Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America

Self-nom. Peer review met with positive results. What do ya'll think?--Alecmconroy 09:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment why is a previous revision of the page in see also? If it has useful info it should be in this revision. That is going to get you opposes of DEATH most likely. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 11:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree completely. After reading through this article, it seems pretty NPOV to me; why include a link to a less NPOV revision of this article? Also, the "controversy" over access to public space could be elaborated a bit. Furthermore, did the Boy Scouts of America have any controversies prior to the 1980s? You mentioned a scandal that rocked the organization in the 1970s, and something in the 1920s, without going into any details. Lastly, the title is awkward. Maybe "Controversies relating to the Boy Scouts of America"? This article needs a fair bit of work before it reaches FA status. The Disco King 17:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The unfortunate link to the previous version has been eradicated, and the lone sentence referring to some 1920s/1970s troubles has been excised. I agree with your reasoning completely. About the title--- it IS definitely a little awkward, but finding sufficiently neutral key phrases has been hard on a page this contensious-- what would be less awkward, but equally neutral? -Alecmconroy 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sure there's something to say about (de-)segregation of the Colored Troops in 1954, and probably more beyond that too. Tuf-Kat 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: For purposes of length, the consensus has been to focus "recent/on-going" controverisies about the actual official practices of the organization, the epicenter of which is their ban on gays and atheists. So, rationale for not including issues like "segregation", "exlusion of girls", or "scoutmaster sex abuse" is that they're not something you head a lot of controversy about these days. Perhaps more narrowly defined title is the answer. -Alecmconroy 00:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is what I meant. My concern wasn't that the references to past controversies should be removed. My concern is that this article is too focussed on current controversies. If there have been past controversies or scandals (as those comments indicated) then they should be described in this article, or this article should be renamed "Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America, 1980-2006". I would be in favour of the prior option; just because a controversy isn't contemporary doesn't mean that it shouldn't be described. If it does get to be too long, then split it off into sub-articles divided chronologically. The Disco King 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -You raise a great concern. I feel like the current article does a good job of discussing the those things it does discuss, but there are other issues that other articles could certainly address aside from this one big main issue. I think it comes down to giving THIS page a title that makes it clear that this one is a sub-page just about the gay/atheist issue and its aftermath, and that the other smaller issues should fall under the jurisdiction of other pagers. This article just one sub-page talking about just this one issue. See the article's talk page for a brainstorm.-Alecmconroy 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment -Perhaps this should be spun off into numerous different articles. For example Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality, Boy Scouts of America and religion, Boy Scounts of America and segregation, etc. --Jayzel 08:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment- I think this is an excellent plan, although the homosexuality and religion issues are sufficiently intertwined merging those two into Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America would be useful. -Alecmconroy 09:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Officially, there are no homosexuals or atheists in the BSA. The contention is about the policies. Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America's stance on religion and morals would make more sense. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course there are atheists and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts. Being openly gay or atheist is just not allowed. I agree, however, that the title should not be blah, blah, blah in the Boy Scouts. At the same time I think your title is too long. I still think my title ideas are best. :P --Jayzel 13:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hence officially; but open or avowed would work as well. Is the issue about atheists or the position on atheists? --Gadget850 ( Ed)

P.S. I just read through the article and, I don't know, something doesn't seem right about it. There seems to be an obsession with the word "controversial". In my opinion it violates the NPOV policy here. Let the reader decide if the policies are controversial. Wikipedia shouldn't be beating people over the head by continuously repeating "Controversial policy" over and over and over. Some people might say "What controversy?" They are just excercising their First Amendment rights. Does the National Organization for Women allow men? Does the NAACP allow caucasian people? Does the United Negro College Fund pay for Asian children to go to college? Do all-women schools such as Smith College allow men? The article needs to bit a bit more balanced. Also, I think their needs to be a section for criticism of groups supporting forcing the BSA to accept homosexuals and athiests. Until these issues and the title-naming problem are resolved, I am afraid I must Object. --Jayzel 13:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is excellent-- some of the the kinds of input we've really really been needing :). "Controversy" is nice because it avoids words like "exclusion" or "discrimination", but bad because it still involves "controversy", which not that it's been pointed out to me, does definitely imply that something somewhere is controversial. For example, Wikipedia uses the title Abortion Debate in lieu of "Abortion Controversy". Perhaps "Controversy" should be removed from the title entirely, and we should work on replacing "controversial" in some cases with something more diluted-- like maybe "debated", "disputed"

Yeah-- you're right: Homosexuality and Atheism in the Boy Scouts of America is dumb-- it implies we're going to talk about the gays and atheists currently in the organization, when really, we're talking about the policies. I really like the titles of Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality and Boy Scouts of America and religion-- I think they're perfect except for the fact that about half the articles would be the same in each artcle. The legal arguments are the EXACT same, the court precidents are interchangable and reference each other constantly. The anti-BSA backlash usually references BOTH the gay and atheist issue. But a good title that talks about both is hard to come by: Boy Scouts of America and homosexuality and atheism or Boy Scouts of America, homosexuality and atheism or Boy Scouts of America's policy on Homosexuality and Atheism or Boy Scouts of America's policy on Homosexuality and Atheism. It's a real brain bender to find one that's Neutral, Accurate, and Concise. -Alecmconroy 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't really have an issue with the word controversy being in the title. It was a controversy (from both angles. It was a controversy about the BSA excluding some people and it was a controversy about homosexuals and atheists forcing their beliefs upon a private group in violation of their First Amendment rights). However, the article only presents the controversy in terms of the BSA doing something wrong. That is the jist of the articles POV issue. I had some other things to say, but I just saw that you have been doing some fixing of the article and they no longer apply. --Jayzel 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose of DEATH! (to jokingly refer to the comment above). I'm objecting mainly because I believe that the article carries a POV slant, which I've detailed on the talk page. Fieari 21:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• On the BSA side are the interpretations of the the religious principle (a Scout is reverent) and of morals (morally straight). On the other side are a variety of group and individuals in opposition to those policies.
  • The Boy Scouts of America's stance on religion and morals and opposition thereof
  • Opposition to the Boy Scouts of America's religious and moral policies

Name length should not overide accuracy. There is precedent for long names, such as Economic and human costs of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or does this article have way too many subheadings? Exploding Boy 23:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• oppose to me it seems too POV against BSA, it should be more neutral. 140.32.75.175 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)