Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original Research, POV fork of Boy Scouts of America membership controversies Alecmconroy (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward delete unless the creator can offer some better reasons why this should exist. At first I thought this would be almost a speedy delete, but went to the talk page to find out what was up.  As my last comment there said, "So if I understand you correctly you just want to compile a list of membership policies in certain areas, without any discussion or analysis? If that's it, then I don't see how this is a notable concept. An organization's membership policies belong on its website; WP:NOT. But if you do want discussion and analysis, that's where the fork and coatrack issues come in."  The answer I got was that this article is basically intended to be "Noteworthy BSA Policies."  If that's so, then delete, because even if the author doesn't intend it this will become a natural magnet for POVFORK-type edits. Moreover, if a policy is so noteworthy that it deserves to be mentioned here, it's probably also mentioned on Boy Scouts of America membership controversies as the basis of a controversy, and can be adequately covered there in a sentence or two.  We don't need detailed disquisitions on each and every Boy Scout policy, so I see no justification for a separate article to house such content in light of the problems such an article would tend to develop.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject of this article, the policies themselves, are not notable outside of the areas already covered in the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article. The policies themselves are not covered by third-party sources and do not attract the requisite critical commentary to support an independent article. As it is currently written, the article is based solely on primary sources, not meeting the requirements of WP:GNG.  Jim Miller  See me 17:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a very poor content fork. Polargeo (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as fundamentally OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete a content fork. Marauder40 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:JimMillerJr. It is very difficult to see how these policies could have reliable secondary sources, so any coverage can be, and is, in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this can be properly covered in the above mentioned Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article, plus this is an extremely poor content fork. -MBK004 21:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the above.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as the intended scope of the new article is entirely within the scope of the existing article; it's really the exact same subject. Neutron (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - very sneakily but strongly POV HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - repeats a subsection of the already existing article and is not notable except in the context of the controversies. --Erp (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - The title part of "Membership and Leadership Policies in Controversial Areas" sets the tone of the article as being about BSA policies that have caused controversy, but fails to include any context about why the policies are controversial. This is well covered in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, thus the new article is redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(Someone wrote to only write only here, but the majority of the material is in the discussion section of the article.)

So, we have a subject "Just what ARE the policies and practices of this multi-million person organization regarding atheism, homosexuality et al? " which  is noteworthy, of interest to many and which had neither actual coverage nor even a title or heading in Wikipedia until this new article was put up. And then we have an article who's title (the noun) is "controversies", which right from the start defines it's content as POV material. And who's content, on the policies topic, mixes in much factually wrong information about BSA policies in those areas, mixed in with inuendo about non existent policies. Such is inevitable for an article who's title is "controversies", not only a POV magnet, but who's defined subject is material which is inherently POV.

The policies are written and available for viewing, and so it is a matter of FACT what the policies are. If someone asks you what the first sentence in the book "Tom Sawyer" is, such can be factually answered by looking at the book. You might say that it's a bad sentence, or a vague sentence, but it is a matter of fact what the sentence is. The same goes for BSA policies. One could take issue with them, or say their wording is too vague, but it is a matter of FACT what they are. But some folks would rather continue the process of vague wrong inuendo about what they are rather than have people see what they actually are.

So, an article comes along which actually covers the topic of what the policies are, and with a title that matches the content. With the article still being in it's FIRST DAY OF EXISTENCE, the other half of the article (enforcement or lack thereof) contains information that is not yet referenced. But in all of the flurry of writing on this, NOBODY HAS EVEN MADE ONE CLAIM THAT ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLE IS INCORRECT.

And now some claim that the "controversy" article which, after all of this time, still has factually wrong and occluded coverage of the topic, and a title that doesn't even match it has "dibs" on the "policies" topic, to the extent of preventing coverage of policies in a "policies" article.

And THIS article is a candidate for deletion?

As much as I respect and value Wikipedia, if you look through Wikipedia, the system really breaks down when it comes to contentious topics...those are a mess and soapboxes everywhere, with the system being gamed in numerous ways, including use of rules opposite their intended purpose. It would certainly be a travesty if actual coverage of this notable topic were kept out of Wikipedia by a combination of people who want and work to keep it from being actually covered, plus persons who innocently misapply the Wikipedia guidelines in a way that is more granular, myopic and categorical than intended and written.

It would certainly be a sad day for Wikipedia's and it's reader's loss if such would prevent accurate coverage of this notable topic, and even prevent existence of an appropriate title (that matches the content) to cover it under. North8000 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the policies were 100% clear and not open to different interpretations there would be no controversies, the policies would sit quietly in the Boy Scouts of America article, and all would be sweet. We all know that's not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that if a policy affecting millions of people is unclear, (or, as some would say, really bad) it should be kept inaccurately covered, hidden in an article with a different title where clear coverage can get killed off or occluded as "off topic", not be covered under a title that matches the subject matter, or kept secret?    North8000 (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. It should sit in the "Boy Scouts of America" article and nowhere else. But it isn't clear, it does create controversies. So other articles evolve. HiLo48 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, (except what about size issues making it go separate?) which is a different argument than others are making which is essentially that policies should only get covered in a "controversies" article. In fact, based on what I just read today, claims that base article content should be covered (and only covered) in a "criticism of" type article (as many of the "delete" peoplel have said) are themselves in violation of Wikipedia standards for such type articles. Which reinforces your point.  But it seemed a little big and heavy to put into the main BSA article, and, in those cases, it is a common and accepted Wikipedia practice to create it's own article.  I've seen lots of unsupported claims of instead calling this a "Content Fork" and "POV" with NO specifics to support any of those claims.  Or, to put it in a different way, calling it a "content fork" from a "criticism of" article which Wikipedia standards say should not even have this material in it.   In short, a "fork" from a mother "prong" in the "controversies" article which Wikipedia standards say shouldn't exist.
 * I guess that the two things that make it bigger are:
 * Putting in the (operative parts of) the policies themselves instead of paraphrasing/summarizing them. Paraphrasing/summarizing can be POV, but more importantly, is fuzzy enough so that people can wrangle forever over it, trying to lobby for their POV paraphrasing
 * My attempt to describe actual practices of enforcement or non-enforcement. Although very hard to do to Wikipedian standards, this is a noteworthy ("whats really going on at BSA regarding this?") topic that a lot of people want information on. Some of what I put in was hard referenced facts (e.g. "the court cases on this are:....") which are just pieces to begin building an understanding from.   Others are (at least on day 1 of the article) admittedly yet-unreferenced summaries based only on accumulated knowledge, and unreferenced as of day 1.  But I think that at least most or all of the latter are uncontested, or at least nobody has contested any of them.  They could be either referenced or taken out later by editors. But someone (implying Wikipedia practice or rules) "archived"  and froze a main discussion section of the article on day one of the article's existence, and, implying Wikipeda rules, wrote that the discussion section of the article should be shut down on day 1 of it's existence and that the only discussion should be about potential deletion. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000, you keep saying that Boy Scouts of America membership controversies should not exist, is against wikipedia policies or needs fixing. This article is a featured article, although of course that can change. Do you not think that more experienced and wiser editors than you have looked at this article in detail against wikipedia policies and guidelines? You also keep saying the topic is notable. Policies are not notable. Who notices them in reliable sources? They only fit in wikipedia in the context of the controveries. The main problem, to me, is that an article on policies has to rely on primary sources from BSA. Who else would notice the policies and write about them accurately? We can not have an article that relies entirely on primary sources. However that does not mean they can not be used elsewhere. The controversies are widely noticed and sourced so we can have an article. It is necessary to know about the policies in that article, so primary sources can be used there. You are also picking the policies you want to match the controversies. It does not, and indeed could not, cover all BSA policies. So your article is a content fork and a bad one too. It can not be rescued. Finally, your pro-BSA POV is pretty obvious. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear BDuke,


 * Regarding the "controversies" article, without addressing it's numerous problems obvious from it's discussion section, and that it's current review for removal of FA status, my main point of the moment is that, per Wikipedia standards, nobody should be claiming that a it (a "criticism of" type article) is even THE place (much less the only place) to cover the material from the main article on the main topic which it is a "criticism of". And thus that such claims in this section are contrary to Wikipedian standards.


 * Second, you also sidestepped the point (e.g. via the "first sentence in given Tom Sawyer" example.) that if the question what the BSA policies are, and the policies are written and published, that such is, by definition, and reliable answer to that particular question.  A second source would be easy (someone to say " I read them, and this is what they are"  but, I would submit, unnecessary in that particular case.  So second sources would be trivially easy, if someone wanted them.


 * I am not picking the "policies I want". The only "picking" is that they are in a controversial area (and finding EVERYTHING possible in that area) and are related to membership and leadership.  Basically, per the title.


 * Finally, one the "personal POV" assertion, ad hominem attacks are meaningless; the article must be accurate and objective  and NPOV.  For the record, my feelings are undecided, and I am a member of one of the groups most "attacked" by the BSA policies, but I am adamantly opposed to "witchhunt" tactics which, as a part of their tactics, seek to mis-inform and suppress information. In other words, start by getting the accurate facts out, in a venue (Wikipedia article) which will assure that only the facts stay in the article.

North8000 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * North8000 - When I said that the policies should only be in the Boy Scouts of America article, that was in response to your hypothetical scenario of them being clear, concise and easily and consistently enforced. It's the fact that they don't fit that description that causes the Controversies article to exist. Your new contribution is built around an attempt by you to say that the policies ARE clear, concise and easily and consistently enforced. But they're not. The article is built on a falsehood. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear HiLo48 Why don't you look back at what I did and didn't say?....your statement is totally wrong on that.  I NEVER said (or hypothesized) that the BSA policies were clear, I NEVER said or hypothesized that they were easily or consistently enforced.  (in fact, the article essentially said the opposite)   I primarily said that such are important and noteworthy topics that should be covered, and have not been covered, and, prior to this, did not even have an article or article section in Wikipedia to develop such coverage under.North8000 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the misunderstanding. My concern now would be, exactly who will be the arbiter of what goes in the article? I really can't see such a nebulous subject working in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and, of course, accepted. My thought is that the scope definition (the title plus the first two sentences [which would hopefully stay "locked in"]) together with Wikipedia standards would guide this nicely without any single arbiter.   I certainly don't plan to play any strong hand in this, other than keeping the scope statement from expanding. In short, the title will set it on a good course, without need of an arbiter.


 * I think that the scope is certainly not nebulous (at the expense of having longer and slightly awkward title wording).  And/ although the policies themselves are nebulous with regard to several key terms, I don't that the topic of what the policies are is nebulous.  (i.e.  the article has non-nebulous quoting of nebulous statements  :-)  )   On the other aspect (enforcement or lack thereof) it could develop to a certain point with concrete material, supported by references.  But to take it beyond that would require summaries/ generalizations which admittedly could be nebulous, or, at least hard to support with references.  I confined the latter to what I think are uncontested areas.  I think that any unsupported generalizations in areas that are contested would not survive.


 * On the other hand, trying to characterize what the overall practices or "attitude" of BSA (this multi-million person diverse organization which is centralized in some respects and decentralized in others) would be very nebulous, if not a fundamentally flawed concept. The "controversies" article has already gone there (and I would say, quite badly). THIS article has a scope which includes a few pieces of that puzzle, but which rules itself out from completely going there.


 * Sincerely,
 * North8000 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * North8000 (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Being the one who originally asked North800 to host the sandbox, I think that the title needs to exist in order for actual coverage of this notable topic to occur.  And that the article is a good start. 75.24.138.102 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please show us how it meets the wikipedia notability quideline. That is what we work on and it is not the same as you just thinking it is notable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello BDuke. Here is just one thought, without trying to provide the overall answer. This new article is about the subject which is the object of the entire subject of "criticism of" article (the "Boy Scouts of America Membership Controversies" article.) Unless one tries to claim that the object of the criticism is not notable, but the criticism of it is, then the notability (and continued existence) of the entire "controversies" article is dependent on the subject of this new article being considered to be notable. Or conversely, the (continued) existence of the "criticism of" article, if valid, establishes the notability of the subject of this article. Whew!......simple concept that needs not-so-simple wording to express it.  :-).
 * Please read the link I gave you. The Nutshell there says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". It is all about sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the policies. The criticism is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The policies have not. -- Bduke  [[User_talk:Bduke|(Discussion) ]] 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia standards say the "criticism of" type article is not THE place for coverage of the object of the criticism.
 * 75.24.138.102 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is this said? Also the object of the criticism is largely the effect of the policies on people. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is inherently of the action that caused the effect, or of the alleged "perpetrator" of the action, not of the effect. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Expanding on comments above in response to BDuke's thoughts, some of the answer is in comments already made. First, to provide context, on day one of it's existence, some people pounced on this article, nominated it for deletion, "froze" a part of the discussion section, and, implying Wikipedia standards, stated that the entire discussion section of the article should be shut down. That, including the diversion of energies to a "potential deletion section" is, of course slowing down the development of the article. Addressing the "coverage in reliable secondary sources", one could say that attributes of subjects divide them into two categories regarding this. The first is the policies themselves. As the policies are available in writing from BSA (whether they be good, bad, vague or specific, followed, not followed) the answer of the question of what they ARE is an objective fact which, by definition can be answered by citing the policies. I would think that in rare specialized cases (like my "What is the first sentence of Tom Sawyer?" example), the primary source would be sufficient, and that secondary sources (i.e. somebody else reading the policies and reading them and them saying what they) would be inherently less accurate. That said, I have no objection to (or control over) inclusions of secondary sources....in fact I just added one myself. In the rest of the subject (current BSA implementation and enforcement of these policies) the availability of reliable secondary sources is relevant and extensive. I just put in about a half dozen of them in last night myself. And these are not of the type of the most cited reference in the "controversies" article (the "BSADiscrimination.org" website) (I guess that counts as objective and reliable). These half dozen I put in last night are the actual main documents from the prominent court cases which of course, in each case, include the court's summary of the facts relevant to the case and it's decision. North8000 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course there are sources. It doesn't change the fact that the article is already duplicating a lot of what is in the older Controversies article, and it still seems likely to me that the original author created it with strong POV intentions. It adds nothing but confusion to an already existing topic. I wrote elsewhere about obfuscation by BSA. The addition of all the words in this article is simply more of that. It has already become too big to be a simple explanation of "the policies", which actually highlights part of the basic problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In my note here and addition of references, I was responding an an earlier assertion by someone that secondary sources are not available, and to BDuke's statement and question which was: (I added the question mark to the question):

"The Nutshell there says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". It is all about sources. Where is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources of the policies?"

Per Wikipedia, "criticism of" articles are offshoots from the article of the subject which they are criticism of. It doesn't, hasn't and shouldn't try to "take over" the coverage of the subject of the criticism. As you look through both the current state of affairs and the histories in the "controversies" article on the "coverage" of this topic, you will see that it is of unstable POV paraphrases or summaries of the policies, obfuscated in other "controversies" wording. Such is inevitable in an article titled to be about "controversies" rather than the subject of the controversies. A title and a structure to support objective coverage is essential. This a notable, sourced topic which needs to be covered under a title of it's subject matter. In Wikipedia content structure, it is an offshoot of the main Boy Scouts of America, covering material that would and should be covered there if it were not for length.

So, dry, referenced, factual coverage (that has had NO specific POV challenges) can be vaguely accused of being POV, while people lobbying to have it covered and covered only in a "controversies" article, contrary to Wikipedia standards for a "criticism of" article, and under sections not even so-titled is NOT POV? Respectfully, something seems reversed in such comments. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am finding it very difficult to understand what you are saying here. It is however clear that you (and your friend) are the only person who has this view of the "controversies" article, of which this is clearly a fork. I have asked you this before and you did not answer, so could you give us the source on wikipedia that you are using to get Wikipedia standards for a "criticism of" article? Many people have looked at that article, and while, like all articles, it needs improvement, they do not think it violates any wikipedia standards. Your article on the hand does as is explained above. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Bduke  I'll answer the latter and then the former. You are suggesting a "head count" standard, which is contrary to Wikipedia deletion discussion guidelines.  If it were not, I could get lots of people to  write.  I would rather stick to a discussion based on the merits and standards.
 * No, I am not suggesting a head count. I am merely pointing out that you as a relative newcomer seem to be saying that it all the rest of us who are out of step. Perhaps you do not have enough experience here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Second, a glance at the "controversies" article, it's instabilities, it's discussion section, and FAR status indicates that many people (myself being one of the many) have many complaints that it's content violates Wikipedia standards.  However, I am NOT saying that it should not exist, nor that it's mere existence violates Wikipedian standards. So that is a red herring argument.    I am merely saying that it should confine itself to it's subject, to the guidelines for "criticism of" articles, and that, doomed by its title, after much time, it has absolutely failed to cover the subject of this new article accurately or to Wikipedian standards, not that an article of a different title should be expected to do so. And that persons should not try to exclude coverage of other topics not in it's title, say it has exclusive rights to cover topics not in it's title or proper scope.  North8000 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not answered my question. I am asking for you to give a specific link to the wikipedia guideline pages that you are using to learn what violates Wikipedia standards for "criticism articles". You are claiming that the content of the criticism article "violates Wikipedia standards". Where are these defined? A link, please, so we can discuss details (not here, but on the talk page of the controversies article). I am asking this because I know of a lot of guidelines that have a bearing on this, but I do not think any of these guidelines support the notion that the controversies article violates them. Your article however does violate guidelines on:
 * POV - it has a clear pro-BSA POV.
 * Notability - the news sources do not address the essential core of your article that is the policies; they address the controversies, so should be for that article. The key sources are all BSA sources and thus primary.
 * Original research. You are deciding what to include. How are controversial areas determined, when this focuses on policies not the controversies themselves?
 * I am now going to drop out of this discussion and leave it to the closing admin. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello BDuke On your first question, I'll go find it again and reference it.   (I think that it was in the "Fork" article/section, I'll go look for it there.


 * I've heard vague claims of POV, but no specific claims. I believe that the article, even as originally put up was very NPOV. Now it's a combination of work by other editors, with changes (by those with differing impressions) that we're discussing in the discussion section.


 * Regarding your specific "Notability" topic, it now has secondary sources in both areas.  In the narrow / rare case where the question is "what are the BSA policies", I would think that published policies(a primary source) would by definition, would be the best source (again, a narrow, rare case). For example, if the question is "what is the first paragraph of the US Declaration of independence", I would think that this is a rare case of the primary source (the declaration) would be definitive.  A secondary source would be finding someone who read it and answers that question.  But,  I have no objection to secondary sources in even that area and included one.   And in the other area (practices) secondary sources are very essential and already included, even though the article is still in it's first few days of existence. Regarding notability in general, these affect millions of people, are enclyclopedic, give the "controversies" article a basis for existence, and and have no article (or even section title) for coverage elsewhere in WIkipedia.


 * I think that there are probably still a few sentences in there of OR in controversial areas. The discussion section addressed getting those identified and out of there.   Regarding inclusion / non-inclusion, the only thing that I am a proponent of is it's scope statement which is:


 * "This article covers membership and leadership policies of the Boy Scouts of America in areas where, for any reason, significant controversy has arisen. It also covers current BSA implementation and enforcement of these policies where such coverage provides additional insight into BSA's current practices in these areas."


 * I picked 4 areas where I felt there is controversy. If another editor adds a fifth or sixth that's fine with me.   And, if there was a strong consensus that one of my original 4 areas has no controversy, I would have no problem with one of my original 4 areas getting removed.

North8000 (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello BDuke Regarding your first question, as promised I checked and the subject is covered pervasively (like in at least 6 places) in two Wikipedia standards articles: Content forking  and Criticism.
 * I linked the two articles for you. A very brief comment. The first is a guideline and as the nutshell says "Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject". A different stance is exactly what you are doing. The second is an essay, not a guideline, and is not binding. However it does not suggest the controversy article to be inappropriate as it expanded out of a section in a large article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While those seem to raise the question of whether or not the "Controversies" should exist, I am not questioning or dealing with that. But what I think is said multiple times in those two articles is that "Criticism of" articles are spinoffs of the main article, should have scope that is clearly stated and limited to the "criticism of" content. I feel that such such clearly repudiates claims made in this deletion discussion. IMHO, those wikipedia standards say that the "controversies" article should not even be covering the object of the controversies, much claiming the right to exclude coverage of the object of the controversies elsewhere. If you think of it, to do so otherwise would be unthinkable. Imagine a "criticism of President OBama's programs" article claiming that any President OBama program which it covers criticism of is not to be covered elsewhere as a program! IMHO this refutes claim that this can be considered a is a fork from or duplication of the "controversies" article.

BTW one could raise the question of whether or not this new article should be a section of the main BSA article. I felt that it would be too long and heavy for such, considering the scope of the original article (a 100 year old multi-million person organization). Wiklipedia standards dictate that a summary of or reference to this article be put into the main BSA article. But as indicated in my "origination notes" I indicated that I was going to wait a little (including for contributions by and input from other editors) before doing that.

North8000 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

North is clearly now wanting this article to cover practices, as well as policies. That's NOT what the title says, and it's where those defending BSA consistently retreat. Whenever a nasty bit of policy is highlighted, they defend with "Ah, but in practice we don't do exactly that." That a nebulous, weak, and blatantly POV strategy. It's a huge organization. It will always be possible to find a practice that contradicts a policy, when it suits the defenders. Either this article sticks to policies alone, or it goes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello HiLo48 Not that I would fight the idea of a "policies only" article if you would support it, but I think much would be lost and we should talk about it first. What you describe is certainly not my motives. And, in fact, I would think that persons critical of the Scouts in these areas would would want such coverage. The thinking could be "well, BSA doesn't officially ban xxxxx, but I'll bet there's an unofficial ban on xxxxx, let's see what their actual practices are in relation to xxxxx." What I had in mind for practices (which Wikipedia standards would enforce) would be "cut and dry" references to practices, primarily enforcement activities, many of those being court cases. Also any cases of denied membership, removal from leadership positions, or expulsion from Scouting based on these. Preferably based on the current policies, but maybe going 10 years back before the current policies. I'm sure that persons critical of the Scouts policies or actions in these areas will find and include whatever cases of enforcement that meet Wikipedian standards that they can. Now we have the right place for developing this coverage. And then what is and isn't in there will provide information to help the many seeking info in this areas to draw their own conclusions. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.