation. That's what the article needs to say. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - But it is not Wikipedia's job to edit BSA's press release. Maybe you are right, and maybe you are wrong, but that is irrelevant to BSA's press release.  BSA gave its own press release and it stands on its own.  Wikipedia is not the arbiter of whether or not BSA's press release is true or false.  The accuracy of BSA's press release is BSA's problem; Wikipedia should simply quote BSA's statement and nothing more.Cwgmpls (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I tend to agree. BSA does not use the phrase "in its traditional Scouting programs" in their own official press release clarifying their own official policy.  Why would Wikipedia be compelled to insert a phrase that BSA doesn't even use themselves?  The BSA press release is very clear: "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals".  I don't know why Wikipedia would want to obfuscate things and insert language that isn't there while BSA is trying to make things clear. Cwgmpls (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Learning for Life has its own policy statement, seperate from the more traditional scouting programs "Learning for Life programs are designed for all age groups from pre-kindergarten through age 20. Youth participation is open to any youth in the prescribed age group for that particular program. Color, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, economic status or citizenship is not criteria for participation."  Marauder40 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BSA itself also uses the terms "traditional membership" to refer to all portions of the organization that aren't "Learning for Life", see the following link for a perfect example "Boy Scouts of America Traditional Membership Summary" and the accompanying link on the same page to the "Learning for Life Participation Summary".Marauder40 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of my point: the only real solution is to list BSA policy statements regarding homosexuality chronologically, verbatim, and accurately sourced, and let them stand on their own. Any attempt to try to massage BSA policy statements into a cohesive and consistent BSA policy regarding homosexuality will result in endless discussion and argument, because I don't believe any such policy exists.  Official BSA policy regarding gays consists of an series of official BSA statements that started around 1991 and continue to this day.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Trying to synthesize it all into one cohesive policy statement is impossible. Cwgmpls (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that doing that, puts absolutely no perspective on the situation. The Learning for Life program is a very small portion of BSA that since the reorg (Explorers splitting into Venture/Varsity & Learning for Life) is being handled totally different from the rest of BSA.  As can be seen here, most people (especially those on an international level) don't know anything about this program so giving its policies equal billing without any explanation isn't a good idea.Marauder40 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BSA is perfectly free to provide any perspective and clarity that they feel is necessary by issuing a new policy statment. It is not Wikipedia's role to insert perspective into an organization's policy that the organization does not provide themselves.  If the additional LFL policy adds needed perspective, it can be added to the list of BSA policies regarding gays.  But attempting to merge all BSA policies into one cohesive statement regarding gays is Wikipedia simply adding words and making assumptions that BSA has never stated, clearly, themselves. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How about we just quote enough of BSA's own material to make that clear that the BSA's official policy is so inconsistent as to make no sense, and that the organisation is obviously discriminatory against gays? Fine detail is unnecessary, and generally only demanded by those who want to display the "just a little bit pregnant, sorry bigoted", position. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the "BSA's official policy is so inconsistent as to make no sense," :-)  North8000 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "BSA's official policy is so inconsistent as to make no sense" is a good paraphrase of the Supreme Court findings in 2000 as well. The only argument boiled down to what is the minimum threshold of a coherent policy that is needed to be granted first amendment protection. Rehnquist lowered that threshold down to a new low.  He basically said, (paraphrasing) "Even if you don't officially publish your policy anywhere, and even if nobody actually follows your policy consistently, as long as you show up in court and state some modicum of a policy, we'll grant you the benefit of the doubt and grant your club first amendment protection".  Some version of "BSA's official policy is so inconsistent as to make no sense, but BSA maintains the legal right to kick out gays whenever they feel like it" is an essential summary of what the Supreme Court decided in 2000.  If we could arrive at something that expresses that, we would be all set. Cwgmpls (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Include because this is much more clear and also well-sourced than the previous version. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Include - with Buku's added clause. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Avowed homosexual
The BSA policy on homosexuality includes the phrase "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals". The question is if avowed should be presented in quotation marks within the article. Wikiwind states that "'avowed' is a term that is only used by this organization, so it must be inside quotation marks". Looking at previous discussions on the talk page, it seems that LDS, Methodist, and Catholic churches also use the term avowed homosexuals. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of the word "avowed" has been discussed extensively here in the past, but I don't have any notes. I don't believe anyone was ever able to come up with a clear definition, and "avowed homosexual" is not a phrase used in the vernacular, so I agree it should be in quotes. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course another solution would be to put the whole phrase in quotes, like "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals", and leave it at that. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting the entire phrase is good.  Modifying it by editor-addition of quote marks for one word would be not so good. North8000 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the latter solution. "Avowed homosexual" has a pejorative, negative connotation, implying homosexuality is something to be shamefully admitted. Better to keep such a phrase out of wiki's voice. Glaucus (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Avowed is used six times in the article. For five of them, it is part of a larger quotation, so adding quotations won't be a problem.  The instance where that is not the case is the lead sentence.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 17:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists, agnostics and 'open or avowed' homosexual people from membership in its Scouting program as directly violating its fundamental principles and tenets. BSA has denied or revoked membership status or leadership positions for violation of these foundational principles."

"open or avowed homosexuals will not be granted membership" is not direct quote. Direct quote is "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals".-- В и к и  T   18:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not a simple list of BSA policy statements?
Since BSA policy regarding homosexuality has been less than clear through the years, and every statement BSA makes on the topic seems to get re-interpreted by a number of people in a number of different ways, why not just create of list of well-documented official BSA statements regarding homosexuality, reproduced verbatim, and leave it at that?

BSA has made various position statements regarding homosexuality since at least 1991. They have made these statements in a variety of venues, including internal memos, public press releases, news interviews, court proceedings and probably others. What I would like to see is a simple listing of the portions of those statements relevant to homosexuality, in chronological order, with valid citations for the source of those statements. No commentary or interpretation is needed, just a listing of statements. I doubt we will ever get that, but that is what I would like to see.

Of course, this list could be in addition to any other re-writes currently under way. Having a simple list of statements does not preclude other content on the topic. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * From the current references, here are relevant BSA press/news releases -, , and - and court decisions - , , and .  Offhand, most of the policy statements are quite large, and I'm not sure how much including them all in whole would add.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a good start. Here is how my list would read
 * "We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate." 1978 position statement to the BSA Executive Committee
 * "Education for sexuality belongs in the home... Scouters should reinforce rather than contradict what is being taught in the family and by the youth's religious leaders" BSA Statement on Human Sexuality, 1984
 * “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” 1991 BSA Position Statement
 * "we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.” 1993 position statement
 * BSA "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not morally straight". BSA Brief for the petitioners, 2000
 * BSA does “not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior” BSA Brief for teh petitioners, 2000
 * "In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position." BSA Youth Leadership Policy, 2004
 * "we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals" BSA Press release, 2012
 * "Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program" BSA Press release, 2012
 * A 17-year-old Life Scout who is openly gay "does not meet Scouting’s membership standard on sexual orientation. " and is "no longer eligible for membership in Scouting.” BSA Spokesperson, 2012
 * People are welcome to add BSA statements regarding homosexuality that are well documented.
 * These statements, left to stand by themselves, provide a more accurate and comprehensive view of BSA's policies regarding gays than ongoing arguments over a single policy statement on Wikipedia could ever achieve. And there is no dispute about wording, because they are direct quotes of BSA statements. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about entire policy statements or just parts of statements? ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am listing portions of official BSA statements that are relevant to homosexuality. I am not quoting the entire statement, just the portions relevant to homosexuality.  If you feel the portion quoted needs to be expanded, or the context needs to be clarified, feel free. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)  I added a couple more to the list. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On problem is that I don't think that we have ANY official statements of policies. We have the website of an outside firm (BSALegal.org) we have statements by individuals.   And within those limitations, we have some that are oversimplified to the point where they clearly conflict with official reality such as in the non-traditional BSA programs. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) BTW, I think that I could state the ACTUAL current operative policy in 3 short sentences. "If you want to make a point of being a homosexual or atheist in scouting (or are a high-profile instance of such), we don't want you.  All others, including homosexuals and atheists are welcome.  And we'll say whatever the lawyers tell us we need to say to preserve the right to do this." This is from someone who is in the most clearly-banned group (atheists) who has been in scouting for 50+ years.  Of course, we have no source that says this / it's synthesis, but this is what you get when you put it all together and may help to put the pieces together on the talk page if not the article. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The concept of "operative" policies is what I am trying avoid, because they become too derivative. Better to stick to actual, official BSA statements.  Even if they are "whatever the lawyers tell us to say".  Those, after all, the statements that matter in court, and those are what a kid or family is going to read when they are trying to figure if boy or a parent is eligible to be a Scout or not. Cwgmpls (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (added later) Of course you are right. I just felt the urge to say what I figured out the actual story is.  Except I left out the "fear of LDS" part. North8000 (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BSA statements *of* policy we may not have. BSA statements *about* policy we do have.  I've listed them above; there may be more.  Courts face the same challenge when they have to discern what BSA's policies are.  They rely on the same statements that I've listed above.  Certainly statements that pass muster to the Supreme Court can pass muster for being listed on Wikipedia. Cwgmpls (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your final sentence is a (IMHO out-of-context-the-the-point-of-being-wrong) derivation by you. If we could put derivations in, I have a lot of OR/synthesis I could add. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the last sentence is a quickly evolving story that we don't know the background behind. I just added it in as an example of the type of BSA statements that I think would be relevant. It certainly can be left off until we know how that whole situation gets resolved, and whether or not BSA national takes a position on the issue. Cwgmpls (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed RFC
In working to implement this I noticed that the only source for the quote attributed to BSA is a personal blog. Also without the qualifier "in its traditional membership programs" it is clearly in error. Any thoughts on what we should do? North8000 (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And please, this time lets actually work it out vs. a ham-handed RFC. My idea would be to just list who said what and when and where. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to the policy quotation, BSALegal appears to be the source. The qualifier of "in its traditional membership programs" is something I added to clarify the extent of the policy.  If there is a better way to clarify the policy difference between the traditional programs of Cub Scouting/Boy Scouting/Venturing and the subsidiary program of Learning for Life, I'm all for it (National does use the phrase "traditional membership" to differentiate the two).  And the fact that LFL is part of the BSA, but not really, doesn't help the clarity of things.  I have a work-in-progress version of this section that tries to work through the policy statements throughout the years - I'll see if I can finish it in the next night or two.  I think the biggest issue for this section is going to be the lead sentence, which should be a summary of the current policy in my opinion.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat related to this, I think the 'Program Differences' section really needs to be expanded. That would help some of the confusion that cropped up in regards to that subject during the chaotic RFC.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool and Cool. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reworked the "Position on homosexuality" section (comments, thoughts, improvements?), still working on the "Reaction to nondiscrimination policies" section (which includes most of the information removed from the previously mentioned section), and "Program differences" section still needs to be expanded but I haven't started on that yet. I'm also planning on cleaning up the WOSM section further down in the article. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * New version of "Reaction to nondiscrimination policies" section added. "World Organization of Scouting Movement programs" section is my next task, followed by the "Program differences" section.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes regarding policies on atheists?
For years, the standard reference (including in this article) for the Boy Scouts' discrimination against atheists and agnostics was the "Duty to God" page at their legal website, most recently archived here. However, that page has now vanished, and indeed I can find NO policy on atheism at bsalegal.org. Could it be that while they've been publicly debating their policies on homosexuals, they've quietly removed their policies on atheists? Of course, my inability to find something isn't evidence the policy has changed. Has anyone heard anything concrete about this? Prebys (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard anything. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I quite doubt it. BSA is a member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement:
 * "All members of the Scout Movement are required to adhere to a Scout Promise and Law reflecting, in language appropriate to the culture and civilization of each National Scout Organization, and approved by the World Organization, the principles of Duty to God..."
 * As I understand it BSALegal.org is not intended to promulgate BSA policies. It is a product of Bork Communication Group, which "helps corporations and counsel manage the public risk inherent in high-profile litigation." It is specifically intended to provide information about ongoing litigation. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the statement in this article that BSA bans atheists lists BSAlegal.org as its only source. If BSAlegal.org is not a valid source for BSA policy statements, should we remove BSAlegal.org from all citations in this article?  I think BSAlegal.org is a valuable resource to learn about current activity involving BSA policies, and is a nice, official source for current policy language.  If the atheist language has been removed from BSAlegal.org, I think that is quite significant.  Without BSAlegal.org, the only official BSA policy regarding atheism is the "Declaration of Religious Principles".  The DRP does not explicitly require nor forbid a belief in a Supreme Being. Indeed, DRP "Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion." DRP clearly states that the "home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life".  In other words, if a Scout is from an atheist home, then a Scout being an atheist would be in full agreement with that Scout's religious training.  BSA may be in the middle of making a public statement about admitting gays, and then, at the same time, under cover of all the noise, quietly reverting to their traditional position of not advocating any specific ideas about religion. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BSALegal is a valid source for BSA policy releases, but it is not a definitive site on the subject. As for there being no other policy regarding religion, that is incorrect.  There is still 'Article IX. Policies And Definitions (Policies)—Charter And Bylaws Clause 1' of the BSA's Guide to Advancement which includes things like "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God" and "The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Absent any other policy statement, the BSA Guide to Advancement is probably the most clear statement of BSA's policy with regard to religion.  Nowhere does BSA Guide to Advancement prohibit an atheist form membership or advancement in rank in BSA.  To the contrary, it states "The Boy Scouts of America does not define what constitutes belief in God".  BSA's official policy is that BSA does not know who believes in god and who doesn't.  Also, BSA is clear that a Scouts beliefs shall be dictated by that Scouts "home and the organization or group with which the member is connected".  So if a Scout comes from an atheist home, or is a member of an atheist organization, then adhering to the teachings of that home or organization is the most true form of that Scout fulfilling their Duty to God.  BSA may teach that belief in God is a great idea, but the DRP does not mandate any specific belief in god.  If the BSA Guide to Advancement is the only policy statement about religion that BSA has, then BSA has no policy banning atheists from membership. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Have any of us ever actually seen a BSA POLICY regarding homosexuals or atheists? The fact is that we now have zero sourcing that a policy on either exists. What I suspect is that the "policies" regarding homosexuals and atheists don't actually exist as policies. That they are merely statements in various places, assertions of rights to exclude based on the attributes, things they had to say in court to protect those rights, plus, on rare occasions actions to expel persons based on those things. Like I think that there have been zero youth expulsions for either of those reasons, 2-3 adult expulsions for "avowed" homosexuality, and one denial of entry due to the atheist dad refusing to sign the kid's application. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Absent any new sources stating that their policies have changed, the vanishing web site is a moot point. We can just cite the archive link. Policy cites are nice, but there is a large body of reliable secondary sources stating that they have refused to advance atheists, which is sufficient for a mention here.  a13ean (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a "large body of reliable secondary sources stating that they have refused to advance atheists", then we should cite them in this article. Right now, the only citation that atheists are banned is the statement on bsalegal.org, which no longer exists.  This article no longer has a valid citation for the assertion that atheists are banned from BSA. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LATimes:"San Diego may lease land to Scouts despite ban on gays, atheists:
 * NYT:The declines reflect the difficulties of keeping up with changing times and shifting demographics, as well as of battling a perception that the organization is exclusionary because it bars gay people and atheists, not to mention girls under 13.
 * CBS: "has long excluded both gays and atheists"
 * Macleans: The spokesman said that the organization is not reconsidering its ban on atheists.
 * Related federal lawsuit
 * WP: "They can't join the Boy Scouts"
 * Quoted on CNN: "its ban on gays, lesbians, atheists and agnostics"
 * |topnews|text|Frontpage The potential policy shift raises a question about another group shut out of Scouting: atheists, who decline to say the Boy Scout Oath because it begins: "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law."
 * Are a few of the top google hits. Older ones include
 * 
 * 
 * I would amend my previous statement to say that there's plenty of sourcing to say they have an outright ban, since that's what most of these sources say. As for individuals being kicked out of boy scouts, there's an awful lot of local and national news stories in this google search.  a13ean (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a fair statement. There is no, actual, "BSA POLICY" book anywhere. There is Scouting as it is practiced in individual units. That is one thing. Then there is a whole body of legal arguments that exist, and are well documented, when local units get sued and taken to court. These legal arguments tend to hold a lot of weight until BSA issues a clear statement that contradicts them. So the whole history of legal arguments banning gays will all be irrelevant if BSA issues a clear statement that gays are welcome. Same is true with atheists. Further, if BSA national takes the position that ALL membership decisions for otherwise qualified candidates should be made locally, then that would wipe out any national position regarding gays, as well as atheists. The onus to defend banning gays or atheists will fall to local units and their chartering organization. That is my best read of what is happening. We'll know for sure when the final language is released, which is supposed to be next week. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can review the body of BSA legal arguments regarding homosexuality by going over the "simple list of BSA policy statements", above. Even without an official BSA policy, these legal statements carry the weight of policy, at least until they are contradicted by a new statement from BSA national. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably true but that leaves us in the position of Wikipedia editors "making up" the wording of unsourced or non-existent policies. Also the "made up" versions tend to be more srtingent than reality indicates.  For example, all of the statements in bsalegal.org regarding homosexuality included the qualifier avowed and it even makes the statement that most or all cases regard people who want to "make a point".  But somehow the coverages always forget the "avowed" qualifier when paraphrasing BSA "policy"   North8000 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We can cite published legal arguments, and public position statement, which are easy enough to find. I've compiled a list of such statements with regard to gays, above.  User "A13ean" seems to have ideas for similar statements about atheists.  If the final announcement from BSA next week doesn't clarify things, maybe we can sit down and add these citations to the article. Cwgmpls (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe they will make our life simpler in the next week. Who knows, after >5 decades in scouts being in the only categorically "banned" group (aethists) I might get to stay in.  :-) North8000 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to imply that BSALegal.org is not reliable, just that its purpose is not to promote BSA policies except as regarding current litigation. AS to the official BSA policies, see the draft at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Religion. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. a13ean (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That draft has the same flaw as the "atheist" section in this article. The only citation of a clear statement that atheists are barred from BSA is a reference to the "Duty to God" section on bsalegal.org, which no longer exists.  The DRP does not, in itself, clearly bar atheists.  The DRP is quite clear that a boy should follow the religious teachings of his family or organizations with which he is affiliated.  The DRP also clearly states that BSA does not define what those teachings must be. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Then at the very least, the reference to BSAlegal.org should be replaced. First, you can't argue that it both is and isn't a definitive source on Boy Scout policies, and second, leaving a known stale link is disingenuous. Is there an agreement what the best citation would be?Prebys (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we have to stick with what secondary sources say, so we don't end up trying to interpret official, unofficial, or effective policies. If we want to refer to that document we can just link to the archive link, and mention inline that there was previously a statement there, but I don't think it's necessary.  a13ean (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But secondary sources are, by definition, interpretations of official, unofficial, and effective policies. That is the problem.  For example, I can find many secondary sources that will adamantly state that BSA does not teach about sex.  But there is a primary source, BSA testimony in court, which states that BSA does teach about sex.  Which one should we list?  I'm just hoping BSA makes thinks easier to navigate with their announcement due next week. Cwgmpls (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can wait a few days and see if they make our life simpler.  Does this early Feb discussion concern homosexuality, atheism or both?  North8000 (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the only change being considered is the policy regarding sexual orientation, not belief in a higher power. Here is what it says on the BSA web site (which is a ref in the article):  "Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation. This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs. BSA members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families."  In this article, it says:  "Smith, the Scouts spokesman, said a change in the policy toward atheists was not being considered, and that the Scouts continued to view “Duty to God” as one of its basic principles."  Neutron (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty definitive - and worth citing. I'll try to get it in when I get some time.Prebys (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey
I received a survey from BSA National on the homosexuality-related membership restrictions. North8000 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't expecting the 'Are you tougher than a Boy Scout' redirect at the end. Survey questions on Imgur here.  It looks like National is sending out surveys and collecting feedback through email and phone.  Councils are putting together 'local impact statements' to pass on to Area, Regional, and National.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New article on religious groups' involvement with Scouting and attitudes on homosexuality
"Over the past 103 years, America's churches have built the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) into the nation's most successful youth group — which makes it remarkable that the BSA stands ready to let gays join Scouting, thus publicly renouncing the wishes of some of its oldest and dearest friends. A proposal to let the local organizations that run Scout units decide whether to accept homosexual boys and leaders — to be voted on by the BSA board of directors this week — is monumental not only for Scouting but for what it says about the state of gay rights in America." -- Jo3sampl (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of religions, and religious denominations, which fully accept homosexuality. So I'm not sure how the religion angle plays, one way or the other, in an organization whose policy clearly states that BSA "Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion." (BSA Religious Principles, 1992) Cwgmpls (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Check out this piece: --evrik (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that the first paragraph has been more deeply messed up
I just realized that the first paragraph has been more deeply messed up. The "denial" sentence has been changed to only homosexuals. And without that the statements of denial or revocation of membership to youth are absolutely unsourced, as there is no source of that having ever been done for youth except for parental refusal to sign the application due to aethism. North8000 (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Gadget fixed it. North8000 (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And I suspect we will have to fix it repeatedly as editors ignore the 2014 date or that the new policy applies only to youth. --  Gadget850talk 14:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I created an editnotice after these last two reversions. --  Gadget850talk 16:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it's still mixed up.  We should revert to how the 1st paragraph was (e.g. a month ago).   Then possibly add a note on the pending change. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The lede still does not summarize past controversies mentioned in the article. Maybe the title of this piece should be changed and the other controversies spun off to a separate article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the first paragraph to the last stable version. This removed unsourcable errors which were introduced. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Recentism
I added a Recentism tag because this article makes no mention of the earlier racial integration controversies. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If it substantially existed as a membership controversy and coverage exists it should be in there. If someone finds out that it substantially existed as a membership controversy and coverage exists they should put it in the article.   If nobody has established any of that (as is the case) it should not have a top level tag and so I'm removing.   North8000 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Historically there was controversy in the early 1970s dealing with the LDS policy of not permitting non-priesthood holders to have certain leadership positions (definitely senior patrol leader and may have been patrol leaders) in their troops. Since Blacks could not be priesthood holders (a policy not changed until the late 1970s) they were automatically excluded (as were any non-LDS member of LDS troops).   The LDS eventually dropped the priesthood requirement.   Earlier quite a few councils were segregated with separate troops and camps for whites and non-whites.   The info (as well as some about other controversies) may better belong (and some is) in the History of the Boy Scouts of America article.  We might want to expand both it and the link to it in this article. --Erp (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This article isn't going to get any better. It will always suffer from recentism. It will always be the subject of whatever passing editor saw on CNN that day. --  Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it is the nature of the beast. I just did a bit of browsing and the History of Boy Scouting article underplays the huge role segregation played for much of BSA history (as it did for other US youth organizations; the YWCA was mentioned in one place as the trendsetter for youth organizations).  However I'm not sure how much scholarly has been written on the subject.  I may check my university library to see what it has.  --Erp (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)



See Lone Scouts of America.

Then there are gender issues: men could not be den leaders until 1967; women could not be a Cubmaster or Scoutmaster until 1988. Girls were not admitted until 1972, and only in Exploring, now Venturing. --  Gadget850talk 02:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There is also recentism is what and what is not considered OK and expected in the USA. For example, what BSA now does for youth protection....40 years ago society would have considered some of such to be overkill/draconian, right now they get beat up now because they weren't doing it 40 years ago, and who knows, 40 years from now youth/adult romances could be fashionable/accepted/legal and what BSA does now for youth protection (background checks against such activity) could be considered draconian discrimination and covered in the article as such. North8000 (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See Moral relativism. The BSA's treatment of African Americans was the societal norm in that milieu. But, as best I can tell, there was no national policy, it was left to the local councils, contrary to what some have written. From the outside, the BSA appears to be a monolithic culture, where in actuality it is local councils that use a common framework and thousands of chartering organizations and units that interpret the Scouting program in their own way.
 * On another point that irritates me: Those writing about BSA discrimination often repeat the meme that Boyce created the BSA to be "open to all boys," conveniently ignoring his later actions with the Lone Scouts of America when he expelled all African American boys. --  Gadget850talk 11:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that on matters of race, BSA was never a monolithic culture. But on issues of gender, and especially homosexuality, BSA has a clear national policy from which local units are not allowed to vary.  "The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices." -- BSA press release, February 2002.  On official policy regarding membership of open homosexuals, BSA is indeed a monolithic culture. Cwgmpls (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that you mean that they have (I assume....I've never seen it) a national policy on what you describe rather than a monolithic culture? North8000 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at this from the other side of the world, it seems to me that the reaction across the USA, to the proposal to make the policy on gays local, showed that the culture on this policy was very far from a monolithic culture. There were massively diiferent reactions from different places and different people in the BSA. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't find a source right now, but I know that in Los Angeles, California, the local people just ignored national "policy" on gay Scouts. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, no youth has ever been kicked out or kept out in BSA for being gay or openly gay. I think that we'd have seen coverage by 100 newspapers if it happenned.  (That is if you do not consider an 18+ year old paid employee to be a youth.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 23 April 2013
 * You mean ? --evrik (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually if you read the article the person is 19. He wasn't kicked out as a youth. In scouting the day you turn 18, you become an adult and have to abide by all youth protection guidelines, no longer eligible for Eagle (unless there is a qualified handicap), can no longer shower or share a tent with anyone under the age of 18, etc. He was an adult employee of a scout camp.Marauder40 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but everyone is familiar with Ryan Anderson, whose Eagle Scout BOR was declined, even though he completed all of his Eagle requirements before he was 18. The BOR stated the fact that he was gay and over the age of 18 at the time of his BOR, but straight boys who complete Eagle requirements before age 18 are routinely granted their award, even if the BOR occurs after their 18th birthday. Anderson's Eagle award, for which requirements were met while he was a youth, was declined simply because he is openly gay.  Cwgmpls (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2002 BSA resolution prohibiting local options with regard to homosexual membership policies is easy enough to find. Here is one source. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/bsa-0202-resolution.html  Of course Scouting culture varies from one BSA unit to the next, but with regard to membership of known homosexuals, BSA has a standing national resolution which prohibits local variation in BSA membership policies.  BSA has a monolithic culture, by official edict, with regard to gay membership. Of course it is impossible to mandate a monolithic culture, but BSA is trying to do just that. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Related to concerns about recentism, I have removed the two references to specific alternatives to BSA that were mentioned in the article -- "American Heritage Girls" and "On My Honor / Trail Life". Alternatives to BSA are as old as BSA itself. Each alternative exists to fulfill a specific ideology or philosophy not covered by BSA. If we are going to list alternatives to BSA, there should be a comprehensive list of all alternatives; AHG and Trail Life do not merit special treatment. I actually think a comprehensive list of BSA alternatives is probably impossible, so I have removed references to the only two alternatives that were previously mentioned. There are other Wikipedia pages, "Youth Organizations" and "Youth Club", which try, unsuccessfully, to list all youth clubs, but such a list is always imperfect, and is outside the scope of a description BSA's membership controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwgmpls (talk • contribs) 14:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)