Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Other
2 Reorganization
3 Categories
- 3.1 Current categories and subcategories of Boy Scouts of America
4 Controversy Woefully Underrepresented
5 Webelos
6 Split

Other

I just added the http://www.noturtlescouts.com Parallel Scouting Organization stuff, as I removed it from the World Scouting article, where it most definitely didn't belong Chris 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See Other issues above. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

For discussion relating to the current merge templates in the article, see Organization of page. -Rebelguys2 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization

I would like to propose some major reorganization for this page, and the division pages. Boy Scouts of America would cover National in depth, and a short lead-in for each division. The division lead-in (i.e. Cub Scouts) would be a short description of the program, and a link to the main article. The main division article would use the same lead-in. The lead-in would include wiki comments to alert editors that the lead-in should be edited consistently (is there a better way using an include or template method?).

The main division articles pages would use the next outline to maintain a consistent look and feel. Some major changes:

Create a Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) article. This would deal with Scouts at the troop level, as opposed to the national program.
Move the uniforming sections back into the division articles.
~~Move the advancement sections back into the division articles.~~

Outline for Boy Scouts of America article

Boy Scouts of America: National
- Publications
Cub Scout Division
- Lone Cub Scout
Boy Scout Division
- Lone Scout
- Venture
- Varsity Scouts
- Order of the Arrow
- National Eagle Scout Association
Venturing Division
- Sea Scouts

Scoutreach Division [1]
- American Indian Scouting Association [2]
National Scouting Museum [3]
High Adventure Division
- National High Adventure Bases
  - Philmont Scout Ranch
  - Northern Tier National High Adventure Bases
  - Florida National High Adventure Sea Base
Jamboree Division
Marketing and Communications Division [4]
Relationships Division
International Division [5]
- Direct Service
Supply Division
Finance Support Division
Learning for Life [6]
- Exploring
See also
Footnotes
References
External links

Outline for division articles

Lead-in

Purpose, target, etc.

Aims and principles

creed, symbols, etc.

History

foundation, changes, growth, etc.

Organization
Uniform
Advancement / recognition / honors

lead-in to main advancement article for large programs

Activities
Training
See also
Footnotes
References
External links

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the overall article should be National Council of the Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scouts of America should be the troop program.

Discussion

I think advancement may too big to be in with everything, a short intro with a link to the level's rank and adv article may be in order. Also, what about the overall Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America article?Rlevse 15:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting something. Some programs such as Varsity and Order of the Arrow will be able to include the advancement program. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Venturing should have lead-ins to main articles such as Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)). Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America would have the same lead-ins to the main articles, and would then cover all the other awards.

Overall, it looks good. I feel there is a problem with the main article that it is too biased toward the Boy Scout Program, which makes references to other programs and their differences a bit confusing. See the first bullet under Reorganization, where I discuss a separate troop level article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) On another note, be advised there is no such thing a "Venture Scouts" in the BSA. I assume you are refering to the Venture Patrol program, for which there is a page (which I created). Sorry, but this is one of my 'hot button' scouting topics. :) I took a swing at bring the Venturing & Sea Scout pages into this format, since I mainly work in that area. --Emb021 20:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad: I know that: I'm a Venturing Advisor, I just got to typing Scouts a lot. Thanks for the catch. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Looks good to me. --Smack (talk) 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Woefully Underrepresented

I'd just like to throw my two cents into here to say that the controversy section is woefully underrepresented in the current article.

Scouting has only one lone link to its controvery page, and Boys Scouts of America has the link and one solitary sentence buried way down at Section #12. I think this may be strikingly disproportionate to what most readers actually are seeking when they come to this page.

For example, if you do a CNN search for stories on "Boy Scouts of America", at least 85% of the stories are about the legal / political controveries involving BSA.

I certainly don't object to having a separate page as a centralized locus, but the main pages probably should say more than one lonely sentence or two, hidden away at the bottom of the article. Maybe I'm overly-focused on the controveries, but if I were writing it, I'd put sentence or two about the controveries (along with the linke) right up there in the introductory paragraph. I'd also have one or two "really solid" paragraphs about the controveries in the Controversy section on the main page.

It's not that I want the page to be anti-scouting POV by harping on the controversies, but I think the current article _woefully_ underestimates the gravity of the controversies.

Consider what's been going on:

Several major supreme court precidents have come from the BSA-related litigation.
Congress has had at least two major "approval" votes for BSA, two acts of congress have been passed, and President Bush has given speeches on the matter.
Government entities are no longer supporting BSA
BSA have been kicked out of public schools in New York
Steven Spielberg, who was about the most famous eagle scout ever when I was in scouting, has resigned in protest from some sort of advisory board?
Two major religious organizations have withdrawn their support of BSA

These are HUGE issues. For Scouts and Supporters of Scouting who agree with the BSA's position, they should be made aware of what a big deal this is. For those who oppose BSA's position, the controversy is probably their #1 reason to visit this page. Like it or not, the controvery is huge part of what BSA is right now in mainstream america.

In its current form, this article makes it seems like the controversies are absolutely "no big deal". In reality, for better or for worse, the controversies are the #1 thing that most people outside of scouting hear about with regard to BSA these days. I'm not saying make the whole page about the controveries, but at least let the article reflect that the controversies are at least half as important as the Totin' Chip and the Firem'n Chit. :)

-Alecmconroy 02:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why controversy has its own article, because they're big issues. Also, note that SUPPORT OUR SCOUTS was passed in Dec and signed into law. The Senate passed it by 98-0, which is a pretty emphatic vote to me. When's the last time the Senate passed anything 98-0? Maybe on Dec 8, 1941. On the contrary to your view, I think the article's saying "this is so big, it warrants its own article. Rlevse 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me-- I'm not trying to say "Scouts are evil". I'm trying to say "this is a critical issue-- are you guys really sure you don't need even one full paragraph about it in the main article?" The 98-0 vote is my point exactly-- when something political happens and the entire US sentate votes on it-- there's something really big going on, and ya oughta mention it more prominently than half a sentence in Section #12. Obviously, it does deserve it's own article-- but what's the point of a whole article if no one can find it? Just be on guard that you don't, in effect, "sweep it under the rug" --Alecmconroy 12:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite follow this--what do you mean no one can find it? Controversies has a section heading with a direct link to the controversy article and that article is in a category of other articles on contentious issues dealing with the BSA, which is a subcat of the BSA cat. The controversy section of the BSA article has gone through a series of edit wars before on how much should be mentioned. It's actually been stable for awhile recently. If you want to take a stab at a NPOV para of 3-4 sentences in the BSA article, go ahead, but don't be surprised if it starts a revert war again. FYI, I myself almost never edit the BSA controversy section or the controversy article as there are plenty of others interested in those areas. Rlevse 13:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC), Scouting Project and Portal coordinator.

I hear you regarding the danger of revert wars. One look at history and I wasn't about to touch this article's controversy section with a ten-foot pole. If no one more knowledgable does it, i'll take a stab at it once the Controversy article itself has stabilized, and see if people like it :) -Alecmconroy 13:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The BSA controversy article is one of the most unstable ones on Wiki---look at its history. There are true believers on both sides of every issue, I mean all six sides of every issue-;). It will probably never be stable, so you may as well jump into the controversy article-;). Rlevse 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Webelos

The article makes two cryptic mentions of Webelos, but does not even try to explain what Webelos is. I was a Boy Scout, but never a Cub Scout, so I don't know what it is either. Could someone put in a blurb in the right section? --Smack (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I threw in my two cents. Rlevse 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

See Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Split

Recommend that this page be split. This article would deal with the National Council level of the BSA and Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (this is currently on my user subpage) would deal with the troop level program. The national article would have an overview of each program linking to a main article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this one. Rlevse 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK: I managed to mangle the link somehow. We need to do something, as the current article moves back and forth between the national and troop levels in a confusing manner. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now it makes more sense. Rlevse 22:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought your proposed re-org would take care of this. I happen to agree, as there is too much 'Boy Scout' program info in the main article that is confusing, when you try to look at the other programs (Cub Scout and especially Venturing). Since I agree with the re-org (and went and re-ord'ed the Venturing & Sea Scout pages), I've been looking forward to a change with the main one. --Emb021 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's buried at the top of the previous re-org proposal. I just want to put formal notice for a week or so that I want to do this; and solicit comments. If you take a look at the proposed article on my userspace at Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) you will see that it follows the same format as Cub Scouts and Venturing. You may go ahead and edit it as desired: when I make the move the history and talk will move with it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like where Ed is headed with this. Rlevse 21:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no objections almost two weeks I am doing the split. Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) is now live. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall looks good, but has too much organization history that really belong in the main BSA page. history section of the Boy Scout page should focus on the history of the Boy Scout program. Things like the changes brought in by Green Bar Bill, uniform changes, basic rank changes, etc. --Emb021 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The History sections in both articles still need a lot of work. I added a major chunk on the Improved Scouting Program in the Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) article (I had the references at hand) but there is still work to do. The split simplifies a number of things so we can go forward on this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/y/Talk%7EBoy_Scouts_of_America_Archive_1_1c2d.html"

Category: Talk archives