Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

rank definitions

"The Senior Patrol Leader (SPL), and then his Assistant Senior Patrol Leader(s) (ASPL's), are the highest ranking boys in the troop. PL's and the SPL are elective positions. APL's are appointed by PL's; ASPL's are appointed by the SPL with the advice of the Scoutmaster. "

From my experience in scouting, SPL and APL are not nessecarily the highest ranking scouts, and ASPL's can be elected, as can APL's, depending on the troop. There is some leeway in that, it seems.

Lyellin 05:12, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

There are also Junior Assistant Scoutmasters, which are usually reserved for those with Eagle rank. These may be considered higher ranking.

The official publications, such as Junior Leadership Training Handbook state that. I'll dig mine out and confirm... --Jiang 06:05, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll search for mine as well... *laughs*. JASMs are normally use (again, in my experience), for those kids who are Eagle, but not 18, or those who are not nessecarily around all that often, but are older, 17, 18 or so, so that they have a leadership position while not always being around. Lyellin 15:37, Dec 31, 2003 (UTC)

From the Junior Leader Handbook:

SPL - "The senior patrol leader is elected by the Scouts to represent them as the top junior leader in the troop."

ASPL - "The assistant senior patrol leader is the second-highest-ranking junior leader of the troop. He is appointed by the senior patrol leader with the approval of the Scoutmaster."

APL -"The assistant patrol leader is appointed by the patrol leader and leads the patrol in his absense."

I guess it's official... --Jiang 15:37, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The confusion arises from the conflation of two different definitions of "rank." Perhaps a clearer wording would be "The Senior Patrol Leader (SPL), and then his Assistant Senior Patrol Leader(s) (ASPL's), are the top boy leaders of the troop." - Seth Ilys 15:45, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The term we're looking for is "leadership position" or something to that effect. -Smack 22:13, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Exactly...people allways get "ranks" and "jobs" mixed up. That being said, the SPL is usually at least a life scout and the ASPL a star. Generally, an SPL is supossed to plan things and give orders (where to set up tents and stuff like that). When it comes to being in charge, he is higher than all the other scouts , even if they have a higher rank.--Will 18:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a chain of command thing, not a rank thing. SPL's rank can be lower than ASPL's rank, etc. --Myles Long 18:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is more of a chain of command, though from my experiences, the SPL is a Life or Eagle Scout. The ASPL is a Star or higher, while the PL and APL are first class or higher. We, the troop, picked the SPL, while the SPL chose his assistant with the OK of the leaders. We tend to follow the BSA guidelines. But I do think it should be called a leadership position than rank. Zscout370 (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. PL/APL must be First Class or higher. I believe in my troop, SPL was often Star or Life. Usually, the previous SPL was the new ASPL, but that wasn't always the case. On the rare occasion that we had an Eagle still in the troop (most of our members who earned Eagle did so at or immediately before their eighteenth birthday, making them ineligible to continue to be Boy Scouts after that), he was usually the JASM. But you're definitely right; it's a leadership position, not a rank. --Myles Long 22:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been a Scoutmaster for a little over 12 years and one of my early SPLs was 2nd Class, though usually they've been Star or Life. Requirements to hold the office (or any other office) are determined by the Scoutmaster, usually based on what's available. We just had elections for new Patrol Leaders and both are Second Class (should be First Class in the next month or so). So, to indicate that there are nationally recognized rank requirements for leadership positions would be far from correct. --Habap 14:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Most people who receive Eagle Scout usually leave the troop because of college or other scholing. I was asked to be an Assisant Scoutmaster after I turned 18 (I had my Eagle for a few months). I did so, but college got into the way of everything. We had a JASM in our troop, but only the Scoutmaster can choose him. One thing to also mention, I counted at least seven Eagle Scouts on Wikipedia (Jaing, Myles Long, myself, Tuff-Kat, Cavebear42, Dismas). So we start a Wiki Troop or something? Zscout370 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hah, sure, why not? I earned my Eagle at 16. Right after I turned 16, actually. I then served as ASPL for 3 months, then as JASM for a year until I was 18. --Myles Long 14:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

How did you count them? Did you do a search of the user namespace for "Eagle Scout"? If you must compile a list, you can count me in. --Smack (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

One more eagle scout --> Gentgeen

We could always develop an award and patch for scouts who, say, bring three stubs to featured status or whatever, and apply to the National Advancement Council to recognize the patch. They might accept (probably not, but maybe in the future), but even if not, it'd be cool to have it available anyway (and people wear all kinds of unofficial patches, and no one much minds). Tuf-Kat 20:04, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

In counseling for Communications Merit Badge, I have contemplated asking Scouts to contribute to Wikipedia for their web page requirement. --Habap 14:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Merit Badge

Thanks for giving me the idea Tuff-Kat. To the right, is my ideal for either A: The Wiki Merit Badge, B: An award for Wikipedians for great editing of Scouting related articles (no matter what nation), or C: If we creat a Wikipedia Scouting Message/Notice Board, this image can be used by the group members on their user page. Its yall idea, and I am happy no matter what yall decide. Enjoy my Scouting Brothers ans Sisters. Zscout370 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the image, the transparency is bad. I will fix it in the next few mins. Zscout370 (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikibook mertit badges

Over at wikibooks, I have begun a project to create a guide to earning BSA merit badges, just in case anyone is interested in helping. (Mammal Study, for example, has already been started) Tuf-Kat 00:34, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

Meritbadge.com is a good resource. -Jobarts 06:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Scouts as a melting pot?

Speaking as someone who's not terribly partial to the Scouts, one of the things that strongly impressed me about the Scout troops I have encountered, particularly one my son was in, is that they have really, truly appeared to be very broad cross-sections of the local population. The troop included Scouts from a really wide range of income levels, ethnicity, and religion. Planning for camping trips was truly complicated because we had to get kosher foot—not because of our several Jewish scouts, who didn't care, but because of a number of scouts—I'm afraid I don't know their exact ethnicity or religion, but I think they were from India—and their religion had some dietary requirements which were not exactly the same as kosher, but their parents accepted kosher as "close enough." Plans were complicated by the need to coordinate, not only with the familiar holidays and the Jewish holidays, but Eastern Orthodox holidays, Seventh Day Adventists, and I don't remember what-all.

Assuming this is true of Scouting in general, is there any way to document this in the article in a suitably NPOV way? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:01, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't say this of the Scouts in my area. Some 20-30% of the general population is of Asian origin, but the proportion in the Scout troops is much lower. Latinos also seem to be underrepresented. --Smack 21:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't really think you can say this, and I'm a big fan of scouts. One thing to keep in mind is that a SIGNIFICANT portion of scouting (something like 20%? But that's off the top of my head), are Latter Day Saints. That unbalances religion very quickly IMHO. I think that individual areas may be a melting pot type, particulary in some cities (I'm thinking philly and NY here, from personal experience), but in general it's not as common. Lyellin 07:28, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

The LDS church uses BSA as a youthgroup. This does significantly sway the religious affilations as a whole. At the same time, these LDS units are not mixed with the non-LDS units. It's not like they church is saying, go join the Scouts. They are starting their own units, providing their own guidence and using BSA as an outline. Does this make the camporees, jamborees, and other multi-unit events heavily LDS? Yes. Does this in any way effect the mix of ethnic or religious affilitations in non-LDS units? No. Just observation. Cavebear42 17:19, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It always impressed me as a Scout and it still surprises me today that when we're in uniform, we're all just Scouts and Scouters, not rich/poor, black/white, city/country or anything else. Units tend to reflect their communities or chartered organizations, but at the District level or at summer camp, the organization reaches and embraces all groups. --Habap 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

controversy

"Since the Scout Oath includes the phrase "to do my Duty to God and Country," many people are confused why atheists would want to join the Boy Scouts."

Reading that sounds HIGHLY POV, highly judgemental. Any way to add it so that it does not have that tone? I don't personally think it needs to be in there- no quotes to back it up are in the entry, and a person can form their own ideas with the information presented. Lyellin 04:45, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly POV. You were right to remove it. The person who added that bit might consider that atheists would want to change the oath - not so confusing after all. -- stewacide 04:54, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Having been an atheist at the time of getting my Eagle (since become Quaker), I KNOW there are reasons to be a Boy Scout that does not tie to Duty to God. Just glad someone agrees on the correctness of removing. Still new and nervous. Lyellin 04:59, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Don't be nervous, that was a good call, and the talk page is definatly the place to put it. Gentgeen 06:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would like to note a number of things that, though I did not immediately find anything incorrect, I saw that the way several instances were worded, a non-scouter could misunderstand several elements about scouting. In addition, in the controversy section dealing with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its involvement and support of the Scouting Movement, I found the wording to be particularly unclear. As both a member of this church and a very active BSA member (hence my wiki name), and one who recently went on a varsity crew trip to Canada, may I offer an alternative for these sections? Will post them beneath this note as I have the time. I apologise for any programming mishaps that may occur when I type them into the discussion page. New to Wikipedia =) -- Eaglescoutguy

• 1. To replace paragraph 7 of the Controversy section. Reason? I do not think it adequately explains my church's views on Boy Scouting. My church is also referenced only in the controversy section. Two bits of incorrect information were also given, that the LDS church funds the Scouting organization there (it does not fund the organization, but it does sponsor individual scouting troops composed and lead by its members, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. A slim difference, but notably important in resolving a seeming inconsistency.), and also that the LDS church funds the Girl Scouts of the USA. To the best of my awareness, my church no longer funds nor sponsors Girl Scouting groups. A few individual members that I know do support the Girl Scouts, but not the church as a whole, due to its tolerance of homosexual leadership. This may lead to the confusion here.

(Text offered to replace paragraph 7 of the Controversy section, the one dealing with my church's involvement in scouting)

"One of the major contributors to the BSA, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, may have had some influence in the BSA's policy with regards to homosexuality. This church has throughout the BSA's existence supported the organization both financially and by providing many members of the BSA. However, this church threatened to remove its support of the BSA if this policy is removed. Some people have found this strange, noting that the LDS church currently sponsors scouting troops in Canada, while the Scouts Canada organization permits homosexuals to join . While this seems inconsistent to some, church members note that the only troops sponsored in Canada are composed and based off of the church members in the area, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. This church is against homosexuality in Boy Scouting because of its beliefs against homosexuality, noting a desire to ensure that their children's troops are not led by people who's beliefs directly contradict their own."

• I am addin a version very similer to your own in place of the other paragraph. My main reason for wanting to be proactive on this is because i believe that you are right in saying that the LDS church does not support the GSUSA, as the article currently implys. The status of the Canadian scouts hardly seems relevent to me on this page but i will go ahead and leave intact. Cavebear42 17:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does In both cases, the troops sponsored are composed of the church members in the area, thus being inherently non-homosexual in nature. mean? Is it supposed to claim that there are no gay Mormons? Is there a source for that? I've met two gay Mormon adults active in the Boy Scouts. Tuf-Kat 00:29, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, on reviewing the section, I think you are right in saying that the status of the Canadian Scouts is irrelevant Cavebear42, now that the controversy regarding said scouts has been cleared up (hopefully). TUF-KAT, I think I need to clarify. First, the term Mormon, when used to refer to someone's religion, most often refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but also refers in many times to other churches as well, with far different beliefs than mine. That sentence of mine is supposed to claim that there are no actively gay members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a subtle difference. As I'm 15 years old, I don't know how to word the paragraph to clearly say this, if it needs to be given in the article at all. Support: http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html. (LDS Church official website page) Part of this page essentially means that if a member with gay inclinations pursues those inclinations (becoming actively gay), means will be taken against him. If he doesn't act on these inclinations, he can go forward like all the rest. Oh, by the way, should we remove the Scouts Canada section of that paragraph? Should I clear my first discussion post/edit? --- Eaglescoutguy

No opinion on Canadian scouts, but I disagree with your claim. The two people I know are indeed actively gay and also members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The other churchgoers are not aware of their active homosexuality. The link provided doesn't claim that there are no active gay members, only that gays who act on their urges are "subject to the discipline of the church" and can not "go forward" as other members do -- there are gays whom the church doesn't know about, and even if they do, it isn't clear that "discipline" means kicking them out. Tuf-Kat 19:35, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

• True followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints belive that marriage is a sacred covenant ordained by God, between a man and a woman. There are homosexual members that church leaders don't know about. If a member is found to practice homosexuality and does not stop and repent, they are disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
• "Mormon" was originally a derogatory term used by those who ridiculed the church. It was somewhere along the lines of calling a black man "nigger". These days it's not that offensive, but it is not a very appropriate way to address the church, though some members refer to themselves that way. There are also 'branch off' churches that go by that name, so using it can cause confusing.

I'd also like to say that another reason the BSA doesn't allow homosexuals is the same reason you don't boys and girls in tents together. I'm not sure if that's offial, but I'm sure it's there.

Online sources: Offial statement about the law of chastity | Article about church discipline by Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve -Jobarts 06:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I am new here, so I might not be doing this right. I think that the paragraph on the LDS Church should be modified to reflect to specify that most AMERICAN young men are enrolled in the BSA as a matter of routine. I guess you assume that because we're talking about the Boy Scouts of AMERICA, but the article isn't clear, since more than 50% of Church members live outside the US, the statement is technically incorrect. Anyway, I'm not going to make the change because I don't want to break anything, and somebody will probably disagree and tell me I should leave well enough alone.

• I am a Satanist, yet love boy scouts. I was in it from 92-97. And I am currently trying to get re-established as an adult leader for a troop and get a new sea scout organization in my area (my council, the Greater Western Reserve, only has one sea scout crew in the whole area, and it is quite small). I hope to one day change that contriversy about "duty to god", since I know alot of ppl that are not christians in my time in scouting. --Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Vandalism

To anonymous user 164.58.83.66: Please stop removing information from this page. If you continue to do so, I will ask that this page be protected. I do not object to your first couple of modifications, but the removal of useful information is unacceptable. --Smack 22:05, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

handshake

The Boy Scout Handshake is the traditional shake, done with the left hand instead of the right.

Does this mean "traditional handshake"? The Boy Scout handshake isn't a normal handshake... -- bdesham

Never saw you defend your edit. Words in quotes are exactly what the BSA believes.

By traditional handshake, he means that you shake someone's hand like you normally would, only you use your left hand instead of your right. It feels weird. Anyways, I allways thought that the reason that the left hand is used (contrary to what the article says) was because of something to do with Lord Baden Powell's expericence in Africa (I heard it at a Scoutmaster's minute like 6 years ago). I did an internet search and came up with this: http://www.lrtroop55.org/html/lord_baden-powell_.html (The part I'm talking about it roughly 1/2 way down the page). So, is this true or is it just some story? Either way, I think it would be good to mention it in the article. --Will 18:50, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and put it in, but only as an alternative explanation. FWIW, I've never heard that story. --Smack (talk) 05:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From what I was told, the reason why we shake with our left hand because the left hand is closest to our heart. There is another website that discusses the left hand theory, at http://www.scouttroop511.com/boy%20scouts/scout.handshake.htm. Zscout370 (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Should there be anything added about the original boy scout "Hand Clasp" that was used by the BSA before it adopted the handshake that is used today? ScooterSES 23:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "hand clasp" other than the OA hand clasp, and that probably shouldn't be on the wiki anyway. --Smack (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

The original BSA hand shake was know as the hand clasp and was different then the left handed handshake used today. The original hand clasp was made with the right hand and the little fingers were interlocked. It later evolved slowly into what it is today. (see http://home.earthlink.net/~scouters/history.html#anchor345906). ScooterSES 05:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Balance and proportion on the gay/atheist issue

The Controversy section is important, needs to be there, and is pretty good. But I honestly do not think that the controversy over gay and atheist membership is such an important defining characteristic of the BSA that it deserves to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. I suppose one could say that the BSA has long maintained that Scouts should be "reverent," i.e. adhere to traditional American fuzzy deism; and has "clean," i.e. adhere to traditional sexual morality. But I don't think this has been a major preoccupation of most scoutmasters in most troops at most times. Dpbsmith 12:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the intro. I just found the edit before mine to be excessive. --Jiang 20:29, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It also wasn't factually accurate, as the Learning-for-Life and Exploring Divisions of the BSA don't have any religious or sexual orientation requirements. Those divisions (for 14-21 year old boys and girls) allows the units to make such decisions for their own membership. Gentgeen 21:12, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard of A Scout is clean having anything to do with sexual morality. I'd always read it as not covered in dirt. --Habap 14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Neither have I, but sadly, I think the BSA is paying for this issue right now. From what I heard, the Government cannot fund the 2009 Jamboree. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Usually, Scouts assume that the Oath's morally straight has something to do with this, but since the Oath was written before straight was used to mean not homosexual, that also is not the case. --Habap 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

'Clean' means much more than 'not covered in dirt'. (This came up in one of my Boards of Review, I think.) It includes, among other things that I've forgotten, cleanliness of thought and speech, for instance, avoiding swearwords. I think it could also be legitimately (but not unequivocally) construed to oppose homosexuality. --Smack (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we ought to divide the controversy section into three parts - historical controversies, the atheism issue, and the homosexuality issue. crazyeddie 21:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps; perhaps not. Some important points (i.e. BSA vs. Dale) apply to membership disputes in general, rather than to any specific controversy. However, the section is certainly long enough that some of the details relating to particular issues could be split off into subections. --Smack (talk) 23:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

BSA doesn't try to keep out atheists. Some atheists want the Duty to God part of the oath taken out, but I think that if a being is non-existent, you couldn't have any duty to it, so no matter what you do you won't fail in that duty. I don't think I know any atheists personally, so if any of you see this, I'd like to know what you think. I'm not sure how to best represent that point of view in the article. Thoughts? -Jobarts 06:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

The BSA does try to keep out atheists. See http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2002021201.shtml. Nereocystis 18:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an atheist, but if I were, I would have serious issues with swearing duty to something I don't believe exists. If you were asked to take upon yourself a duty to the Great Randazzo, would you refuse? --Smack (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I became an agnostic while in scouts, but stayed closeted. A bit uncomfortable. Swearing an oath to a being I didn't believe in did feel pretty dishonest and not in keeping with the overall tradition of scouting. Not sure what happens if an openly atheistic or agnostic boy or prospective leader tries to join up. crazyeddie 06:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is the controversy section claiming that the Boy Scouts only restricts homosexual leaders, not members? 4.154.100.135 07:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Why has the controversies section been moved to a different article entirely? Isn't this a violation of the no-POV-fork guideline or something? Also, I think we need more information on how exactly the chain of command works on the national level - i.e., what can individual troops and councils do to influence decisions made at the national level? crazyeddie 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The current controversy section says this: "In order to comply with anti-discrimination laws, some localities have withdrawn Boy Scout access to public schools and facilities." I'm with Scouting For All, and I see this "factoid" all over, but never a list of what localities have actually done this. The Broward school system attempted this a few years ago, got sued by the BSA, and lost. If no other localities can be named, this sentence should be removed. What many schools and communities HAVE done is remove SPECIAL ACCESS, such as free use of facilities that other groups must pay for, and in-school recruiting. 66.77.224.249 03:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Boy Scout director charged with having child porn

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7326932/

Time to start forming a new section.

Not really. First of all, though by all indications the allegations are likely true, he hasn't been convicted. Second, an incident involving a single Scouter, no matter how high-placed, is not significant on the scale of the BSA, which includes tens of thousands of adult leaders. --Smack (talk) 00:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if he in indicted, it might make him a candidate for his own article and this info could exist in it. Cavebear42 17:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He pled guilty to a charge of possession and distribution of child pornography on 30 March 2005. I doubt that owning child porn and being a Scouter would in itself be worthy of an article. - Nunh-huh 06:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh on this one. Being a Scout leader and having child porn does not relate to each other at all. IMHO, I do not think the leader who got busted even deserves an article, since this is pretty much all he was known for. Plus, in a few months from now, his name will cross very few minds. Zscout370 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Nunh-huh and ZScout. Johntex 17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Violence in the Scouts

I added a paragraph about some stuff that happened back in the 1980s were there was, for lack of a better term, a "wave" of incidents where scouts were getting beat up on campout trips by older scouts. I was actually at Goshen when the beating occurred, it was in 1987 at I think Olmstead Camp. I'd be interested in hearing of efforts the BSA has made in the past twenty years to prevent such occurences since I know now they take it pretty seriously (or at least should). -Husnock 21:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I was in the scouts, the leaders took everything seriously. The training they take, along with the booklet about sexual harasment that every scout compeltes, in my view, has curbed many of these events from taking place. Now, I just think scouting's main concern is to keep their morals and funding intact. Sadly, my dad also thinks scouting has become like a day care, almost. Some call the BSA "Baby Sitters of America." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Z. Even at the camp staff level as youth, we were strictly instructed on youth protection protocols just in case another scout disclosed to us that there was something afoul. And Scouting has become a day care. My father's almost given up on the Chairman of the Eagle Board of Review position that he took a few years ago because Scoutmasters and other adults won't do their part in developing young men to Eagle potential, they just refer it all to him and let him play the bad guy. Anyways, that's not the point. The BSA has done a pretty good job of stamping physical incidents out, but IMHO, at the cost of a lot more. KC9CQJ 08:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a mistake to say that "Scouting has become" something. It's a highly decentralized organization. Every troop is different. I can say that my troop has gone a little way down the road to spinelessness, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a day care. And it certainly has no lack of adult leaders who motivate Scouts to excel. --Smack (talk) 05:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The first troop I was in, 36, was largely "bad boys", and frowned upon by the council. While I was never beatn up, I was made fun of, I was locked in the girl's gym locker for a night at school (our middle school was the charter for the troop), and I did not get far in rank since no one would help me. The school eventually decided, about a year after I joined a much better troop, 11, to drop the troop, and no one else wanted to charter 36. The leader was kicked out, and the troop disbanded. I am glad I did not stay long in their. --Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 11:53 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, it appears that the 70's and 80's were rough in many ways. My first troop in 1974 was a bunch of hooligans- my week as a Tenderfoot at Camp Shenandoah was particularly bad. Luckily, I moved into a really great troop, and have stuck at Scouting through the years. In 1985 or so, I recall that as a Scoutmaster, I had to break up a "secret society" that had formed in my troop. Since then, the Youth Protection Program has come into effect, and has made a profound impact on the program. The program does do a much better job of protecting both youth and leaders. It's pretty boring (and I have taught it many times) but effective; the new online certifications are really quite good. BSA now offers the online certs to any person or group.

Texas Categorization

Personally, other than the organization being based in Texas and in the Dallas area, do you guys think the BSA article should have been categorized in those categories? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi ZScout - I added those categories. My rational is two-fold:
  1. One of the benefits of the Wiki system in general is to provide cross-references between things that are related to each other, so that people will be able to follow an interesting voyage of discovery.
  2. More specifically, I think this particular categorization makes a lot of sense. From the perspective of the Dallas Fort-Worth area, the presence of BSA headquarters is a tremendous influence on the region. Therefore, the categorization is very useful to people learning about the Dallas Fort-Worth area.
• Please note by way of analogy that there is a whole sub-sub-category just for companies based in the Dallas Fort-Worth area. Since the BSA is not a company, these were the most appropriate categories to make the connection between the BSA and the area. Johntex 17:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would disagree, the BSA is a company, esp when you are in reference to the national office. the bsa is not-for-profit but has employees and pays salaries, its a company in the biz sense and definatly one in the "a group of people" sense. I would say to list it under Category:Companies based in Texas rather than just Category:Texas because the latter is confusing to have it sitting next to the article on the texas politics or cities. Cavebear42 21:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

pinewood derby

Isn't pinewood derby primarily a Cub Scout (as opposed to a Boy Scout) activity? If I'm right (which I am, unless my Cub Scout Pack and my Boy Scout Troop both did things wrong), it should be mentioned in the Cub Scout article rather than here. --Myles Long 21:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. I have moved it. Thanks. Grika 00:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

James E. West

The James E. West linked from this page is a different person. That link goes to the mayor of Spokane, Washington, who was not alive in 1911. I'm not sure what to change the link to, though. Mr2001 06:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

But, oddly enough, the politician was also a Scout leader. I've disambigged it. --Smack (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Problem

Hey guys, the Boy Scouts announced that four leaders from Alaska were killed at the National Jamboree today. See http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050726/ap_on_re_us/jamboree_deaths Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

List of alumni

I think that we should not have a general list of former Scouts. Out of (I'd guess) two to three hundred million boys who have grown up in the United States in the past one hundred years, one hundred million were Scouts at one time or another. Such a list threatens to immediately become egregiously long, and to contain very little useful information whatsoever. (The list of Eagle Scouts, though, we should keep). --Smack (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

UUA + Tolerance

The UUA has specified that they prefer "acceptance" to "tolerance." They believe that "tolerance" conveys a negative message, as in "oh, i can tolerate them." Therefore I changed this.Veritos 21:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Training

Hi guys (new to wiki) I haven't noticed anything on Timberline - JL Training. I'm interested in adding some stuff. akuankka 22:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I went through JLT, but what's Timberline? If you want to add something about that, go ahead. I don't really know what section it belongs in. Just pick one. --Smack (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

NYLT (National Youth Leadership Training) is the new program that replaced JLT and is in line with Wood Badge 21. It appears that some councils or districts are calling it Timberline NYLT or Brownsea NYLT.

BSA training really would deserve a separate article. Between the different divisons (Cubs, Scouts, Venturing) and youth/adult, the training program is huge. --Gadget850 14:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Insignia

Someone (it is not obvious to me from a quick scan of the page history who or when) added this insignia with the caption "most frequently used insignia of the BSA". Looking at the associated upload history for that image, its source is some random website not even affiliated with the BSA. No claim is made as to what the copyright status is, which is problematic. I am not familiar with this insignia. I don't think this is really the most frequently used insignia, is it? Can someone provide a reference for that? Can anyone come up with a better caption? Johntex\^talk 01:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I was looking also looking at that. The rank images are problematic as well. BSA does have an online guide for the use of symbols [1]. The image in question here is "On My Honor, Timeless Values" [2] and is the current BSA "Strategic Plan identity" image- it has been in use for several years now. While it is used in a lot of publications, I would not say it is most common. "Current BSA identity emblem" would be a better description.

I do think we need to clean up the images and tags on most of the BSA articles. As far as I can tell, BSA allows usage as long as it complies with their copyright and trademark protection [3]. As best I can tell, the appropriate image tag would be logo.

Frankly, I would prefer to use the offical images and tag them as logos attributing the proper copyright and trademark. --Gadget850 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

J.Steinbock added this picture and I moved it down further in the article and restored the original color BSA logo to the top. I disagree with the caption - although attractive - this is not the most frequently used insignia. We should find out the copyright status of this logo. The original color logo is unlikely to have copyright problems since it has been around for so long it would be in the public domain, and the use of a trademark to properly describe the product or service trademarked doesn't violate any laws. Trödel|talk 11:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Trödel- looks like we replied at the same time. None of the images in question are PD, and are protected by congressional charter as well as trademark and copyright. See above. --Gadget850 12:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The new caption is much better. The image is in danger of being deleted, since it does not have a proper copyright tag. Frankly, I would just as soon see that, and reload it from the official source with the proper name and attribution. Of course, this is if we decide that it is relevant to the article. I'm a bit ambivalent on that, any other thoughts? --Gadget850 00:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I don't feel strongly about it, but I lean towards including it if has been used widely in the last few years. I agree that it would be preferable to let this one get deleted and reload it from the official source with a proper name and attribution. Johntex\^talk 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and redid it properly. Now, what about the Boyce image? --Gadget850 10:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem with the Boyce image? Johntex\^talk 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:

See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Faith based

Faith (a scout is reverent) is only a part of scouting, thus to note in the lead-in that it is "faith based" is rather misleading. See the creeds section for a full list of "what scouting is about". Scouting does not recognize any particular denomination or brand of faith as "official", thus it does not typify a faith based organizaion. I know that as a member of the BSA, I do have a POV here, but I do not see that non-scouts see the BSA as a orginization that is primarily religious in nature. --Gadget850 23:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

True. In my experience, one could get very far without any faith at all. I had to indicate a religious preference on my application form, but that was practically the last I heard about it until I went for Eagle. However, troops vary widely; in Texas they may do things differently. --Smack (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)