Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

BP

The first mention of Baden-Powell in this article is buried parenthetically in the following sentence, without a first name, and without a link: In warfare using simple weapons (practiced in the medieval period, as well as by the Ashanti people who Baden-Powell met in West Africa), a warrior carries a shield in his left hand.

Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

The article "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America" was recently rewritten.[1] Please take a look at it and provide any comments on the article's Talk page.--Jagz 19:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Rlevse. If saying that the BSA participates in lies and bigotry isn't NPOV, then neither is saying that it promotes good citizenship, etc. And claiming that my edit "cut key program elements" does not justify deleting the additional information in the controversy section. I edited the parts that I considered NPOV. You just deleted what you claimed was NPOV.--69.107.97.36 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the BSA promotes citizenship training. No question there. I guess you have a problem with the word "good." Perhaps something to be addressed. However, I don't think that anybody is trying to hide that there is controversy, just collect the discussion of it in a single usable, referenced place. I looked carefully at Rlevse's edits, and he is right - everything that he removed is covered in adequate detail on the controversies page. --NThurston 19:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the last edits to the controversy section. The section here is a summary of the main Boy Scouts of America membership controversies article. If you want to add relevant details to that article, your are welcome to do so. The summary here had aquired a lot of word creep and had not been updated to reflect the main article in quite a while. Thank you for helping us notice that. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistaken ID. Forgot who it was. I have rv'ed the article and edited the various sections in question to be more NPOV. There may be some further minor edits required, but it looks much more consistent now. --NThurston 20:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem- there were three of us editing at one time. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to claim that the BSA promotes good citizenship while failing to mention that it participates in vicious lies against its opponents. Either the praise should be deleted, or its duplicity should be included. Putting all the praise in the main article and shuffling all the criticism off to another page is not NPOV. This unsigned comment was made by 69.107.97.36

It seems you are now taking issue with the definition of promote. I am intending the meaning: "urge the adoption of, advocate for." And I also notice that you have include the POV phrase "good citizenship" where I tried to change that to a more NPOV statement consistent with the BSA's published and stated goals (which establishes verifibility), eg. citizenship training. I think that the page at present is headed towards a factual, NPOV statement of what the program intends or purports to accomplish. --NThurston 20:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you really believe that the BSA participates in spreading damaging lies about people, you might have a good libel case in your future, however, it makes one wonder: What side of the case will you be on? --NThurston 20:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would not be considered to have standing. I notice that no one has challenged the factual basis of my claims. Unless bsalegal is not, in fact, run by the BSA, it's an objective fact that the BSA is a dishonest organization. Its actual actions are more relevent than its "stated goals".--69.107.97.36 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the controversy section because it was getting a lot of verbage creep. It is supposed to be a summary of the main controversy article. Again, if you have relevant, verifiable details, please add them where they belong. At this point, please take this to arbitration if you feel that we are wrong. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
69.107.97.36--you're being even more POV than you're accusing us and this article of being. One of the reasons the controversies have their own article is that it became such a big section here that it warranted it's own separate article; and that is SOP on wiki. You should be glad all that space is devoted to it and that it's a Featured Article. Look in the mirror more closely.Rlevse 21:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What does "more POV" mean? According to the guidelines, "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." But if you want me to start a new article, fine. The other article is NOT devoted to the issues that I am bringing up; LYING about discriminating against gays & atheists is completely separate from discriminating against gays & atheists, and it should be prominantly mentioned. By the way, it's spelled "its".--69.107.97.36 04:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The controversies article is not a POV fork, it's a full fledged article and a Featured Article, with a section, main link, and summary in this article. The BSA openly admits it doesn't accept gays and atheists, so I don't see how that is lying. I'll gladly continue this here on the talk page more if you like. Let's please work this out here first rather than continued edit battles. Rlevse 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The POV fork issue was well discussed when it was decided to create the controversies article before it ate the main BSA article. You can look through the archives on both talk pages for the discussion. Bottom line: the statements you added were uncited and unsupported, thus they do not belong. The statements you removed are referenced, thus they do belong. The controversy section here did need to be cleaned up, and that's done (this whole article still needs a lot of work, but thats another issue). Again– if you have relevant and supportable information, please add it. It would also be nice if you used the edit summary to note your changes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"The BSA openly admits it doesn't accept gays and atheists, so I don't see how that is lying." I've explained quite clearly how the BSA lies.

"Bottom line: the statements you added were uncited and unsupported, thus they do not belong." Can't make up your mind, can you? First they were deleted because they "weren't NPOV", now they were deleted because they are uncited. Isn't the normal practice, when one has concerns about whether something has been cited, to mention that in the talk pages, rather than simply use it as a pretext to delete material that one does not like? The parts I deleted were NOT cited, either. Well, I'm going to take you at your word. I'm going to cite my claims, and then, according to what YOU HAVE SAID, they belong.--69.107.97.36 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear 69:
My mind is well made up as I have never mentioned POV– indeed I have no desire to dance around the POV flagpole with you. The elements you removed are verifiable and can be cited. This article is in the process of some major revisions. I have already noted that you (and anyone else) are welcome to edit this and any other article with relevant and verifiable information. So far, you have not provided any citations that support your entries.
It appears to me that that you have a bias against the BSA. While you have the right to have your own opinions, Wikipedia articles are not the forum to disseminate them. I am finding this dialog quite tedious and I do not wish to continue. If we can't reason together then we must find alternatives.
To summarize my previous statements: Cite or desist --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You people complain about me deleting things without giving an explanation, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Censoring crucial information without even discussing it is completely unaccpetable. Zscout370, if you're going to delete my changes, you'd be better have a reason.--69.107.97.36 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"So far, you have not provided any citations that support your entries." I mopst certainly have.

"While you have the right to have your own opinions, Wikipedia articles are not the forum to disseminate them." That the BSA is dishonest is not an opinion, it is an objective fact. [citation needed] --69.107.97.36 20:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear 69:
It seems that you are drawing attention. The last two reverts to you edits were made by editors who have not been involved here.
May I propose a truce? Let's leave this as it is through the weekend and pick it up again next week after we all cool off. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear 69.107.97.36 - I have the sinking feeling that you are not actually interested in writing an encyclopedia. There is ample room here for those that disagree with the BSA and its policies. There is not room here for editors with an ax to grind. Please understand that none of us are interested in irrelevant, unverifiable, or inaccurate information. If you can add relevant, verifiable comments, please do. Otherwise, please stop. --NThurston 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Age

As is well known, when a Boy Scout or Varsity Scout turns 18, they are out of the program. Venturing is a bit different; per Venturer Application 28-303K:

Venturers registered in a crew or ship prior to their 21st birthday may continue as members after their 21st birthday until the crew or ship recharters or they reach their 22nd birthday, whichever comes first.

This is now footnoted twice in this article and once in the Venturing and Sea Scout articles. I'm not enthused with the use of inclusive here as it is heavily used in the controversies article and I don't want to get it mixed into this article. I also think it can be misconstrued: per the Wictionary definition, it means "including (almost) everything within its scope" or "including the extremes as well as the area between". I'm going to pick up a Boy Scout application later today and will note the age requirements in a footnote. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, more flip flopping about how to write the age limits for BSA. Rlevse 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Intro too long

The intro section shouldn't be four paragraphs long. I'm tempted to put a heading saying "Membership divisions" after the first paragraph, but on the other hand, I don't want to hide this very important content under such a dull heading. --Smack (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now the article is 22K characters. Per Wikipedia:Lead section the lead-in should be 2-3 paragraphs. At 30K, the lead-in should be 3-4 paragraphs. I think the article has every potential to grow by at lease 8k characters. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The policy you cite is a "general guideline," not a solid rule. Each introduction should be judged by its content. According to the policy page, an intro should "provide overview;" in other words, briefly sketch what the rest of the article will describe in detail. The intro to this article clearly does not do that. --Smack (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

LGBT Rights Opposition

I removed the category tag for LGBT Rights Opposition. The BSA has no position papers on this subject (see BSA Legal Site), and has never filed a court brief in any court case regarding rights of LGBTs. There is no evidence that the BSA opposes "LGBT Rights." The BSA National Organization article does not belong in this category.

I assume this link was added because the BSA does not allow LGBT as members in the organization. Be aware that this does not demonstrate opposition to "LGBT Rights" either, as membership in a private organization, which the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees BSA is, is a privilege, not a right (see BSA v Dale). --Swalker2000 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No mention of mormons?

A recent episode of Bullshit! was devoted to the BSA, and they made it clear that mormons are practically running the BSA these days (thus the emphasis on anti-LGBT which didn't exist only a few decades ago). And yet, there's no mention of it in our article? I wonder how many families would pull their kids out of the BSA if they knew that mormons were (at least at the upper echelons) determining what their kids should believe or to what they should be exposed. --BRIAN0918

I'd sure like to see some evidence of that claim. Nothing that is presented on that show, without evidence to back it up, is of any importance or concern to me or anyone I know that is involved in Scouting.
As a registered Scout leader for 8 years now, I haven't ever seen or heard anything at any of the meetings, training sessions, etc. that I have attended that makes me think that even if true, this is adversely affecting the program. And I am located in the Dallas area, near the Irving headquarters, and have met and spoken at length with several of the "upper echelon" Scout executives. This is the first time I've ever heard anything about it.
Further, there are special programming elements for mormon Scouts as there are for certain other religions/sects such as Roman Catholics. If what you say is true, why wouldn't those special progams just be integrated into the whole of the Scouting experience? --Swalker2000 03:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this show is talking about thge large amount of support that BSA gets from the LDS church and its branches. And some has claimed that the decision to expel gay scouts is because of the pressure exerted on BSA by the notably socially conservative LDS, since the subject of sexuality and scouting was never an issue until the late 80s to the early 90s, given the fact that until that time, the "morally straight clause" has nothing to do with sexuality but rather the character of the scout. Moral panic as well as religious views has compelled the expulsion, subsequently (legally) justified by BSA v. Dale in 2000. --Bud 04:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have been in Scouts for 40 years and have never been compelled to believe any Mormon-specific doctrine. The reason the homosexual arose in BSA when it did is the same time it became a major social issue in US society at large. The Mormon church has always been a large supporter of BSA. This article is about the BSA itself, not the many organizations (many religious denominations, VFW posts, etc) that support it. The Catholic and Jewish churches are big supporters of Scoutig too. Rlevse 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe that the Boy Scouts of America released its first statement that excluding homosexuals from memberships in 1975 (or close to, I will have to find my source again, will update when I do). Also I wanted to say that from the very start the BSA has upheld its policy of high moral value, and that the LDS church hasn't really affected BSA policy as most of the BSA policy is virtually the same as when it was founded (again, I will find the source and list it when I find it). -Choobie
    • Yes, this article is about the BSA, but should include information about major organizations that make the BSA possible (and who thus might also be influencing BSA policies). This is only common sense. I am in favor of a table listing the amount contributed to the BSA by its top 5 or 10 supporters, and possibly a break-down of the organization's membership by various criteria (age, rank, religious affiliation, etc). This would be useful information for readers. --BRIAN0918 21:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That could be quite intriguing. It would have to meet the Wikipedia:No original research policy . --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Unless Wikipedians go out and poll members of the BSA, it wouldn't be original research. --BRIAN0918 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • NoR is more than that: check the policy. You would have to reference material already published. I would be interesting though. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well... isn't that a given? If Wikipedians aren't doing their own research, someone else must be doing it... otherwise there wouldn't be anything to say. --BRIAN0918 21:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Any issues that might relate to the LDS church and gays belongs in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies with the appropriate cites. I think the LDS church is the only organization to oficially adopt Scouting as part of it's program, and it does some things differently. Currently the only mention of LDS that i am aware of is the age system noted in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). I would welcome any additions that would clarify the LDS relationships with the BSA and any differences in programs. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Mormon church has always been a large supporter of BSA. This article is about the BSA itself, not the many organizations (many religious denominations, VFW posts, etc) that support it. The Catholic and Jewish churches are big supporters of Scoutig too." That case is not very true anymore. The largest Jewish movement in the United States, the Reform movement, has withdrew support of the BSA in light of the anti-gay discrimination. Boy Scouts of America membership controversies addressed that topic.--Bud 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Museum

Merge of expand the museum article. Rlevse 02:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Council merge

Merge. Rlevse 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge. The Councils article is too small, and not really its own subject. --TiroAethra 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge, but leave a dicdef and a "see also" link. --Smack (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe we want to list all 304 councils in one place. --Smack (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Age

Since the ages are getting edited back and for:th

  • Cub Scouts: first-grade through fifth-grade, or 7 through 10 years
  • Boy Scouts/Varsity Scouts: ages 10 through 17. The day the boy turns 18, he is out.
  • Venturing/Sea Scouts: ages 14 through 21. From their 21st birthday, their membership ends at the end of the unit charter: see the footnote.
I know many BSA publications show the Venturing age as up to 20, but that is not correct.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

More about controversy

I've just made two changes that pertain to controversy.

  1. Contrary to popular belief, no BSA program or membership division features controversy or scandal as a central program element. This article spends one paragraph talking about the Explorers. It does not make sense to spend half of that paragraph talking about sexual abuse.
  2. BSA's membership policies are controversial: that's a fact, not an opinion. It's a contradiction in terms to say that "some consider [them] controversial."

--Smack (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Exploring

I'm not sure how to fix this, but Exploring is apparently not one of the BSA divisions. It actually is part of Learning for Life, which really isn't a division of the BSA. As far as I can figure out, it is an entirely separate entity that operates parallel to the BSA's three program divisions. See [2]. The 2005 Annual Report [3] doesn't mention LFL or Exploring (while the 1997 report does). Hopefully someone who knows more about this can fix the recent edits. I even wonder if LFL counts as "scouting"?

  • Exploring was a BSA program from the 50s until 1998. Exploring recieved a lot of support from government agencies and it adhered to the BSA religious priciple; thus it ran afoul of the lawsuits of the era. BSA split the career oriented section of Exploring and put it under LFL. The outdoor/adventure parts of Exploring became Venturing. Exploring does belong under the BSA history section, but is not a current program. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

NEW Peer Review Output

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, soon might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[1]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[2] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[4]
  • Please alphabetize the categories.[5]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.[6]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[7]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [8]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

History

I'm up to page 59 of 223 in the Rowan biography of West. As I hit good points, I'm adding them to the articles on West, Seton, Beard and others as well as here. I have the Boyce biography on order. I just found Peterson's Boy Scouts: An American Adventure buried in my library, so I'm going to go through that. I'm looking for Beard's auto-biography, and trying to find something on Seton. This stuff is fascinating.

I have a feeling that we will need to think about splitting off the history section soon. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just got the Petterchak bio of Boyce. Just a few bits involving BSA history, but some is good clarification. Much additions to the Boyce bio of course, and a lot for the LSA.

I am seriously thinking about forking the history and merging the history sections from Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Exploring, Sea Scouts, Varsity Scouts and Venturing. Thoughts? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The history section has gotten big and if there is enough material, an article on History of the Boy Scouts of America would be warranted. Rlevse 15:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Fork before we have to run for our lives. The historical material is wonderful, but it's threatening to swallow up the article. A merge is probably in order, too, but it's not urgent. --Smack (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I just hope I'm not getting too much cruft into this, but I am essentially condensing pages into sentences. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
The new material is pretty crufty right now, but that just means that it's still a rough draft. --Smack (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Split

Propose that the history section be split into a a new article: History of the Boy Scouts of America. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please support or oppose and comment below:

Support

  1. Support split and link both main and project BSA articles to it, with summaries in each one.Rlevse 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Smack (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong support: This article is totally overweight. The limit should really be somewhere around the 32 kbyte! Given the state it currently is in, I'd not even give it the A-Class status. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC).
  4. Support The history needs it's own article. --Habap 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose #Oppose I like it the way it is ... --evrik 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Can we see the draft of the page before you make the split? --evrik 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
    Which page: the main BSA article or the history article? --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Comments

  1. Please note that the history section is only up to the 1940s. Only six more decades to go. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
  2. Please also note that the article is 46 kb long. I estimate that half of that is history (say, 25 kb). If we extrapolate linearly from the first three decades, the latter six decades should take another 50 kb. That leaves us with an article pushing 100 kb. --Smack (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Do we have an agreement yet? Even if evrik doesn't like it, we would have four supporting and one opposed. --Smack (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems to me we have, it's getting big and that section is or will be out of proportion. I think it's important and Gadget850 has done a great job, so IMHO the separate article is more than warranted.Rlevse 09:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

done --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Progressivism

I was planning to expand the preface to the history section with mention of progressivism and "racial life". The article Progressivism in the United States doesn't define the pre-cursor concepts of the BSA very well. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • "The Four Original Goals of Progressivism: Protecting social welfare - YMCA" is about all it says. Go ahead and expand it. I think we should also mention b-P's goal to menotr disadvantaged boys. --evrik 19:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure: I was planning on doing this in the history section (or article if we split). I really do not want to get into that progressivism article. The West bio has some good stuff on this, and I've been searching for more. I think it is important to at least explore this area. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Theism

I suggest that the word "theistic" be used to describe the BSA, if not in the opening sentence, then at least in the opening paragraph. One reviewer deleted my insertion of this word, with the comment: "Scouting organizations are ALL theistic, so this one is not unique." First of all, this is not true. Please see the page regarding membership controversies to verify that there are several nontheistic scouting organizations. Furthermore, an organization that zealously polices its members by expelling those who differ from theistic beliefs deserves to be labeled with the appellation. Lastly, an attribute doesn't have to be "unique" to be part of the definition of what an organization is dedicated to. --Uroshnor 15:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know. Is Buddhism theistic? The Scouts offer many different ways to be spiritual. --evrik 16:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but the adjective theistic is being used to modify Scouting organization, so for theistic to be necessary, Scouting organizations need to come in both theistic and non-theistic varieties. Despite a few examples, this is not a prominent division among Scouting organizations. It might be appropriate for those unusual ones to be listed as non-theistic, but when the default is to be theistic, labelling the ones that are is redundant. --Habap 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia articles is not merely to present every fact that it is necessary to state, but to be informative as possible. Omitting a fact simply because a reader could deduce it from other available facts is absurd.

spiritual development

Perhaps the article on Scouting needs to be modified to remove reference to spiritual development? While I recently learned that Scouts Canada opened it's membership completely in 1998, I don't know the policy of other WOSM groups on theism. I still don't think that BSA's policy makes them unique in the Scouting Movement as theistic. --Habap 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I think you have it backwards. You said "I still don't think that BSA's policy makes them unique in the Scouting Movement as theistic." They are not unique, and this is why it shouldn't be cited. --evrik 16:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My post was in response to the wish to label BSA as theistic. My question is, if BSA is theistic and Scouting is not, then don't we need to have this discussion over on Talk:Scouting and the changes be made to remove the word spiritual from the Scouting article. I concur that BSA is not unique in being theistic. Pardon my inability to express it clearly in the original. --Habap 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
First read the WOMS constitution, it includes a duty to God Rlevse 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. As such, identifying something as a theistic Scouting movement is redundant. Would it be accurate to say that the non-theistic groups may be Scout-like, but they are not Scouting organizations? --Habap 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
One could, but that opens another big debate as some associations have allowed atheists in. But the movement historically does a belief in a higher being, however one defines that. You're also assuming all Scout are WOSM associatiates, but they're not. God was certainly a part of BP-s vision. Rlevse 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Council executive

Is there any council out there with an actual council executive? The prime professional in a council is the Scout executive, but council executive has been added to a few articles. Also see the Language of Scouting. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We call our lead council professional the "council executive"; whether or not that's his official title, I can find out if you like.Rlevse 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
According to your newsletter, Bill Deany is the Scout executive. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
We always refer to ours that way. But I see that our Key 3 at the Council level are the Council President, Council Commissioner and Scout Executive. Odd that they don't stick with the some adjective (which they do at the District level). --Habap 15:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which came first: National Scout Executive or Scout executive, but one probably derives from the other. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But very few call him the Scout exective, most people, in actual usage, call him the Council executive.Rlevse 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can show me a real council executive, I think I'm going to add a footnote to the title:

  • Sometimes called the council executive in common useage. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. [4] shows a council executive emblem, so it looks like thei is or was a position. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's ambiguous. It could mean the specific title ("the Council executive"), or a class of titles ("an executive of the council"). The "Language of Scouting" page seems to imply that Gadget850's footnote is accurate. --Smack (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

For some reason, a lot of details have been stuffed into the controversy section lately that really belong in the main article at Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. Since the section has a main link to that article, the section should be a summary of the issues. In my opinion, sections with main links should reflect the lead-in of the main article. I recommend that this be pared back. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally.Rlevse 13:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Me, too. --NThurston 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's been cleaned up. Most of it was already in the controversies article.Rlevse 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The Scouting for All citation does document the position of critics, however, it is very out-dated (1995) and containg information that is no longer relevant. Should it be deleted and replaced with citation needed? --NThurston 13:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I guess with all three of us editing at the same time we might get it right :) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how big SFA is, since though it is based in San Jose, California, they do not have a presence, or a huge one, in the San Diego North County area. If this is just coming from one IP address, I would not be surprised if we might have to do a semi-protect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is registered to SBC, not AT&T. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that part of the reason for the contaversey surrounding Scout membership is that fact that itis the only private organization which discriminates which also recieves public funding? I'm not getting on a soapbox here, it's a real question. --ConeyIslandBoy 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite a reference for that information, then yes, I think that this is a very pertinent point - however, if it is only that you think the fact about the only private organisation to receive public funding, then that would not be valid. Horus Kol 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger with American Boy Scouts

Oppose. The American Boy Scouts were a separate organization that never merged with the BSA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Clearly a completely different organization. A disambiguation at the top of that article and a see also (or reference in the history section) would be appropriate. A merger would very likely lead to the eventual elimination of the information in that article as not particularly relevant to the BSA. --Habap 14:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fairley well noted in the preface of the article now. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry - I meant to indicate that it probably ought to be in the See also of this article. Or maybe in the Other United States Scout organizations section. --Habap 18:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The American Boy Scouts is a stub and is not likely to advance much more - there should at least be mention of it in the Other United States Scout organizations section. Horus Kol 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. per above but support a mention with a link to the main article. Rlevse 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments The ABS is noted in the History of the Boy Scouts of America along with the other competitors and precursors of the BSA. I think that other United States Scout organizations in the BSA article should be restricted to current organizations with past groups noted in the hsitory article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Gadget850. Rlevse 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Concur. --Habap 12:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Agree completely with Gadget850. --Smack (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a unanimous consensus- I'm reverting the merge tag. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Censorship in the name of NPOV

"NPOV" doesn't just mean "things I want people to know about", people. If you think something doesn't belong, you should discuss it in the Talk Page before deleting it.Heqwm 05:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • We have discussed this repeatedly over the several articles where you keep adding the same information. You are adding material that smacks of original research and POV. The few cites you have used appeared to have been copied from other articles and had nothing to do with the statements you added. You created the article BSA Honesty- I added the fact tag, and an admin put it up for speedy deletion. On at least two occasions, you have added a statement at the top of this article that "This article is for positive aspects of the BSA." That is patently untrue, as Membership controversy rates an entire section. You have made statements that a certain person committed libel, again without any source. Please stop. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As do I. To borrow from a phrase that I've heard somewhere (and add my own twist), it would appear that someone has an ax to grind and hasn't staked it down properly. CQJ 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The other article is about the membership policies of the BSA, not the honesty policies.

It takes quite a stretch of the imagination to call my additions "original research". As for "POV", you have yet to explain what you mean by that term. The Wiki guidelines specifically state that

  • None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
  • As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Your comment that my cites are copied from other articles is also quite odd. A cite is, by definition, copied from the source material. That is what a cite is. And my cites clearly do have relevance to my claims. I recall putting a comment on the top of the page only once, and this claim is justified, as the controversy section is restricted to only being a summary. Finally, your repeated refusal to admit the libel that has been clearly established marks you as either being either highly self-delusional, or simply dishonest. As your "objections" are without merit, I have reverted.Heqwm 19:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I also concur with the statements by Rlevse and others. I have reverted your most recent change and also left a message on your talk page. You're most recent claim was that the organization has acted less than honestly on past occasions. First, since you provided no source, this is only your opinion or interpretation of fact and therefore could easily be considred original research. Secondly, this statement could surely be made against any individual or group. That doesn't mean that we need to go dilute all our articles with such generic statements. You seem to have some sort of axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for that. If this sort of behavior continues, it could be grounds for blocking in the future. Johntex\talk 19:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did provide a source. Not all organizations lie, and it's certainly not the case that all organizations make a big deal about promoting honesty, and then lie. People take the BSA as an authority, and they need to know that that authority is flawed.Heqwm 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no source in either of the two changes I reverted. Please state your source here for the record. As a philosophical aside, if you can show me someone who claims to never lie, I will show you a lier. Johntex\talk 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hegwm: The Dale case and religion are extensively discussed at Boy Scouts of America membership controversies as the are very pertinent to membership and that is where your edits belong. Rlevse 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The sources were http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml and bsalegal.org And the whole "everyone lies" doesn't make sense. Even if everyone does, how many other facts mentioned in the article are true of pretty much every organization? I am disucssing the BSA, and therefore my edits belong in the BSA article. Simply because something involves a different article, that doesn't mean that it doesn't belong here. Other than the fact that the lies were prompted by the membership controversy, they don't have much to do with it. You have yet to present any real reason for the deletion.Heqwm 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites. Second of all, I jsut openned both of those pages and searched them each for the word "honest" and got no hits. Do you understand what it means to cite a source? It means pointing to a source that actually said what you are trying to include, and then pointing out that we are quoting the words of that source, and not making them up ourselves. Please see WP:CITE. Johntex\talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention all of your rationale is your mere opinion of honesty and lying. You are obviously merely trying to grind an axe on the BSA. Rlevse 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The article at http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml is 11 years old and is quite dated- much of it is no longer relevant. The bsalegal.org article you seem to be intrigued by is at http://www.bsalegal.org/daily-transcript-42604-233.asp. Personally, I don't care for Pulliam's comments, but it was written as an op-ed, so it is his opinion. If you want to discuss your opinion as to the validity of his statements I suggest you contact him and open a dialog directly as this is not the proper venue. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, if you're going to just make statements that are flatout wrong, I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you. Go back and look at the edits that you reverted. As for the rest of your comment, that makes no sense. I never claimed that either cite is for a site that directly states that the BSA is dishonest. If I have a cite of the BSA saying X, and also a cite of the BSA saying not X, is it "original research" to note that fact? If we're going to play the cite game, I could delete 90% of this article. Do you really want to go down that road?

Rlevse: It is not my "opinion". It is objective fact that the BSA published lies. Also, if you want to discuss this with me, how about writing substantive comments? "Ax to grind" is simply a deprecatory phrase conveying no real meaning.

Gadget: Writing something as an op-ed doesn't give one license to write whatever one wants. And what relevance is it how old something is? The "good turns" section, besides being questionable from a NPOV standpoint, largely concerns things decades old.

A question for you people: after 9/11, Jerry Falwell blamed liberal, homsexuals, atheists, etc. Where does that fact belong? A) It was prompted by 9/11, so it belongs in the 9/11 article. B) It was made by Falwell, so it belongs in the Falwell article. C) It belongs in both. D) It's just an "ax to grind", so it doesn't belong anywhere. Heqwm 20:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm, I reviewed the edits and they prove you are mistaken.
The first time I reverted you, the change you made said "While the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness, in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."[5]
The second time, your change said "As the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness that causes many people to accept their claims uncritically, it is important to not that in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."[6]
Neither one of your edits mentions either website that you later mentioned. That is exactly what I said above, "First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites." My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I am making statements that are flat-out wrong.
I ask again for you to read WP:CITE. If you want to make a claim like "...in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values." you need to directly back that up with a specific source that makes that specific claim.
As for your statement "I don't see any point in trying to have a discussion with you." no one is holding a gun to your head to force you to post here. Johntex\talk 22:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not quote my edits in their entirety. I put a summary of the claim in the introduction and exposition, with cites, in the main article. And I disagree with your interpretation of WP:CITE. The guidelines specifically draw a distinction between original research and source-based research. Your interpretation would lead to an absurd requirement; for instance, the claim that "The stated objectives of the BSA are referred to as 'Aims of Scouting" would have to be supported by a cite of the BSA stating that they state that they are their objectives, rather than merely presenting a cite of the BSA stating that they are their objectives.69.107.121.247 01:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Since my edits were deleted from the controversies article, I have replaced them here.Heqwm 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Are you going to actually present a reason for the reversions, or are you just going to delete?Heqwm 17:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You put no citations at all in the edits I reverted. Anyone may plainly see that by checking the article history. You still don't seem to understand what a citation is. I urge you again to review WP:CITE. Johntex\talk 02:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here we go around in circles, circles.... Rlevse 21:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you revert again without giving a reason, I will consider that conclusive proof of bad faith.Heqwm 01:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to put up or shut up. Why is this "important" and what are the "examples". --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gadget850 and Rlevse are correct...this is just going around in circles and you can't prove your case. Stop wasting everyone's time. Bad faith? You must be looking in the mirror when you said that one and there is no requirement for Rlevse, nor anyone, to repeat something that's been said many times already. Sumoeagle179 01:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your "case" to prove. Insulting me at the very same time as accusing me of not acting in good faith is incredibly hypocritical. There has been no valid reason for the deletion presented, I have refuted all the alleged reasons, and no attempt to counter those refutations have been made. As it clear that, for quite some time now, the efforts to assume good faith have been unilateral on my part, and you have utterly refused to particpate in my attempts at good faith discussion, the "Assume Good Faith" portion of this discussion is over.Heqwm 07:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • You still didn't cite a source, and I've reverted you again. If you don't modify your behavior, there will be no alternative to viewing your behavior as vandalism. Johntex\talk 07:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"You put no citations at all in the edits I reverted. Anyone may plainly see that by checking the article history." That is an utter lie. Until you apologize, I will automatically assume every one of your actions to be in bad faith.Heqwm 07:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith but you are making it very difficult. I will try one more time, as perhaps we are not communicating well. When I say you put no citation in the edits I reverted, what I mean is you did not quote any expert or footnote any source that makes the claim you wish to include. Therefore, it is an unsourced statement. If you somehow think that you did include a citation, then please explain what the word "citation" means to you - because I'm not seeing one in your edits. Johntex\talk 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you've redefined "cite" to suit your needs. A cite is a reference to a source. Saying that there are unsourced statements and saying there are no cites are completely different statements. Even with your ridiculous redefintion, you are incorrect. I wish to include the claim that the BSA claimed to be a religious organization, and I presented a cite supporting that claim.Heqwm 08:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm using "cite" in the same way as our policy, WP:CITE. You put no source for your claim in either of the edits I reverted. Once again, you must be prepared to cite a source, not your opinion. Johntex\talk 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Heqwm. I was one of the contributes to the membership controversy article. Let me take a stab as saying why your last edits are getting reverted. It's not that the point you're trying to make is wrong: "BSA is a religious organization in one case, but not in another, and therefore hypocritical". That might be a valid point to make. The problem is it's not up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to make be making points. So, when you've been accused of original research, what've you done is take known facts and put them together to form a novel argument. That's a natural thing to do, but its something we should try to avoid, because then we're editorializing rather than reporting. What you'd be wanting here, instead, is a major source to make the same argument you're making, and then Wikipedia just has to report on that source-- not present it. It's an easy misunderstanding to have: Making a novel argument while citing pieces of evidence to support that argument ISN'T the same as "citing a source for that argument". But if you had such a source, if that source was reliable, and you could cite than source, then your edit would no longer be Original Research.
The other issue at hand, however, is that edits have to comply with Neutral Point of View. This is a complex thing, but one of the immediate flags that something probably not NPOV is when I can read the contribution and immediately known what the editor in question feels about an issue. If something is truly written from the NPOV, I should have a very hard time figuring out what your point is just from reading your edits. The difference between informative and persuasive writing. Both have their place, but we should be trying as hard as possible to tell ALL sides of the story, and not to persuade our readers. And your edits are pretty clearly trying to make an argument rather than just report on an argument.
There are other problems as well. The hypocrisy you accuse BSA of is just a small part of the ongoing controversy, and that controversy is itself just a small part of the BSA. So, even if your edits could comply with the OR policy, and even if we could reword them in compliance with the NPOV policy-- I think having this much f space on the main article devoted to the hypocrisy argument would be giving it undue weight. IF we can find a good source that points out the discrepancy with the arguments made in the San Diego case and the earlier arguments made in the explusion cases, it might be worth a sentence, but it still is just one small portion of the issue that's sort of a side point. There isn't a controversy because people believe the policies are hypocritical. There is a controversy because people believe the policies are morally wrong.
Lastly, and honestly somewhat irrelevantly since my own personal views on the merit of your argument are totally irrelevant to whether it should be included, but i'll say it anyway-- the observation you make doesn't NECESSARILY mean the BSA is being hypocritical or dishonest. Lawyers routinely make all kinds of crazy, self-contradictory arguments in the course of doing their job. There's an old law school joke they mention where a lawyer makes the argument "My client is innocent because he never owned a gun like the one that was used in the murder. And secondly, I can prove he sold that gun to someone else a month before the murder occurred". This sort of thing happens all the time. The BSA could try to argue, for example, that is a "religious organization" under the definition used in Freedom to Associate law, but NOT a "religious organization" for the purposes of "Establishment Clause" law. For example, suppose I have an informal bible study group, but not one that is registered as a Non-profit with the IRS. My groupd would be a "religious organization" under the purposes of first amendment law, but the very same group would NOT be a "religious organization" under tax law.
Anyway, if you want this aspect covered, you should look around for the biggest name you can find who talks about the discrepancy between the BSA's claim to being a religious organization in some cases, but not in others-- if it's a big deal, maybe it'd merit an observation in the membership controversy page, but I'm skeptical. In any case, I really wouldn't stress over it-- we do an extensive coverage of the whole controversy over there, and it's quite a good, mature page that I think does an excellent job of discussing the whole ball of wax.
--Alecmconroy 11:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Alecmconroy-Excellent summation of the situation. I don't think anyone could have said it better. Rlevse 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"No, I'm using "cite" in the same way as our policy, WP:CITE." You yet to present any explanation for how that page supports your claim. Simply posting a lin over and over again saying "Look! This proves I'm right" is incredibly rude. And no I see that you have deleted the POV tag, once again simply declaring me to be wrong without giving any explanation how.

"So, when you've been accused of original research, what've you done is take known facts and put them together to form a novel argument." No, I haven't. It's hardly a "novel" argument to mention that saying X and saying not X is contradictory. Now, I could apply this standard to the rest of the article. Do you want me to do that, or do you want to drop this line of argument? It's one or the other.

"If something is truly written from the NPOV, I should have a very hard time figuring out what your point is just from reading your edits." This completely ignores what "NPOV" means. It means that the article should be written from an NPOV, not that all edits should be from a NPOV. Furthermore, the question of who made an edit is ultimately irrelevant to whether it's NPOV. You need to make a convincing argument for why the EDIT is not NPOV, not keep making ad hominem attacks. And, again, the hypocrisy of this line of argument is flagrantly obvious. Do you have any trouble figuring out the point of view of the people that have deleted my edits? Hmmm?

"The hypocrisy you accuse BSA of is just a small part of the ongoing controversy". You are wrong on two counts. First, it is not small. Second, it is only tangentially part of the controversies. While the lies were prompted by the controversy, they are an important issue regarding the group as a whole. I have already made these arguments, and I think that it is rude for you to ignore them, and to refuse to answer my multiple choice question. And once again, hypocrisy. You people say that they belong in the other article, but when I put them there they get deleted.

"I think having this much f space on the main article devoted to the hypocrisy argument would be giving it undue weight." Undue space? There is an entire section devoted to praising "good turns" of the BSA, are there are multiple references throughout the article to the BSA's alleged "values". And you are complaining about four sentences that mention that one of the most prominent features of the BSA's image is false?

" Lawyers routinely make all kinds of crazy, self-contradictory arguments in the course of doing their job." Yes, and when was the last time you heard someone use the phrase "He's a real lawyer" as a term of phrase? The BSA have a reputation of being above such... nonstandard... ethics. I think that it is therefore important to comment on the validity of that reputation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 11:31, 2006 October 8 (UTC)

If you want to apply the {{POV}} tag, then you must follow the proceedure at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. Specicially, you need to "... on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Otherwise, the tag will continue to be removed. Johntex\talk 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, you still don't seem to have read WP:CITE. It says

If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source...The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

You simply did not provide any citation in the material which I reverted. Calling me a liar is not going to change that fact, although it may get you banned from Wikipedia for making personal attacks. Johntex\talk 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"If you want to apply the {{POV}} tag, then you must follow the proceedure at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute." I don't agree with that interpretation, but fine. "You simply did not provide any citation in the material which I reverted." Yes, I did, and continuing to lie won't change that fact. If you don't want people to call you on your lies, then don't lie. Threatening to get me banned for pointing out your lie simply compounds your error. You are being completely unreasonable.Heqwm 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm, I reviewed the edits again and they prove once again you are mistaken:
The first time I reverted you, the change you made said "While the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness, in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."[7] There is no source stated in your edit at all.
The second time, your change said "As the BSA has managed to create an image of honesty and respectfulness that causes many people to accept their claims uncritically, it is important to not that in practice there are examples of them failing to exhibit a commitment to those values."[8] Once again, you cite no source at all.
Neither one of your edits mentions either website that you later mentioned. That is exactly what I said above, "First of all, neither of the changes you made, which I reverted, included either of those websites." My statement was correct and I expect you will want to apologize for saying I lied. Johntex\talk 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm: Given the text of the edits, I have made the presumption that you previously made edits as User:69.107.97.36, so this has been going on for over a month. Much of this was already discussed (see User talk:69.107.97.36) and went in circles then, just as this dialog has.

Errors in your points have been explained politely and reasonably. We have pointed you towards policies. You have shown a complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate your position based upon the input of others.

To me, it is obvious that there is going to be NO resolution by logical discourse, and I am no longer willing to continue in this manner. I feel that you are not acting in good faith, and that compromise is no longer a solution. I will no longer respond to you as I will not allow you to disrupt my contributions. -Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps you did not lie, but rather are simply incredibly unobservant. Here's a link that shows that I mentioned the website: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_Scouts_of_America&oldid=80172408#_note-16

No errors in my points have been explained, politely or otherwise. It's really quite rude to simply declare some to be unwilling to listen to reason simply because they don't agree with you. It's quite clear that by "listen to reason", you mean "do what I say", and by "moderate your position", you mean "completely abandon you position". You have made absolutely no effort to get me to "moderate" my position: your position is simply that my edits should be deleted in their entirety, rather than "moderated". "Compromise"? What a load of bullshit. You haven't made any effort to compromise. You started slinging around accusations of bad faith as soon as I didn't kowtow to your decrees.Heqwm 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

The complete refusal to allow any mention of the BSA's dishonesty or hateful actions constitutes a deviation from NPOV.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heqwm (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2006 October 8 (UTC)

You need to provide a lot more than a sentence fragment. The policy says "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Johntex\talk 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Sentence fragment"? Huh? It's a complete sentence. The article as a whole is not NPOV because unflattering facts are deleted. It can be improved by allowing those facts. This seems rather self-explanatory.Heqwm 21:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it was not a fragment, I misread it. However, it certainly does not qualify as "...clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Johntex\talk 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

To date, there have been no successful attempts to document a BSA policy of dishonesty. However, if sourced, I would recommend that such a reference be included and treated in the same way as other controversies. I am not sure what "hateful actions" Heqwm is referring to, but it seems that there has been ample opportunity for discussion of positive and negative aspects of the BSA, noting a subsection and related separate article on the member controversy. I feel confident that the casual Wikipedia reader would get a balanced overall perspective on the BSA from reading this article and related sub-articles. The POV tag can be removed. --NThurston 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --SafeLibraries 02:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation cabal case

Heqwm has filed a request for mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-08 BSA. Johntex\talk 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Heqwm has not responded to a mediator's offer to mediate, yet today he reinserted tags and the Pulliam piece without discussion, so the following two subsections: Fact tags on refs and Pulliam.Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags on refs

Inserting fact tags on sentences that already have valid refs is clearly POV and disruptive. Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a troll trying to be disruptive. The pre-existing refs were valid and there's no reason to re-tag them with a fact tag.Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that once again my opponents are resorting to personal attacks. None of the claims that I tagged had valid cites.Heqwm 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


If you think that something has a cite, explain how so.Heqwm 16:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

See this ref that you deleted, especially the second line from the bottom: http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv Rlevse 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Pulliam

Setting aside the issue of whether this belongs in the article at all, it clearly does not belong in the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. Rlevse 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Sumoeagle179 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say that the BSA teaches good citizinship, you should also mention that in fact, they teach bad citizenship by example. Giving more prominence to the former than the latter is misleading and not NPOVHeqwm

There is a source given in the article for the good citizenship. Do you have a source that says they "teach bad citizenship"? Johntex\talk 21:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America

I am not too sure but I know that our local American Legion Post 127 Glendale, with the Boy Scouts of America, funds the Military Explorers Post 2127. Are there any other such posts? Hovru 03:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Exploring is no longer part of the BSA membership. The BSA spun off a division called Learning for Life (LfL). Exploring was moved to LfL in in 1998. BSA units are not allowed to do military activities. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Good Turns

I've bee thinking of moving this to the history article. Thoughts? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral, can see either way. Rlevse 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/y/Talk%7EBoy_Scouts_of_America_Archive_2_9513.html"