Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Girl Scouts of the USA is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Scouting Wiki Project Girl Scouts of the USA is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the project's Portal collaboration of the month (August 2006).
Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force
Peer review Girl Scouts of the USA has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Comments

To try to calm the situation concerning the controversy, I have modified the wording to be the official position of the National organization, that Girl Scouting is open to all girls, and any adult over 18 that accept the promise and law. I have also corrected a reference to scouting as referring to Girl Scouting, as scouting is a common utilization of BSA and is not used to refer to Girl Scouts. Finally, I have corrected the article to reflect that the national HQ is located in NY, NY, not in Savannah, as was previously stated.

The orginization is named Girl Scouts of the United States of America[1], so I'm going to move the article. Gentgeen 07:52, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The website uses "Girl Scouts of the USA" as its short form. This article should go there. --Jiang 07:58, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Just looked there, and there was another article, not very good one, already there. I've made it a re-direct here for now, but that move will require a sysop to complete. Gentgeen 08:16, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done. What do those cookie boxes say? --Jiang 08:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Shortbread box that's apparently been in my cupboard for at least two years (don't ask) says "Baked by authority of Girl Scouts of the USA." - Hedgey42 18:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV in controversy section

I made some improvements to the Controversy section, as its original wording seemed to very much be from an anti-Scouts POV. I think the new wording is greatly improved, but the claims in that section should be sourced. Kit 20:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is the section labelled "Controversy" when, in fact, it describes the fact that there is no controversy? --Habap 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
While I considered removing it, the information in this section is probably useful to those reading the page. I couldn't come up with a great section header, so I tried No official stand on sexuality --Habap 21:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:

The Boy Scouts of America, as stated on Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America (which conveniently removes all criticism from the article and moves it somewhere readers are less likely to notice it!) has these nasty little rules:

People not allowed to be scouts, whether youths as members or leaders:

  • Anyone who is openly gay or bisexual or known to be gay/bi
  • Members that refuse to affirm a "duty to God"
  • Adult agnostics or atheists

Pity the two articles seem to constantly have this information about the serious discrimination that takes place in these very-fundamentalist Christian-swaying groups moved or deleted entirely..

I think the two could be a world of good but this kind of discrimination and religious brainwashing should not be happening..

--Mistress Selina Kyle 19:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo has been removing this part of the sentence from the article repeatedly (sentence included for context, bolded is bit that he keeps removing)
"Unlike the Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA has consistently upheld the belief that issues of sexuality belong between a girl and her parents, and therefore does not take any official position on the issue of homosexuality: gays and lesbians are not discriminated against and are accepted and included as members of the Girl Scouting Movement."
On his user page it says "I have actively assisted in the creation of Scouting and Guiding movements in some countries" (paraphrase) so it seems that more than anything he is trying to cover up for/deny this bigotry than anything else. From one of his edit summaries on the history: "discriminated against" _is_ an accusation that the BSA discriminates" - The BSA clearly DOES discriminate as from the rules stated above... Only the Girl Scouts being the ones that DO NOT have these homophobic rules. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, I removed POV repeatedly from this article due to the accusation of "discrimination". The freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution does not prima facie denote "discrimination" against those who do not meet membership guidelines or requirements. But I applaud Selina for putting this in the talk page where in belongs, and not in the actual article, where it would still be POV.
And for the record, yes, I am a Scout, I am also a vocal critic where Scouting falls short, but POV is POV whether I am pro or against a policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for whether policies are popular or pleasant-that is why the BSA controversies article exists. Thanks, Chris 19:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
To your constant "prima facie" crap: There is PLENTY evidence for this discrimination, to carry on with legalese like that in spite of the evidence is ridiculous.
Some of the Boy Scouts of America's official rules are:
People not allowed to be scouts, whether youths as members or leaders:
  • Anyone who is openly gay or bisexual or known to be gay/bi
  • Members that refuse to affirm a "duty to God"
  • Adult agnostics or atheists
However way that's worded, it's discrimination, bigotry and blatant homophobia. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the place to state that opinion, not in the article itself. If I say "The government was slow to respond to Hurricane Katrina", that's fact. If I say "The government was slow to respond to Hurricane Katrina as a specific policy against a particular group of people", that's opinion. Your claims of discrimination are still _opinion_, POV, not _fact_, and in any case go against Wikipedia's NPOV stance. You probably should remove the "This user maintains a policy of neutrality on controversial issues." from your userpage, as you're proving this to be untrue today.Chris 20:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
When there's actual stated rules saying that gay/bi/agnostic or atheist people are not allowed in the organisation, that's discriminiation, however way it's worded - That's not POV, that's a fact... --Mistress Selina Kyle 21:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
But that has NOTHING to do with the GSUSA. This article is about the Girl Scouts. The place to put criticism of the BSA is on their article, but only if it can be done in a NPOV way. Gentgeen 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the BSA anti-discrimination website, they have a page about the GSA too at http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/gsusa.html and http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/gsusa-problems.html which points out some problems, including a case where they had to be sued to let an atheist in. The site points out that true nondiscrimination policies are only adopted by GSA groups locally and that the national "nondiscrimination" policy requires that girls keep their sexual orientation private. There's a copy of a Newsweek article there which explains that "in some communities, lesbian Scout leaders are afraid to keep a picture of their partner next to their bunk or invite their partner when their troop throws a party for families" because they must keep their orientation private, and summarizes a spokeswoman's comments as saying that "the 'norms of each community' must determine whether gays can be excluded".

I don't feel right modifying the article based only on one site, but it does sound like the GSA is doing at least some discrimination and I hope someone reading this who knows more can look into it. Ken Arromdee 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no such organization as GSA. It's GSUSA. Once again, apparently someone unfamilair with Scouting who's just looking for an icon to smash, - GCW 19 Jan

Just a book to suggest for those interested in the research: "On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth" by Jay Mechling. It explains and analyses the legal cases and history surrounding Boy Scouts of America's policies involving sexual orientation and other scandals. It also goes into some (albiet small) discussion of Girl Scouts, primarily to illustrate how the author feels the Girl Scouts fixed themselves while Boy Scouts continues to be bigoted.
On a personal note, I've a Girl Scout for 13 years, and have earned my Gold Award, and have spent three happy summers working as a Camp Counselor for my local Girl Scout Council. I have NEVER experienced any discrimination. At the Girl Scout Summer Camps I have worked with, the staff was up to 90% bi/lesbian/other etc. etc.; and with discussions I have had with colleges, this seems to be the norm. In the Girl Scout Camp Summer Counselor Manual there are sections on nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (I foolishly through mine away, but will try to borrow a friend's). Hope this helps.

Zidel333 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girl Scout Promise

There is a section in the article on "Controveries about the Boy Scouts of America" that discusses the Girl Scout Promise and when it is okay to replace the word "God" with another word. Could someone knowledgeable please review the section for accuracy and edit it as necessary (with citations). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Girl_Scout_Promise_of_Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA --Jagz 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The cite is right there, its #13. [2] It looks like the text is straight from the GSUSA site. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but what about the next paragraph that begins, "Note: The Girl Scouts of the USA is not a member of WOSM..."?--Jagz 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
That would be correct, they are under WAGGS see List of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts members. An additional note to that effect might be in order. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the section as it appears now:

"The Girl Scouts of the USA's Girl Scout Promise

On my honor, I will try:

To serve God* and my country,
To help people at all times,
And to live by the Girl Scout Law.

[*] "The word 'God' can be interpreted in a number of ways, depending on one's spiritual beliefs. When reciting the Girl Scout Promise, it is okay to replace the word 'God' with whatever word your spiritual beliefs dictate."[3]

Note: The Girl Scouts of the USA is not a member of WOSM but a member of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS), the female-oriented counterpart to WOSM. The WAGGGS Constitution requires Member Societies to maintain membership standards to include a promise similar to the one established by Baden-Powell, thus it seems any word replacing "God" should be spiritual in nature (i.e. "Allah", "Jehovah", "Great Spirit", etc.) in order to meet the requirements that GSUSA must adhere to. Further elaboration on this can be found in Exploring Spirituality in GirlGuiding-GirlScouting Module1 cowritten by a leader of GSUSA and issued in June, 2005."

Is this correct?--Jagz 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been a Girl Scout for the past 13 years (and a Gold Scout btw), and I remember distinctly reading in an adult leader's manual that God can be replaced, or not even required to be said (i.e. one can pause, or just keep going in the Promise.) This can also be done in any GS Ceremony where the word God is traditionally said. Also, I read a book "On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth" by Jay Mechling, while it focuses primarily on Boy Scouts of America, there is some analysis of Girl Scouts of America, including the Promise. Its a pretty good read, but tends to really bash Boy Scouts.

Zidel333 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add the "pause" to the list, but please provide a quote or cite that shows GSUSA is ignoring the Constitution of WAGGGS and the guidance that their own representative to WAGGS wrote last June!

I don't understand your comment/request.--Jagz 15:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] popular culture

I would like to add a section to this article about girl scouts in popular culture (movies, tv, books, music, etc.). Discuss please...! Ycaps123 09:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a discussion over at the Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) article that concerns this topic. There are proposals to either create a new article for scouting in pop culture, or merge all pop culture references into scouting. Please see here: Talk:Boy_Scouts_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#popular_culture Ycaps123 17:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the text from the popular culture section as the info is duplicated in the new scouting in popular culture article. Ycaps123 16:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Does anyone else feel that this article should be of top priority instead of high? GSUSA is a HUGE part of scouting to girls in the United States. Just as important to wiki scouting as Baden Powel or any Boy Scout page of top importance. Is anyone else in agreement? Or am I chasing after something I can never kill here? Darthgriz98 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Is this section even nessesary? It's widely unsourced, and is an eyesore. Is stance on Homosexuality even a controversy? Because I don't see anybody complaining about the don't ask don't tell policy. Darthgriz98 03:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the section has been here for quite some time. See the section above labelled "NPOV in controversy section" and look at the dates. I would find it surprising that a section that's been around for so long, with implicit approval of multiple editors, would be deemed by one person to be unnecessary and be removed. Of course you have not removed it, yet, but based simply on its longevity, I'd keep it.
For other reasons I'd keep it as well. It is directly related to the topic and provides additional information in an encyclopedic fashion. It is perfectly appropriate for wiki articles to include sections on controversies. Lest anyone be misled, the very title of the section alerts people that a controversy exists. Information is best when it includes more information, not when it is narrowly tailored to exclude controversy.
As to widely unsourced, that may be a valid concern and could be corrected by linking to appropriate sources.
What do others say? --SafeLibraries 03:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done some reorg and expansion and moved the controversy bit from the promise section down.--Erp 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mariner Scout merge

I think this needs to be discussed. It appears that the program is still active (I found at least a couple of Mariner ships with a google search) though not very large. It is small enough to be included in this article unless this article becomes too large but the option to merge was mentioned when it looked like it was of historical interest only.--Erp 01:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be a good idea since it is a stub and I'm even wondering if it can be fully expanded into a full article. I haven't even heard of Mariner Scouts before through council, so I'm guessing there really isn't a whole lot of them around anymore. I do know that Venture Scouting is around, as I'm thinking about joining up for that, but Mariner, I say merge it. But I'd wait until we get some more disscusion going here. Darthgriz98 01:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It may have no more than a handful of boats (oddly enough one is in the harbor I usually sail out of and I didn't know it existed until I went web searching for info on Mariner Scouts but then I'm not an active Scout). --Erp 02:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Or merge with Sea Scout --Egel Reaction? 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination?

After CoM is completed, I would like to nominate this article for GA. Or at least, I would like to be able to. Any thoughts on this, probably some objections, what needs to be done to make it GA? Lets do it! Darthgriz98 00:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think we need a few good pictures. Also some of the 'see also' can be dropped since they occur in the actual article. We might want to add a brief bit about cookie selling to the Customs section. The Mariner Scout section might need to be moved elsewhere within the article especially if we merge the separate article into this article (perhaps within the levels area). We need a brief bit on badges (and perhaps expand the Girl Scouts Levels article to contain more on badges). I don't think we have a link to the category of scouting in various states. There is a lot in the history section that could be expanded such as on the big Senior Girl Scout Roundups of the 50's and 60's. Also a brief mention of some notable Girl Scouts might not be out of place. The intro needs work.--Erp 01:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Pictures I can handle, badges I might be able to handle, I think the cookie section is an excelent idea. At least it's a good start on what needs done, thanks! Darthgriz98 01:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Roundup? Where did you find info on those? I know we have them, but they are really small council things. Ours are held every two years, lol I hate to say it on this talk page but I have so many crazy roundup memories. I'd share them if people want me to. Darthgriz98 02:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
At one time Girl Scouts had Round-ups which were similar to the BSA National Jamborees. I don't know much beyond that myself but careful googling shows some tantalizing info (e.g., people holding roundup reunions).--Erp 17:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I'll look into it. All I know of old roundups is what my leader and some other ladies were saying at last round-up. How they slept on the ground, the woods were the bathroom, and how it was held on that hill up yonder where the pavillion near the lake is. But that's original research so I'll get some real stuff. Darthgriz98 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA suggestions

Being the collaboration has greatly helped, but much is left... Here are my suggestions: refs need proper formatting and you need several of them, lead needs expanded to summarize the article, get rid of all those short stubby paragraphs, convert most of the lists into prose, add more wikilinks, put dates in proper wiki format. Rlevse 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Can someone work of prosifiying the lists, expecialy segrogation, I tried, and don't know what to do with it, since I know almost nothing on the segrogation of the GSUSA. Darthgriz98 02:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Needs a better lead-in- What do Girl Scout really do?
  • Close up one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Age levels: prosify with a short explanation of each. Look at merging Girl Scout levels (USA), less the history section.
  • Special programs: to much italics.
  • Awards: explain on their own; don't compare to Eagle Scout.
  • Pomise & law should go under aims & ideals.
  • A few instances where Scout or Scouting is lower case.
  • Customs should be program or activities.
  • Pop culture: either expand or just move to See also.
  • Try to work External links in as references.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA disscussion

This article has come a long way, but it still needs pictures, when I have access to my home computer this weekend I will try to get a few pictures. Any other suggestions for this article along the lines of making it GA worthy? Darthgriz98 00:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit listy and stubby, see if you can make it more prosey. All the external jumps, like this: [4], need to be converted into standard cite php refs--ditto for the refs already in the ref section. When you get this done, even if there's still work to do, list it as a GA nominee as it usually takes 3 weeks, if not longer, for an article to make it to the top of the nominee list.Rlevse 00:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok I'll give that a go and then nominate it and see what happens. Darthgriz98 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the references are formated now, just need to tighten the article and copyedit. Darthgriz98 01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better, but if your goal is FA, the refs should be in cite php format (see Gilwell Park, Eagle Scout for examples). Rlevse 02:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Long term goal there, but yeah I'll see if I can squeze a few minutes in for that this weekend while I'm studying the difference between spogocoel and otista. ok nvm that is gona take awhile, whoever put the book references in, can you reference them please in proper format? Or do I need to round you up on talk pages? Darthgriz98 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Book references were inside a quote and should have probably remained there. I would have liked to reference them directly but I have no access to either work nor do I think they are on-line. I'll see what I can do with the other references--Erp 00:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Convert the program aims to prose. Rlevse 15:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Done thanks to Erp. Anything else anyone can think of? Other than the intro. Darthgriz98 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Make the lead more of a summary of the article and the submit at WP:GAC. Nice work. The backlog is shorter than it used to be. Rlevse 20:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is greatly improved and I have passed it as a GA. Nice work to all. Further improvements should include a few more pictures, and probably a discussion of the methods that GSUSA uses to accomplish their objectives. --NThurston 19:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mergeing history section of the GSUSA level article

I think if we merged the history section of the GSUSA article into GSUSA it might cover most of the bases for the levels as per gadget850. Darthgriz98 23:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

well, since there are no objections...

[edit] Picture

I have a few pictures of myself completing my gold award project, does anyone think these might be appropriate? They show an example of what happens durring a project. I can even upload them and put them on here to show you guys. Darthgriz98 23:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] segrogation

Okay, this section needs to be prosified, and I don't know anything on the topic so can somebody who does or whoever put it in there please help out?Darthgriz98 02:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review

Randy asked me to review this article, so here are some thoughts. I'm not very knowledgable on the GSUSA, so I really can't comment much on the program.

  • Move the references to Low and B-P from the lead-in to the history section.
  • History- the first date link is broken.
  • The promise and law are formatted differently. The statment on God needs a cite.
  • Age levels- see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers in words. Instead of 10-17, use ten through seventeen.
  • Mariner Scouts- link to the Mariner Scout article, link to the Sea Scouts article and note that it is a BSA program.
  • Scout is used in the article both capitalized and lower case. The BSA standard is that it should be capitalized. Either way, it should be consistent in the article. project policy is upper case for Scout, Scouter, Scouting
  • Organizational structure- the Saul Bass statement is an an opinion and needs a cite. (For being the best work some people have ever seen, I have found nothing on it, nor do I think the GS emblem would be his best work, so what should we do with it, doesn't pass the google test. Darthgriz98 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC))---delete part about best work. Saying he designed it is okay.Rlevse 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Controversy:
    • Since there are multiple issues, this should be Controversies.
    • Suggest including American Heritage Girls and their formation in response to some of these issues.
    • need more cites, specifically for:
      • "Some have considered this does not go far enough in banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and others that they should ban gays and lesbians."
      • "In November 1992 the parents of Nitzya Cuevas-Macias sued for the daughter to be permitted to participate even though she refused to promise to serve God."
  • Banning prayer at meetings- the second sentence is a fragment.
  • Creation of Studio 2B- need a cite, needs link to main article.
  • See also:
  • References:
    • Reference 9 has two commas: "Goddard,, Jennifer"
    • A number of the references are using cite book when they should be using cite web.
    • Cite web references have each field on separate lines- this should be closed up.
    • The book references should be in proper citation format.
    • Other referenced sites should be in proper citation format.
  • External links- Again, my opinion is to use this very sparingly. If it is important enough to include here, then it should probably be referenced in the article. Again, use proper citation format.

I just finished up Tutorial: How to use footnotes- this should help clean up those references.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peerreviewer output

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

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • 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.
  • 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.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. [1]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Note, I just glanced at the lede since this got posted on FAC. The second paragraph seems poorly organized to me. It reads like a random collection of facts, without a connecting thread. I'd also start with their substantive activities, and leave cookies for later. Just my (hopefully constructive) tuppence. Derex 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have it reorganized a little bit, it does seem like a pile of random facts, I'm trying to get some connecting fillers to sumerize it if somebody wants to jump in with their suggestions on fixing the intro go ahead and be bold, edit if you wish. Darthgriz98 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Troop

I've reorged the Organization section; however, I think we need a bit more about troop and troop structure as this are the most important unit within Girl Scouts. --Erp 21:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I put in a request for main page FA on the same day as Thinking Day, BUT, apparently our free use logo isn't good enough, but I am going to attepmt to talk to GSUSA and see what I can do about that. I was a scout for 13 years I think they should listen. If not, I don't know what image we will use for it, not the chainsaw one, it's fine for the section, just not to represent the article, I don't want to be the face of Girl Scouting on Wikipedia. Darthgriz98 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Good luck btw I would be interested in getting a proper citation for the King quote on the Girl Scouts. I agree we need some more pictures but not sure from where. btw you might find Girl Scouting in Indiana interesting though I'm not sure what if anything we can use from it for the article. Also been having fun prowling old newspapers (admittedly that is primary research so can't be used); apparently in one incident in 1948 (according to the LA Times at that time) about 10 men in white robes and hoods turned up to tell two white girls to leave (they had been training a group of black girls in leadership) after searching their belongings. The article is interesting in reflecting the time (I'm not sure whether the 'girls' were over or under 18 and the article was careful to point out that the white girls weren't sharing eating or sleeping arrangements with the black girls). Well enough of an aside --Erp 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Indiana article also has photographic proof of a black GS troop in Indiana as early as 1921. Rlevse 00:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've also seen a NY Times article from early 1920s mentioning two black GS troops in a parade. Segregated troops existed early but I'm not sure when the first integrated troops arrived or integrated council camps. I suspect it varied from council to council.--Erp 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/i/r/Talk%7EGirl_Scouts_of_the_USA_2458.html"