Jump to content

Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10


Remove Category:Canoe organizations

GhostInTheMachine recently removed Category:Canoe organizations from the article but their edit was reverted by North8000. I would like to express my support for removing the category. It consist of governing bodies and organisations devoted primarily to canoeing and kayaking. Whilst Boy Scouts of America may organise lots of canoeing activities this is by no means their primary function. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess it boils down to criteria... "amount of presence" in that field vs. "devoted primarily to canoeing and kayaking". BSA has put millions of people into a canoe for the first time in their life, trained millions of people how to canoe, operates hundreds of facilities which train on and offer canoeing (including a national canoe base, plus a few more that serve national rather than local canoeists), has been doing such steadily for least 60 years, probably closer to 100 years. In short, their presence in canoeing dwarfs that of the others in that category. But due to their size and scope, canoeing is only a small fraction of what they do, and so they are not an organization devoted primarily to canoeing and kayaking. So I'm not sure how this should end up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
The criteria is the promotion/administration of the sport. BSoA may do lots of canoeing, but it was not created explicitly to promote canoeing. The American Canoe Association does that for America. --GhostInTheMachine (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Exploring??

I'm very curious as to why Exploring, the "senior" program in Scouting for over 75 years, is/was not mentioned in the Traditional Membershiop section. Venturing aparrently replaced it, and "career Exploring" is obviously gone..but it was Exploring that was the First of the BSA programs to go Co-Ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.53.205 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Exploring still exists. Since most career oriented Explorer posts (fire, rescue, law enforcement) were government supported, and the BSA has a religious requirement, the BSA was running into lawsuits. In 1998, Exploring wass split- the career programs stayed Exploring and moved to the non-Scouting Learning for Life program. The high adventure posts became Venturing. --  Gadget850 talk 02:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

patriotism and individualism

from the article "....there were concerns among some people that young men were no longer learning patriotism and individualism." Patriotism and individualism strike me as contradictory. May be self-reliance is meant instead of individualism? Andries (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What is contradictory? --  Gadget850 talk 17:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Patriotism and individualism. Andries (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There may be special cases where those conflict but I see no inherent conflict between those. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Were come of these refs in the Scout Hand Book?--Oxforduniversity1 (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Point out indoctrination/militaristic aspect of Boy Scouts in the first or secondd paragraph

The article reads like "America f***k yeah, we're the best". It should point out that with all the good family / religious stuff it is also simple and blatant indoctrination of children and youth in a military manner (as has been done in the late roman legions or Nazi youth camps). See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?hp&_r=0 for a very obvious example.

It is not sufficient to hide this fact somewhere just because you personally don't agree - it has to be listed in the very top as indoctrination is the main function of such an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.98.58.181 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You added (insertion underlined):

The BSA's goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship, character development, and self-reliance through participation in a wide range of outdoor activities, educational programs, and, at older age levels, career-oriented programs in partnership with community organizations and militaristic indoctrination.

With a reference of: "Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More". New York Times. Retrieved January 2, 2015.
Please explain how you inferred "militaristic indoctrination" and applied it to the entire BSA from that one article. --  Gadget850 talk 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous. Explorers is affiliated with Boy Scouts, but isn't Boy Scouts...and even if it was, this is a single example. I participated in one Explorers trip 20 years ago, and it was camping, bike riding, horseback riding, rock climbing, canoeing... I was a fan of it being coed. --Onorem (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

This one does not work. It needs looking at by someone who knows what the references is about. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Link leads to unarchiveable page ("Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt."). Will re-mark as dead link. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All links work and seem useful. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Location of outdoor

Re: "In order to further these outdoor activities, the BSA has four high-adventure bases that operate in Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Manitoba, and Ontario."

Should this be changed to say 4 in United States of America & 2 in Canada?

Thanks!! Alandjeffagain (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, that is a confusing sentence, but the BSA only has four bases: Philmont, Northern Tier, Seabase, and the Summit. Northern Tier happens to be in Minnesota, Manitoba, and Ontario which is where the confusion is coming from. I changed it to read "In order to further these outdoor activities, the BSA has four high-adventure bases: Northern Tier (Minnesota, Manitoba, and Ontario), Philmont Scout Ranch (New Mexico), Sea Base (Florida), and Summit Bechtel Reserve (West Virginia)." Deflagro Contribs/Talk 18:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Does anybody know how much money the mormans have contributed to the Boy Scouts?

to answer, click edit.74.221.154.43 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC) 74.221.154.43 (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

First it is Mormons and second this would be impossible to know given that one isn't required to state one's religion when donating (or to answer the literal question you asked no). In addition talk pages aren't for asking questions about the topic but rather for improving the article; you might have better luck asking on a site dedicated to asking questions. --Erp (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Honorary President?

Should Trump be added as honorary president of the BSA to the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlitherySentinel (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's important enough to add Honorary President. It's mentioned further down in the article that the US President has served as the Honorary President since 1910. Several other organizations do this as well. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 15:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

atheists and scouting

I note there have been recent changes by Ctlemon83 (talk · contribs) stating that the belief that atheists and agnostics cannot join the BSA is a misconception. I also note that in the user's comments on a change in a different article he states "I am a Director of Exploring for the National Service Center" which could be a potential conflict of interest. He references the existence of Buddhists and also the recent MOU with the UUA. However the MOU seems to cover only UUA units or possibly also those who are members of the UUA. It has also been historically true that the BSA has kicked out many avowed atheists and that atheists have been denigrated. For example a 2014 article in Scouting Magazine (https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/10/03/belief-in-god-scouting/). I think we need a discussion about how to handle this issue both here and in related articles such as Boy Scouts of America membership controversies --Erp (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I am the user referenced above. The Memorandum of Understanding between the BSA and the Unitarian Universalist Association does give authority to the local UU congregation in determining the spiritual welfare of participants and specifically states that neither the BSA nor the UUA can supercede that authority. The MOU also clearly identifies "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science" as acceptable.[1]
It is true that avowed atheists have been removed from Scouting historically however this MOU was signed in 2016 and is still not very well known. I agree that the MOU only covers participants in Unitarian Universalist congregations and I included that in the content I edited on the BSA Wikipedia page. It does not cover participants in units chartered by organizations other than Unitarian Universalist.
I am a Director of Exploring at the BSA/LFL National Service Center in Texas but I'm not sure why that would be a conflict of interest when editing content about the organization.Ctlemon83 (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.uua.org/children/scouting/memorandum-understanding
You might want to look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia has had trouble in the past with articles that look more like commercials so it likes editors to be up front and to avoid the appearance of conflict; however, you can be a valuable resource. There is also the question on how much to put here and how much to put on the Boy Scouts of America membership controversies articles; here should mostly be a quick summary with the details in the other article. I am aware of the MOU; I'm also aware that not all UUs are happy with it since UU scouts and scouters still have to sign that they agree with the Declaration of Religious Principle. It also seems to be still true that honest atheists whether humanist or UU (though not probably Buddhist or Jewish {there is no requirement to believe in God in the Jewish religious emblem programs}) will still be kicked out if found in non-UU units. By the way when you stated "as well as Earth-centered religions" does that mean followers of Earth-centered religions are not welcome elsewhere? I know that Covenant of the Goddess groups were denied permission to charter units and that the Hart and Crescent religious emblem was denied recognition in the 1990s. --Erp (talk) 06:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
ERP IMO the MOA should be stated as it is. Respectfully, IMO your "only in UU" statement is an unsourced derivation by yourself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you read the MOU? All the "resolves" are about "units chartered by congregations of the UUA" or "UUA member congregations" or the national organization ("UUA") which is understandable given that an MOU is an agreement between two groups. However extensive quoting really belongs in the controversy article. --Erp (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Name history

Today I read that the organization is changing its name so as to include girls. I seem to recall that there was a period in the 1980's or so during which the name was "Scouts of America". If the memory is correct, it would be worthwhile to have a little section on the history of the names of the organization.CountMacula (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The organization as a whole is not changing its name (at least yet.) They are only changing the name of a portion of the program, the portion for 11-18 year old kids. The overall organization is still going to go by the name Boy Scouts of America.Marauder40 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable assertion that recent decisions by the BSA are responsible for dwindling membership

Under Impact on American Life --> Financial problems: "Membership in the BSA has plummeted along with income as the program was opened to girls and transgender boys." That seems like a questionable assertion that has no reference. BSA membership has seen a steady decline over the past 40 years, obviously preceding the BSA's recent decisions to accept girls and trans boys by decades.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.243.28.55 (talk • contribs)

Well, I'm sure said a assertion is not entirely unfounded; after Boy Scouts spent decades as a bastion of male bonding as part of the tradition which has led to its common embrace, folks can't be terribly pleased. It's just a matter of finding a sound source to back the statement up. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to hasten to say that it's untrue; it just seems like no one's bothered to attempt to gather accurate data yet, though it seems like there's been enough time. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Membership had been declining for some decades probably for several reasons. First the general decline that a lot of older youth organizations faced (more youth organizations, parents preferring specialized ones, etc). Second the "god" issue which forced them to lose the public schools as chartering organizations in the late 1990s (which probably increased the clout of the religious charterers). Third the "gay" issue as discrimination against gays came to be seen as wrong by many. Then admitting gays which caused a lot of conservative Christians to jump ship even though they double downed on discrimination against atheists. They announced they would admit girls to Cubs and Scouts (Venturers or its predecessors have had girls since the 1980s) in 2017. 2017 showed an uptick in the number of youth in Scouts (though a decline in Cubs and a dramatic decline in Venturers). The figures for 2018 have not been published but this is the first year girls have allowed to be Cubs; I suspect the number of Cubs may go up. Girls won't be allowed to join Scouts until 2019 and then it will be only to separate girl-only troops though those troops can be linked to a boy-only troop but with two separate scout masters (this btw allows chartering organizations to choose to charter only a boys troop and keep girls out) (https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/familyscouting/pdf/Program-for-Older-Girl-Update-and-FAQ-3-5-18.pdf) Note the Mormons won't leave until the end of 2019 but members of their units make up about 20% of the membership (almost all if not all in Cubs and Scouts); a few may move to non-Mormon units. I think admitting girls is not a major reason for dwindling membership, but, we can't tell until the 2018 or even 2019 membership stats come out. --Erp (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I think enough people respected the males-only membership standard to have not pushed for the change themselves, and so I also believe that the number of cubs might not have gone up on the whole, but may have increased at the pack level due to a very hard sell. Yes, there are many factors contributing to the stated decline, and not all of them are new, but maybe this last is more potent than it's seen for. Someone must have maintenance effort to collect data on the changes resulting from the advent of female cubs over all this time. Data is collected more quickly and easily than ever before. How long has it been, three months? More than six? Again, it's simply a matter of the data not having been reported.

Actually, this gives way to a bigger and more important question: Is it possible to accurately compare any new membership data to that of decades past? It may not be. The entire crux of this whole thing is that boys are different than girls. We're not dealing with the same organization anymore. If the membership standards have now changed at such a deep level, the organization has changed dramatically. To be quite frank, to judge membership statistics going forward against those of the past would be like judging a woman's fit in men's clothing. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America membership controversies has some figures from annual reports though I would only trust the data from 1999 and on. Before that (a) the figures are estimates and (b) the program was differently structured (e.g., about that time Explorers which had been part of the central Scouting program got moved to the Learning for Life non-scouting side); there is also a glitch from the time a council or two were caught falsifying membership figures. December 31 is the the end of the year for the BSA and the next annual report should be out in a few months (it may be January). Note that it may take some time for councils to transfer membership dues and other information (e.g., number of chartering organizations) up to the national organization. As far as financial health I think boys and girls are paying the same membership fee so in that sense they are not different. I also suspect that the annual report will break down the numbers by sex. What is certain is that the assertion called questionable in the first paragraph of this section is indeed questionable at this time. We cannot make it in Wikipedia until a reliable source (not us) explicitly draws that conclusion. --Erp (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Heh. Money.

This isn't just about that. This is about people living out their lives as males or females, about society's ideas about what it means to be each, about what defines each, whether people see themselves as male or female and to a lesser extent, whether they are biologically or "officially" male or female. All of that has the potential to impact public opinion on this change, and membership numbers following on from that. As such, it seems especially unwise to treat any forthcoming statistical data the same as what came before.

Now that you mention it, it seems especially unlikely that quantitative statistics will provide sufficient insight into prospects for the organization's future, because that won't provide a platform for people to express their thoughts and feelings surrounding the change. Uncharted territory calls for a change of tactics, but nobody's going to collect the data. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

There are probably dozens of factors affecting membership in both directions. It's not for us to decide which ones to list as "causes" or implied causes. One narrower area worth searching......the LDS pullout will certainly have a big impact and it would be interesting to find sources on why they did that. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Dude, do you have to ask? It's because of the decision to admit girls. The Latter Day Saints are starting their own program because the former Boy Scouts organization is thought to not be manly enough anymore. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I tend to think that that is not correct. Mostly because that change is too new to have an effect. But either way, articles don't contain my and your opinions, they cover what sources say. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

In this digital age, people generally have the technology to react quickly, and the passionate do. That's why it's so important to quickly get accurate data on the subject so it can be reflected here. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I think there were signs that the LDS was going to pull out of the BSA before the admission of girls, but we have to wait for some reliable articles to show up. Anecdotally, the LDS troop in my area is planning to stay organized and find another chartered organization. --Eagleinflight (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The LDS pulled out of Varsity and Venturing in early 2017.[1] That was before the girls decision, but again we need articles. --Eagleinflight (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Weren't those programs coeducational for some time before the decision to add boys to the former Boy Scouting Program? The Latter Day Saints probably decided that the programing they could offer was stronger in their view and more helpful in preparing their for a lifetime of living out their beliefs. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You can rely on the social history of the Mormons instead of hard data or even recent stories and still come to a solid conclusion on this. The Mormons are a conservative group with separate programs of their own for boys and girls. It comes down to their routines and beliefs. They probably really like it that way and would have been freaked out by BSA's admission of girls. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The BSA allowed the LDS Church to modify the program. As I understand it, Cub Scouting is boys age 5 to 10, Boy Scouting is 11 to 14, Varsity for 14 to 18 and Venturing for boys 18 to 21. They never used any Scouting program for girls. I seem to recall that in early days they had their own program that merged into the BSA. --Eagleinflight (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about the Aaronic Preisthood and their program for young women. If they're devoted to building those programs, they aren't about to miss scouting as much as they otherwise might. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Boy Scouts - BSA

Wait a minute. The BSA program isn't just an offshoot of The Boy Scouts of America; the organization's Twitter page spoke of changing the name of the organization at large. Why was BSA split off from this and made into a separate article? Wouldn't it have made more sense to change the name of the Boy Scouts of America article instead and refer to the same as the former name of the organization? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we need a better source than that. BSA was not split off. There was always an article on the 11+ section, just as there is an article on Cubs. --[[U--Eagleinflight (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)ser:Bduke|Bduke]] (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, it came straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. One can't get a cue from a better authority than that, so I'd take the indication seriously. Logically, a conventionally accepted source like The organization's website or blog would have effectively said the same thing.

Ah, I think I get the idea now. The BSA page is the page formerly known as Boy Scouting, and the name change was only made on that level. Am I right? Still, the name change to the Twitter account and the tweets coming from it gave a strong impression that the name of the organization as a whole had changed, pretty much said so. Yeah. I would take another look at that and make adjustments accordingly quickly. I'm telling you, all these changes and the confusion stemming from them are having a deleterious effect on the quality of this article. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at the BSA home page. Scroll down and the program divisions are listed. Boy Scouting is now Scouts BSA. The organization name has not changed, only the program division.--Eagleinflight (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, okay, but it was very, very confusing for a long time, and the name attached to the Twitter handle still changed, in a way such as to imply that the name as the organization as a whole had changed. As such, it seems like the focus of the Twitter page has changed from representing the organization at large to representing the program for older kids. I'm pretty sure the Cubs have their own page. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've been been thinking... if none of the programs are just for boys anymore, why didn't they just change the name of the organization? I think BSA has an identity crisis. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

They didn't and that's all we need to know to edit articles. But the name still has a lot of recognition. Consider the BSA Eagle Scout v. GSUSA Gold Award. The GSUSA changed the name three times and ended up with a generic name, so even though it is harder to earn in some ways, Eagle Scout gets the cred. The BSA tried to rebrand as Scouting/USA in the 1970s, but that never took. --Eagleinflight (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The question is a good one and quite worth building upon, even if it doesn't have an immediate impact on the article. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a cursory thought, but the time to verify the Boy Scouts of America taking on the BSA acronym as its own was before the name change to the youth scouting program made the branding more vague. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"Boy Scouts" formerly had two different meanings in the organization. One is unchanged......the name of the overall organization is "Boy Scouts of America" abbreviated BSA. And THAT is the subject of this article. The second meaning was their main program for boys roughly 11-16 years old which was called "Boy Scouts", and they formerly did not allow girls in that program. Now the name of the program has been changed to Scouts BSA and they now allow girls in that program Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad of your last two edits; I started to say "When was the organization ever called Scouts of America?" As I've written, I've been able to grasp the official name changes, though I think it's just left things even weirder. It really seemed like they changed the name of the organization at large to "Scouts BSA"; at the time I heard girls were going to be admitted, the idea of what the "BS" stood for fed my imagination. Now I wonder why they Didn't change the name of the organization to Scouts America or something if none of the programs are just for males anymore. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"One of the largest"

The opening sentence currently says the BSA "is one of the largest Scouting organizations and youth organizations in the United States". Can we be more precise than that? The GSUSA seems to be about 20% smaller, so can't we say "the largest Scouting organization in the United States"? Are there any other youth organizations can rival it in size within the United States? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

4-H claims nearly 6 million. Note that the GSUSA and the BSA between them have exclusive use of "Scouting" in the US. Also when the Mormons leave that will drop the BSA by about 20%. --Erp (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
That's an assumption. When LDS leaves BSA, many members will simply move to another local troop. While it won't be 100% that move, it also won't be 0%. Buffs (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that it will go down in steps. First step is those already in who don't transfer, the second step is those who do aging out. After that probably the same % participation level as any other religion. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saints were running their troops differently, and they were allowed that through BSA. LDS kids may be accustomed to having their scouting experiences colored by those differences and may not want to join a traditionally-run troop. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Girl Scouts doesn't match up to them by measure of sheer size, Trail Life USA definitely doesn't, despite citing "evidence" that it's growing all the time, and Camp Fire definitely doesn't. Also, do the Girl Scouts use the GSUSA acronym? I don't see it used much. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about precision, we should look into getting accurate membership numbers for each organization we're analyzing, and Boy Scouts in particular. We've got to weigh a reported infux of girls against a reported loss of members. I mean, we've been talking about how changes in membership requirements have had on membership itself, so let's use proper data to ensure accuracy? Does this data exist yet? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I see how the numbers are included in the articles by using a template. The BSA annual reports are never released until the middle of the next year. The 2017 report is lacking in some details that currently used in articles.[2] I guess we will have to go with what we have. I'll see if I can do some updates without breaking anything. The Mormons will be dropping the BSA program at the end of this year, so the differences between girls coming in and boys leaving will be difficult to understand, unless the BSA reports show gender. --Eagleinflight (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Have there been any reports that the number of girls joining will be (or is already) large? I'm personally skeptical of that notion. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, there isn't any official statistical data out yet, but there's an astonishing amount of press on girl members and troops getting involved already. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If the data won't be there for a while, I would hold off on changing anything until a complete data set accounting for all the major shifts in membership is provided. Whatever data already exists won't provide an accurate impression over how membership has changed over the past several years, simply because there has never before been data accounting for the presence of girls. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the articles are now using 2013 numbers, so they do need updates. Venturing took a hit from 142K (2016) to 88K (2017) and Boy/Varsity Scouting is down from from 840K to 834K. Probably from LDS dropping Venturing and Varsity as of January 1, 2018. --Eagleinflight (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem that new data is needed, but in addition to what I've already said, it would be irresponsible to input new data on the membership numbers without accounting for the girls. We can't hope for data to be current or accurate if it doesn't factor them in. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And to answer your original question, yes the BSA is the largest Scouting organization. Looks like 4-H is larger at 6M (edit: updated number, article is out of date). --Eagleinflight (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems that the BSA is allowing partial year chartering for LDS units in 2019 and that December 31, 2019 is a hard cut-off for all LDS units (e.g., a unit that would normally recharter in October 2019 will have the current charter extended to the end of 2019 http://www.utahscouts.org/document/rechartering-packet-2019/185231). This means the 2019 annual report (comes out around May 2020) will contain both LDS and the new girl members (count is taken for December 31). The 2020 report will be the first without the LDS units and many of the LDS members and will come out probably around May 2021. Note the BSA is also the third largest scouting organization in the world after Indonesia and India (https://www.scout.org/node/9767; I don't think any WAGGGS only groups come close) which may be worth stating --Erp (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So until we get hard, reliable data, we wait. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

We do what we do every year. Wait for the annual report and update the figures (this is more true in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies where there is a table). --Erp (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay... Tyrekecorrea (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I heard that LDS units were still chartered "on paper" for 2019. And the girls-in-boy scouts seems to have gotten a fast start. So my guess is 2019 numbers will look pretty good. I think that 2020 is when there will be a big drop due to LDS leaving. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. I was just on the LDS youth trying to find information on sanctioned emblems for Mormon Girl Scouts; there aren't any. They just have their own program for nurtiring young women, and it has nothing to do with Girl Scouts. In fact, the Mormon church already in the middle of a youth program overhaul, and they're pushing it pretty hard.

I also doubt the "girls in Boy Scouts" number very much. All I've seen are isolated local news stories on the subject, and they seem to make the shift appear bigger than it's been. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased both the lead and included it in the body + provided multiple references. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Re-Push for FA

If anyone is interested, I think that this article should probably be re-pushed for FA status. A lot of the work has already been done. The article just needs a lot of cleanup. In my quick glance at it, I'm seeing a LOT of passive sentences, excess detail, some dubious claims, and sources that could be drastically improved/bolstered. If anyone is interested, I could use some help. I'm going to work on it in my spare time in May. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on each section + where I'm starting so we don't overlap efforts:
  • 0. Lead - probably should do this last. IMHO, we should build up the rest of the article to the point that references in the lead are completely unnecessary. Nothing in the Lead shouldn't already be mentioned in greater detail later on.
  • 1. Origins - could use a better focus on American expansion
  • 2. Membership - haven't reviewed in-depth, but we NEED to keep the controversies section. I think it can be better summarized more than it is now.
  • 3. Program - probably too much detail; could use summarizing
  • 4. Organization - see #3
  • 5. Impact on American life - could use a slight boost. Probably could mention Follow Me, Boys!

Thoughts from anyone? Buffs (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm always ready to help make an article better, including this one. But as I mentioned elsewhere, having taken one article to FA and then article of the day, that aspect was a great experience but one which don't intend to repeat. That's just me. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
You don't want this to be article of the day? Why not? (by Tyrekecorrea)
I'd LOVE for it to be FA and also article of the day. But for me personally, I just want to help good build articles and less so working on those two processes and their criteria.North8000 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
What do you mean by "too much detail"? Just what are you looking to exclude here? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not looking to "exclude" anything. But I think we can be more concise. Buffs (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
About? Tyrekecorrea (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Just an example, but I don't think we need 6 paragraphs on local councils. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If you go overboard, we're going to end up eliminating important information. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to start with updating/increasing the breadth of sources. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Good ones, Buffs. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If we had to choose between FA and a good thorough informative article, I'd choose the latter. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The two should be synonymous. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
IMO there are times when the two goals conflict. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's make sure that's addressed. By definition, we're looking for a "good, thorough, [and] informative article". Where would there be a conflict? Buffs (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If the local councils section were able to be correct and current, than I think that the current amount of material is about right. But if it is becoming a "structure in every state is different" situation, then it becomes an impossible goal. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

References Re-org

Starting with the Lead, I moved all references into the body of the article. 100% of what is referenced in the lead is discussed and referenced in the body of the article. I think the next step should be to standardize the references so they utilize the "r template" system at the bottom of the page. This keeps the references EASILY stored for use elsewhere and unclutters the page from all the reference information. Thoughts? Buffs (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've gotten the lead and the first two major sections...3 to go. After that, I'll go through and alphabetize them and make sure we don't have duplicates. Lastly, we'll make sure all the sources still work + update them all to appropriate formatting. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The rest have been named and put at the bottom. Alphabetizing them is next. As you add sources, please add the proper naming convention! :-) Buffs (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Now alphabetized! Next step is to upgrade the references. Buffs (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep a straightforward referencing process. We need to make sure that mere mortals can still edit the article. If the reference method is too fancy / sophisticated where few editors know how to work it, we'll kill that process. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
We can always accept ref tags, but leave a note at the top how to include refs to omit clutter. If they get added, we just upgrade them just like every other FA: it requires a little maintenance. Buffs (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I won't be upset either way but wanted to say that. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Controversies in separate section?

How would everyone feel about moving the controversies to a dedicated section? I think it does a disservice to spread them out so much. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Membership controversies should be trimmed. Historical issues should be mentioned, including women as leaders, but details left to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. --Eagleinflight (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I also think it should be trimmed. It's important to cover, but it is overly detailed. We could take out about 30% by just removing the overly detailed portions. There is also an unsourced implied assertion that BSA generally banned gay youth. Follow the sources, but as I recall, the ban was limited to "avowed" and only those in leadership roles. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's stick to whatever the sources say. Buffs (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes. But that sentence has no sources.....just two dead links. My recollection which is contrary to the text is merely a reason to ask for sourcing. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Getting closer

I'm adding "citation needed" tags for sections that are undersourced. I've also removed several unsourced/spurious claims that are either self-serving or disparaging. Please keep an eye out for these.

Sections that still need work:

  • 0. Lead - Needs to be reviewed last, but is actually probably pretty accurate
  • 1. Origins - done, but could also have some more info if someone wants to add it.
  • 2. Membership - summarized/consolidated controversies section.
  • 3. Program - still needs better summarizing
  • 4. Organization - see #3
  • 5. Impact on American life - could use a slight boost. Probably could mention Follow Me, Boys!

Specific points that need citations:

  • Lone Scouting
  • Scouting for Food
  • Service to America

By my estimate, we're probably ~75% of the way there, if not closer. Help would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Atheists and scouting inconsistency

I’ve noticed an inconsistency among pages talking about the topic of atheists in the BSA:

Scouting says of BSA:

"Duty to God" is a principle of Scouting, though it is applied differently in various countries.[47][48] The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) take a strong position, excluding atheists.[49]

This article says:

It is a common belief that the BSA does prohibit members who are atheist and agnostic based on its "duty to God" principle and that members (adult and youth) agree with the Declaration of Religious Principle in the bylaws. However, the BSA has had Buddhist troops since 1920, and many Buddhists are atheists or agnostics.[39]

This seems to have been discussed previously in this talk page, too. ‘It is a common belief’ makes me ask ‘according to who?’ And the three sources listed on Scouting are absent here. [49] is even a link to an, admittedly old, 2006 quote from BSA, specifically saying atheists cannot be proper role models in the BSA. It’s absent here. And the Buddhist link ([39]) doesn’t mention atheists or agnostics, it seems like a bit of a non-sequitur, or a stretch/cop out. I think even if it doesn’t reflect the modern day BSA, which I’m not sure if it does or not, it should be mentioned here for prosperity. Honestly, in skimming through this article as an outsider to the topic, it seems a bit whitewashed and overly flattering to the BSA, to me.

Iokerapid (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The reality is that in recent years BSA has taken some big steps away from its earlier very conservative positions on a number of matters (God, girls, gays, etc.) I'm no expert on this area, but chances are it includes the atheism thing. The likelihood is that the BSA article is more up to date than the Scouting one. Do you feel like trying to remove the inconsistencies? HiLo48 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I’m new to this part of Wikipedia. When it comes to editing it, not at all, unfortunately, this is just something I encountered in surfing and have no expertise or strong interest in. I’m just an outside observer (non-American, no interest in scouting) that noticed something strange. I think, even if they have moved away from their old views, it’s still important to mention their roots on a page about them. Previously other editors have said just to mention it, then link to the dedicated Boy Scouts of America membership controversies page, which I think would be good, it’s just this page doesn’t seem to mention it at all. It was strange that all there is here is “There are some common beliefs about no atheists. They’re wrong because of buddhists in 1920. Buddhists = atheists. Moving on...” It honestly made me laugh, I thought, “that’s all on this topic? After the last page said no atheists so strongly?”
I don’t think the Scouting page reference to the BSA should really be wiped, either, because it references their own writings. But it has it’s own problems. Perhaps it should be reworded to mention that was a previous position they held. If this is true, and they’ve changed, it should be mentioned as something they’ve done rather than swept under the rug as something that never happened. I’m ranting.
Iokerapid (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Iokerapid:, I think you bring a valid point to the discussion here. Currently, the BSA has an agreement with the Unitarian Church which, among other things, effectively says that, under their beliefs, "Duty to God" can also be interpreted as duty to your faith. If your faith is in humanity, then that's where your "Duty to God" should apply. The same basic principles apply for Bhuddists. I completely concur that this should be incorporated into the article as well as more specific/less vague language on the topic. Could I ask you for some input as to how you think it could be better phrased? Buffs (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

My recollection is that (in my least in the last many decades) BSA has never "checked" on religion much less exclude based on which spiritual path one follows. The big (court) test case wasn't for one of those, it was for when a parent refused to sign the application because of some type of "duty to God" wording included. In short, atheists get in. Atheists with attitude who want to make a point out of it don't. And being lenient on letting pretty much any spiritual path count on making it official is part of that. That's my take on the de facto situation for at least the last many decades. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Atheists were also kicked out when found out and someone in the organization decided to kick up a fuss. The BSA in 2015/2016 increased the emphasis on Duty to God including now requiring at each scout master conference for rank advancement that the scout be asked to "tell how you have done your duty to God". There is no corresponding questions for the other duties. On the other hand there is the MOA with the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) which seems to imply that scouts in UUA chartered troops and probably UUA scouts in other troops could be atheists (similar to the situation for Buddhist and Jewish scouts who are atheist). I suspect there will be a test incident in the next few years. However the most we can do in this article is point out what is known however inconsistent and not try to infer (except via reliable secondary sources) what the BSA interpretation of these inconsistencies is. The quote from the article at the beginning of this discussion is, I think, an improper interpretation. --Erp (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
ERP, where did you get that "mandatory question" from? I did a lot of looking through the Scoutmaster conference materials and didn't see ANY mandatory questions, much less that one. And it was even weakly represented on the "idea list" of questions. They listed about 25 questions saying "you may want to use a FEW (I added caps) or all of these, and the closest one on the 25 was "How he defines concepts such as Scout spirit, being morally straight, and duty to God". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not not an American, so my views are as an outsider. The logic seems to me to be that the BSA wants to support all religions and therefore supports religions that are atheistic, but it does not support atheists who are not religious. Bduke (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Searching on the phrase I quoted will give several links but see https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2015/11/02/beginning-next-year-boy-scouts-will-discuss-duty-to-god-at-each-rank/ It has also been discussed at the Scouter Forum etc. --Erp (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a requirement but not a required question in the scoutmaster conference which is the area I researched. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on your question/source. The question is "Tell how you fulfilled your Duty to God?" The answer could legitimately be anything and it would satisfy the requirement. If you are atheistic, "I do not believe in a God. My faith is in humanity" is not only an acceptable answer, but an appropriate one from that point of view. As mentioned in the sources, the belief is in "a higher power" and it's up to the scout & their parent/guardian to determine what that is; no judgement is made as to what that faith should be. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
So it is a requirement to tell how one does Duty to God (note I also found it in the list of requirements for different Scout ranks, e.g., item 9 of the Tenderfoot requirements https://www.scouting.org/programs/scouts-bsa/advancement-and-awards/). Yes a boy (or now girl) could answer that he or she doesn't believe in God. I note that the same link includes a bit "What if, during a Scoutmaster conference or board of review, a Scout says that he does not believe in God?" The answer includes "A Scout’s declaration that he does not believe in God is grounds to deny rank advancement and could affect his continued membership in the troop." The long answer is talk to the kid's family with the implication of get them to put pressure on the kid. Note the blog is quoting the BSA FAQ on the topic though the link is now dead with last sighting in July 2017 (https://web.archive.org/web/20170709110522/http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/2016BoyScoutrequirementsFAQs.pdf). Further hunting found in the 2019 guide for advancement, section 5.0.5.0 "All that is required is the acknowledgment of belief in God as stated in the Declaration of Religious Principle and the Scout Oath, and the ability to be reverent as stated in the Scout Law." (https://www.scouting.org/resources/guide-to-advancement/special-considerations/) --Erp (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/05/31/bsa-reaffirms-duty-to-god-aspect-of-all-programs-through-resolution-adopted-at-2018-national-annual-meeting/ --Eagleinflight (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Erp:, that concept appears to be deprecated. See links above. If a current scout stated that, it is no longer the same standard. I also do not get "The long answer is talk to the kid's family with the implication of get them to put pressure on the kid" as the intended effect. The intent of that passage appears to intend to "have a discussion" and determine whether scouts is right for this individual AND to determine whether BSA is supporting them. If a scout wishes to actively oppose the Scout Oath (as opposed to just interpreting/worshipping in a different manner than others), then I think there would be valid reasons to remove membership (but also see declarations above regarding Bhuddism and the Unitarian Church). The general phrasing of the question and the given answer would be most appropriate to assess. Likewise, it isn't the role of leadership to question the child's interpretation/answer, but only to ensure they answer the question. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm an atheist who has been in BSA for 59 years with no issue or even any awkward moment. But if I picked up an attitude in Scouts and decided to make an issue out of it or "test" it, I would certainly hope that they kick me out, which they probably would do. North8000 (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There is indeed a difference between having a view/opinion and actively challenging others with your belief/opinion and in an inappropriate manner. Props to ya! Buffs (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! My intent was to more discuss the actual situation vs. the official statements / mechanisms made to preserve their legal options. IMO the former is a more accurate description of the state of affairs, even if very difficult to source. Thank you for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion guys, it’s very interesting to hear that about your context @North8000:, and it’s certainly the picture I was getting of the BSA from other people too. I was not under the impression it was a hardline stance, but I do think this is an existing misconception. I think it will be tough to discuss in the article, due to a lack of sources though. It’s tough!! Iokerapid (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I guess that there is one thing that simplifies it. BSA says what it's policies are and does so in writing, and also gives specific guidance on them in writing. And that is how they communicate them to the organization. By definition, what they communicate is what they are. Aside from the issue that Wp:reliable sources are often unreliable, there is no mandate to use any source which has it wrong. These communications tend to be more stringent than they are in real life in order to observe their legal options. This is less of a hot issue and less of a dichotomy than the gay one was. Aft6er all that we've read and heard, it appears that no youth was ever denied membership or kicked out for being gay. The big supreme court court test case was (going by memory) a 19 year old (in scouting, an adult) paid employee. North8000 (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ryan Andresen in the Mount Diablo Silverado Council was denied his Eagle because he was gay or because he was an atheist (the latter he denied) back in 2012/13. Also I think the BSA policy of considering gay kids (as opposed to adults) to be ineligible for membership was very short (from the time of Ryan Andresen which was the first time they announced they had such a policy to the public until the official lifting of the ban on gay youth in January 2014). --Erp (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed criticism regarding the bankruptcy.

Shouldn’t have been in the lead (certainly not in that detail. Mobile didn’t allow me to leave a note in the edit summary. Chapter 11 isn’t the same as Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Without that distinction, the information is misleading Buffs (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, it's been removed and the latter part rephrased. Obviously BSA has critics and their opinions should be included in an NPOV manner balanced with BSA's position. To be blunt, the lead should have nowhere near the detail that was introduced. The filing's criticism could also be better contained in the criticism section, but doesn't belong in the lead in that level of detail. Buffs (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated 2020 numbers?

Someone added an update for approximately 1.8 million members. I do not see that number supported anywhere. If you have a source, I'd love to see it! But the 2017 numbers are the only available numbers at this time. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we need to used reliably sourced data. As a sidebar, a reduction is plausible due to the LDS removing it from their program. North8000 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Except I'm not sure the LDS numbers will show up until next year. The LDS paid for its members through to Dec. 31. It will depend on whether the BSA decides to do the count on Dec. 31 or Jan. 1. --Erp (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't care what the number is. Let's just get a source. Moreover, many of the scouts simply transferred, so there might not be so much loss. I know they had a record year with Eagle Scouts. Buffs (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. I think we were just having a sidebar conversation. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of national organization / bankruptcy

The last sentence of the lead reads as follows:

On February 18, 2020, the National BSA filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection due to sex-abuse lawsuits; scouting continued as only the national organization filed for bankruptcy, not the local councils/units.

This seems to imply that if the local councils had filed for bankruptcy, they would no longer exist, or that the national organization no longer exists because it filed for bankruptcy. Neither of these are accurate, so this needs to be stated without suggesting that a bankruptcy of an organization ends the organization. Any suggestions? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 03:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Rephrased to paraphrase what was in the body of the article without expanding upon what isn't. The lead doesn't generally include the details. Buffs (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Regions and areas

... are now replaced by territories.

The BSA reorganization will be replacing four regions and 27 areas with 16 national service territories. This is planned to take effect on June 1st immediately after the National Annual Meeting.

[3] --EagleInFlight2 (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun in article for transgender scout at the time of rejection

Originally rejected from an all-male program of BSA on the basis of being a biological / birth certificate female, the article used the gender-neutral pronoun "they" when referring to them during the rejection. I've been reverting a couple of edits where someone changed it from "they" to "he", me changing it back to "they", as being the neutral choice on the point of contention at the time. I self reverted my last revert based on the given source using "he" and also this not being on my worry list. If anyone feels that it should use the gender-neutral "they", suggest discussing it here. I'm basically neutral on the question. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Magazine

The BSA has a magazine called "Boy's Life". There is controversy about if it should be called scouts life. Nobodywillkn (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It is now Scout Life. EagleInFlight2 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of traditional

I've stricken or substituted several usages of traditional applied to Scout classes. A tradition is a custom like having turkey at Thanksgiving or rooting for a preferred sports team; we can regard it (however beloved it may be by its practitioners) as a strictly social practice, not one codified in rules or laws or having any practical utility beyond that of group communion. Traditional is often misused in place of conventional and historical. Scientists use the SI metric system by convention (so that they are all working with the same practically useful system), not by tradition. Latin used to be, and English is now, not the traditional but the conventional common language of scientific communication. Boy Scout membership was historically, not traditionally, restricted to boys. I hope that other editors agree with these distinctions. Chenopodiaceous (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts but....A mixed bag of 18 changes (many substantive) in one edit in the top level article is problematic....I reverted and asked that they be split up. On the topic of your post, there is another meaning of traditional which it utilized......referring to long-standing programs (vs. newer ones) . Replacing that with "standard" necessarily means that the newer programs new "non-standrd", an unsourcable incorrect statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have followed your request in limiting my main edit only to the word "traditional". As to your assertion of "another meaning", I don't find your other definition in my MW, although I agree with you that the word is often [too often for precise communication, dammit!] used in that sense. References to "traditional" Scouting programs don't suggest any formal establishment of these programs and in trying to work out what the author meant, I have suggested "original" in one usage and "regular" in some others, to retain the vagueness while eliminating the problematic use of "tradition" for what is not a tradition but a historically established practice. In some cases the word may be eliminated completely. I have left it in two places, one in a direct quote and another in a reference to Indian "traditions", though I suspect the author of that reference was thinking of practices and not traditions.

The other edits made in the "mixed bag" seem much less controversial and I have restored them in a separate edit. Chenopodiaceous (talk)

The article needs to explain traditional Scouting: the programs based on Scouting principles such as the Scout Oath and Scout Law (Cubs Scouts, Scouts BSA, Venturing, Sea Scouts.) Learning for Life and Exploring are not traditional Scouting. Not sure of STEM Scouts. EagleInFlight2 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
STEM scouts is apparently still a pilot program but it does use the Scout oath and law according to the web site so would fall under traditional. However as a pilot program it should be kept a bit separate. --Erp (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The use of "Original programs" is problematic. None of the listed programs existed with the creation of the BSA. I suggest removing the two subheadings, add text to explain the traditional Scouting programs and move the non-Scouting explanation of Learning for Life to the start of that bit. EagleInFlight2 (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Another option is to use "standard scouting programs". I guess part is where we want to put the dividing line. If between the programs that use the oath/law and want groups like STEM Scouts to be in it, then "standard scouting programs" might be better. If between the older programs and newer than "traditional programs", I note that BSA uses "traditional scouting programs" fairly often so for that reason it might be preferred. In either case a definition is needed. --Erp (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that "traditional" is best. I think that the relevant common meaning is "the programs that have existed for a very long time". North8000 (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a stab here:

The BSA offers two sets of programs. Members of the traditional Scouting programs must abide by the Scout Oath, Scout Law, and the Declaration of Religious Principle (DRP.) Traditional Scouting is offered as:

  • Cub Scouting for youth from kindergarten through fifth grade.
  • Scouts BSA (formerly Boy Scouts) for youth ages 11 to 18; 10-year-olds can join if they have completed fifth grade or if they have earned the Arrow of Light award.
  • Venturing for ages 14 to 21.
  • Sea Scouting is the nautical program for ages 14 to 21.
  • STEM Scouts for youth in grades three through twelve that focuses on STEM learning and career development.
  • Lone Scouting for Cub Scouts or Scouts BSA who cannot join a unit.
  • The Order of the Arrow is the Scouting national honor society for Scouts BSA, Venturing, and Sea Scouting.

Learning for Life is a subsidiary of the BSA that does not use the traditional Scouting principles. It consists of two programs:

  • Learning for Life utilizes programs designed for schools and community-based organizations that are designed to prepare youth for the complexities of contemporary society and to enhance their self-confidence, motivation, and self-esteem.
  • Exploring is the worksite-based program based on five areas of emphasis: career opportunities, life skills, citizenship, character education, and leadership experience.

EagleInFlight2 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent info for the article (although I'd argue against OA being on the list; it's not a program in the same sense that the others are). But sort of a different topic than removal all of the instances of "traditional" North8000 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's get unconfused on the main names

The recent edits that introduced about 10 errors (plus other previous ones) highlight that it would be good to clarify the main names.

  • The name for the ORGANIZATION was and is "Boy Scouts of America", often officially abbreviated as "BSA" Some might casually call it "the Boy Scouts". So, there is NO CHANGE to the name of the overall ORGANIZATION.
  • Until a few years ago the name of BSA's flagship program (the one centric on the approx 11-14 year old age range) was also "Boy Scouts" and the youth in the program were commonly called "Boy Scouts", just as the youth in BSA's younger Cub Scout program were/are called "Cub Scouts". And, until a few years ago, BSA did not allow girls to join these two particular programs. When they started allowing girls to join these programs, they renamed the "Boy Scouts" PROGRAM to "Scouts BSA". And they no longer call the kids in this program "Boy Scouts" because many of them are girls.

So, recapping, the name of that one PROGRAM changed, the name of the OVERALL ORGANIZATION did NOT change.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Undue contents

@North8000:, I reverted your reversion. I apologize if the original edit summary was inadequate. I provided a more thorough edit summary this time. Per MOS:PQ, pull quotes have no place anywhere in Wikipedia articles as they cause emphasis and violate WP:NPOV. Beyond this, the contents that were in those quotes are from primary sources, so the decision to feature them appear to originate in the editorial discretion of the Wikipedia editor who originally placed it. WP:MISSION explains the general idea why the type of contents I just removed shouldn't be in article. Also, Drmies mentioned you have a COI with BSA. Can you explain? Graywalls (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Being a human, somebody could say that I have a COI in any article that is about humans. But I write objectively about them with only article quality, informativeness and neutrality. Similarly regarding about 100 other groups and things that I am a subset of. So that isn't saying much. I think that Drmies needs to explain why they are throwing that term around about me and you need to explain why you are repeating it. North8000 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
For the record the quotes in question are
  • an excerpt from the United States Code chartering the BSA
  • Scout oath
  • Scout law
The latter two are significant for the article especially given that many people even those not involved in scouting are familiar with them or their variants in other scouting organizations. Having the exact wording in the article is I think necessary especially given some people may be familiar with other variants or want to check. Note also there are whole articles on Scout Promise (the BSA being somewhat unusual in using 'oath' rather than 'promise') and Scout Law as they arose and how they vary among different scouting organizations. The first, which is more debatable about including, is of a different nature but note it is not a quote from the organization itself but actual US law code. Erp (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I believe though, picking and choosing which to include and emphasize from primary source by Wikipedia editors is a NPOV concern as the emphasis was not that of a reliable secondary source. I've deferred the matter over to NPOV/N. Graywalls (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the appropriate place to start the discussion. So as to follow up to @Graywalls comment over in NPOV/N.
First of all these aren't pull quotes as defined in MOS:PQ; they are not reuse of stuff already in the body. However, I agree the formatting style might not be the best choice. Second as for content the scout promise and laws are quite central to what a scouting organization is and so belong in entries about a scouting organization; they are infobox level of importance for these organizations. Familiarity with them is expected for anyone, both critics and supporters, claiming to know anything about the organization; this is why those two items belong in the article. As an example of familiarity, Mechling, Jay (2001). On my honor: Boy Scouts and the making of American youth. Chicago ; London: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-51704-9. uses the beginning of the oath as part of the title of a book about the BSA (and it isn't the only book doing that). "Duty to God" in the oath and "reverent" in the law has been used to deny atheists admission or expel them if found out (this gets covered in detail in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies). Erp (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I am discussing it there, because this concerns due weight and I would like input from those beyond the regulars and watchers of this article. To the best of my undertanding, it is by intent pull quote, which is "In graphic design, a pull quote (also known as a lift-out pull quote) is a key phrase, quotation, or excerpt that has been pulled from an article and used as a page layout graphic element, serving to entice readers into the article or to highlight a key topic." (from pull quote and that is the intent of putting into boxes like it is in the article. What is the definition of it per Wikipedia protocol? Graywalls (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Similar but note "is a key phrase, quotation, or excerpt that has been pulled from an article" means it has to be a repeat of something in the article. The guideline MOS:PQ states "'pulling' material already in the article to reuse it in attention-grabbing decorative quotations" (emphasis added) again has the repeat nature. This is not true of the three quotes you deleted; they only exist in the set apart areas. As for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, the intro states "Before posting here…. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page".
Since you oppose both the layout and the actual text (i.e., including oath/promise and law), this also possibly affects all the other scouting organization articles including them such as Girl_Scouts_of_the_USA#Promise,_Law,_Motto,_and_Slogan or The_Scout_Association#Promise_and_law or even scouting like organizations such as American Heritage Girls. This is a major change to not include promise/oath and law by default. Is this your desire?
I will note that I don't like the use of the BSA oath as a method of enforcing narrow conformity (many other scouting organizations allow alternative versions for those for whom 'duty to God' doesn't fit their beliefs), yet, I consider including it and the BSA law as necessary neutral description for this article. Erp (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Erp:, it's not a "formatting" issue. Regardless of it being repetition or not, just as your bolding is intended to emphasize and highlight certain things, accentuating certain things over other is putting emphasis on certain things based on Wikipedia editors' editorial discretion and that is a NPOV issue. So, I believe the issue is appropriate to be discussed over there.
The American Heritage Girls article has its own share of problems and pretty clear sign of potential advocacy editing as evident from this and other single purpose accounts. Here's a highly problematic edit. "from an insider view" absolutely is not the kind of contents that should be on Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
"Pull quotes" are by definition repeats which these are not. So an issue is that you don't want the oath/promise and law to be included in set aside boxes. Would including them in an infobox like structure that is standard across scouting and scouting like organizations be ok? Or should they be merged into the body of the article much like The Scout Association entry? Or are you opposed to including them at all? Note these are texts that members are expected to memorize and internalize; they are more on the order of the Nicene Creed (except shorter) than the usual pablum 'mission statement'.
ps. I agree the American Heritage Girls article is a mess. It was the first scouting like as opposed to scouting org I thought of. Erp (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

One is US Federal law regarding the organization. The other two are core objectives and methods of the organization....certainly core material for the article. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America/Archive_10&oldid=1230389997"