Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

For perspective on weight / inclusion discussions

This is the top level article on an organization whose scope includes 110 million members over 100+ years, and all of an immense range of material, topics and aspects within that covered by millions of coverages in RS's. For examples even huge topics (such as Jamborees, each with tens of thousands of participants and thousands of coverages in RS's) are left out due to the broad scale of this top level article. And even for top-level topics covered here, 95% of the coverage needs to be in one of the immense amount of more specialized in-depth "sub-articles" which this has and which are linked in it. This has to be kept in mind in any discussion about what is due/undue weight here. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For those unclear the particular subject is sex abuse convictions and accusations, measures taken (including history), and allegations of coverup within the BSA. I note the person in favor of inclusion has set up a separate article Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse which seems appropriate though no link yet to it in this article that I can see. This has been a topic very much in recent news so has to be covered somewhat in the main article the only question is how much. --Erp (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a duplication of an existing article. (?) North8000 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse redirects to Scouting sex abuse cases, but the Boy Scouts of America#Sex abuse cases section already lists Scouting sex abuse cases#United States as a main article for it along with Youth Protection program (Boy Scouts of America). I think that the 'The Charleston Gazette' piece as referenced in the latest revision is too specific for a summary section like this. That information, and more along the same line, should really be added into the Scouting sex abuse cases#United States section. However, some of the information such as criticism of Youth Protection, alleged cover-ups, and post 1985 files deserve about a line each in this section, but they really need inclusion and further expansion in Scouting sex abuse cases#United States and Youth Protection program (Boy Scouts of America). It doesn't make much sense to mention something in the summary section here and then have it completely absent in the main articles on the subject. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following a few items. I don't understand the "but" and "already" in the first sentence. Also where is the referred-to Charleston Gazette item? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad. I wrote that first line as I was thinking and kept adding stuff to it. Attempted restate: The Boy Scouts of America#Sex abuse cases section lists Scouting sex abuse cases#United States and Youth Protection program (Boy Scouts of America) as further information articles for that topic. The Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse article Erp mentioned is currently a redirect to Scouting sex abuse cases. For the moment, Scouting sex abuse cases#United States seems a better place than Boy Scouts of America and sex abuse. The Charleston Gazette reference - http://wvgazette.com/News/201210190179 - was used for a sentence on a specific case in Louisiana at one point in the editing. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone undid the redirect at that new article. I wrote at the new one that if it survives it would certainly need to get renamed. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In light of explanation, the Scouting sex abuse article already had way too much weight given just to the BSA, so that if a naive reader made a comparison, it would seem the US has a far worse problem than other nations. And obviously, we don't want this info to take over the main BSA article, as that would be UNDUE to. So summarize here, and put the rest in the BSA-specific sub-article. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been doing massive changes first and then talking afterwards. When I brought up the naming problem you immediately created yet another new article with yet another bad name. And also gutted the established article. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, a classic attempt at a POVFORK. I put a CSD A10 on the duplicate article, but that got pulled when somebody (correctly) tried to make it a redirect, so now there's a regular AfD on it. I expect the result to be "merge". ► Belchfire-TALK 01:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A tad more assumption of good faith is in order-- additions here were reverted as UNDUE, fair enough, a valid concern-- it's the top level article after all. Meanwhile, I can see with my own eyes that the non-bsa-specific sex abuse page is already UNDUE, making it look like the BSA has more problems than the rest of the world scouting combined. And when someone objected and recommended a better name, I changed it.

I know you may feel a bit 'under siege' here, but stop and ask yourself if a BSA subarticle is really the wrong place to discuss all this. Both the alternatives make the scouts look worse, not better. --HectorMoffet (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are making massive hour-by-hour changes at the level of creating, renaming and gutting articles that then "discussing" it AFTER you have done it. It is a matter of that beyond-the-pale behavior which is the the issue, which precludes any real discussion of the issues and questions that that you are alluding to. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

BSA

Stephenson himself has said that's what he will do as board president. It's not a violation of CRYSTAL to report that fact. --AmherstApple (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been watching the debate (in edit summaries) and I am ambivalent on the proposed addition. On one hand, there are more solid reasons than wp:Chrystal to leave it out. The most likely is wp:undue. In an article about an organization that has had 110 million members and a history of over 100 years, with millions of coverages in reliable sources, material about what one guy who is likely to become president of the board said what he plans to do in the future seems very wp:undue. And further expansion of this section which is probably at it's wp:undue limits is not appropriate. Weighing in on the opposite side, this an already-very-prominent person who (if the statement is right) is going to be among the most prominent in BSA stating what he is going to push for on a major change on a notable issue, and it is a very short entry. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with including the Stephenson mention, but I tend to agree we need to source/qualify the "poised to become president" clause. Certainly mention that one of the top candidates for the position advocates such a major change, don't report the results of elections before they occur as a fact. Perhaps:

AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson, who the Washington Post describes as "poised to become the president of the BSA's national board", has said publicly he will use the position to end the ban on openly gay Scouts.

--HectorMoffet (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Better, but I'd go a bit more with it.

AT&T CEO Randall L. Stephenson, who the Washington Post describes as "poised to become the president of the BSA's national board", has said publicly that he (is committed to ending) (will use the position to try to end) the ban on openly gay Scouts.

I guess I don't know exactly how it works for the scouts, but I don't think he automatically gets to make every change he wants. Given the 2 available sources, it seems like there are only 2 people willing to go on record as being for the change. That might change when the (maybe) new president starts pushing for it...but who knows? --Onorem♠Dil 12:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere in the sources does Stephenson directly say that 'he will use the position [of Board President] to end the ban on openly gay Scouts'. As currently worded, I believe the disputed statement should be removed. However, the information from the references can be worked into the article. Turley and Stephenson are members of the National Exec Board. They both oppose the policy. They are working within the Board to end the policy. Stephenson, current Vice President of Finance and 2013 Jamboree Chair and former 100th Anniversary Chair, takes over as Board President in 2014. I don't like the blog post as a reference for that last point, but it is also mentioned in this [1] news article, and looking at his previous positions it personally seems like a definitive route towards President. My two cents. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There was one account (Amherstapple) and one IP putting this in. The account has been indeffed (and another IP blocked) as socks of Sonic2030. The other IP is wiki-saavy yet only has 8 lifetime edits, all but one of which are insertions of the Stephenson material in various places. The whole article is totally locked over an insertion warring in by those two accounts. Belchfire received a 1 week block for their two reverts to the long-standing version. I'm neutral on whether this material stays or goes as long as whatever goes in is short and sourced. (anything longer should be at the membership controversies article.) Lets just get this decided. Anybody have a specific proposal? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed backend of Boy_Scouts_of_America#Membership_controversies subsection:

At the Scouts annual meeting in April 2012, a leader from the Northeast presented a resolution that "would allow individual units to accept gays as adult leaders". However in July 2012, at the culmination of a review started in 2010, an 11 person committee convened by the BSA reached a "unanimous consensus" recommending retaining the current policy. Intel, UPS, and Merck cut financial ties with the BSA over the policy decision. Within the BSA National Executive Board, members James Turley, CEO of Ernst & Young, and Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, have publicly opposed the policy and stated their intention "to work from within the BSA Board to actively encourage dialogue and sustainable progress" in changing the policy.

Throughts? ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. I gather that the "probable future president" isn't wp:rs'able? North8000 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is starting to look good. I want to thank all for a civil discussion.

1. Do we need the first sentence here (it should be in the controversies article)?
2. As to the second sentence, something like "The BSA National Executive Board has repeatedly reviewed the policy and has reached "unanimous consensus" to retain it as of July 2012." I think it sums up a series of actions that can be detailed in the controversies article.
3. I disambiguated UPS and Merck.
4. The controversies article could note "Stephenson has been reported to be a candidate for the next National President of the BSA."

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The ABC News article that ZybthRanger linked to above (and nobody is looking at) states categorically: "AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, an executive board member of the Boy Scouts of America, has said he was committed to ending the ban. He takes over as president in 2014." --108.45.72.196 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article from the AP in the Spokesman-Review that claims: "Stephenson is on track to become president of the Scouts’ national board in 2014, ..." How do they know this? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Most mysterious. Is it possible for any RS to know who the president will be in 2014? ABC News reporting it as a straightforward fact makes me wonder if I'm missing something. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clear WP:CRYSTAL event. The current status of blocking editors for removing this information is unjustified. Arzel (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So, to be clear, there isn't some sort of "president-elect" position or "next in line to be president" in the BSA, right? As best I can tell, ABCNews & AP are just wrong on this? --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If there's a press release on the BSA website announcing that Randall Stephenson will assume the office of National President in 2014, I sure can't find it. (If I ABF, I conclude that ABCNews and AP are engaging in wishful thinking and pushing their peculiar agenda, as usual). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In my mind, it's very close to the line with WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. It's not something that the BSA has acknowledged, it's not the sort of thing they announce, and it is not a guaranteed event, especially now that he's announced his intentions. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The key disagreement here is if this event is almost certain. The current mention it gets in these articles, only as an aside description, makes me think probable but not almost certain. I've changed the article to remove "said he will use the position". None of the Stephenson statements are in reference to the position of board president. I've kept the "on track to become president" as a quoted description for Stephenson for now until things work out here. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Gadget's point two - the "unanimous consensus" was the 11-person subcommittee and not the whole board, and I haven't seen any direct references to any other official policy reviews by the board. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Zybthranger, thanks for that proposal. If I could trouble you further, could you clarify one for this article. The "Proposed backend of Boy_Scouts_of_America#Membership_controversies subsection" got me confused. Thanks. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is for this article. I just wikilinked to a specific part of it in my description. I've added a modified version to the article. ZybthRanger ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

References

Lock

Although I am ambivalent about the change that 1 or 2 people are trying to war in, I am not about the lock. To "out of the blue" fully lock such a large diverse article on such a large & diverse topic, with no discussion of such, and with an expiration of 11 days over such a small and narrow dispute is, IMHO, an overreaction. Triply so with the disputed change included in the locked version. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. If you get consensus for the change on this talkpage, put in an {{editprotected}} request to change it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm in total agreeance with North here. If some editors are behaving badly, don't lock up the article. Block the badly behaving editors so that properly behaving editors can get on with repairing and improving things. This action hurts good editors and the article, and there's no evidence it will stop the bad behaviour returning. SarekOfVulcan - your suggestion demands that editors who have done nothing wrong now have to work harder to do their job. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, this is not about the sarcastic / comedic straw man description in that comedic essay. In fact, even the "which version" question is secondary to me because I don't even know which I prefer. The fact that a large article on a large topic is totally locked with no discussion on a dispute on a small change that one or two people have been trying to war in IS the issue. North8000 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Guerillero beat me to this. The edit warring needs to stop now. Please hammer out the changes on the talk page. When there is a consensus, thne the changes can be applied and the article can be unlocked. If it takes 11 days to do it, then so be it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the person who did two reverts, 1 week block. For the person who did 3 reverts, 24 hour block and lock in the edit from their final revert. North8000 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a bass akwards approach. Some of the blocks are unjustified and the edit from the sock should not be allowed to stand for reasons aside from the fact that it is a sock. Arzel (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

moved commment'

Hector - any chance you could move that post to where that matter is actually being discussed? This thread is about the fact that the article has been locked. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob :) thanks for the good suggestion. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice, Guerillero, if you or some other admin could put the "Locked" icon at the top of the article page. (How about you, Sarek? You don't seem to be too busy.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Gadget850. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

So let's see......one "side" of the dispute is/was one blocked user working through socks inserting the same thing 5 times, the other "side" was three folks reverting that edit to the last stable version. And with the socks gone, everybody else is having a routine editing discussion while the version put in by the now-blocked sock is sitting locked in the article. Where is the "dispute" that this is locked for? North8000 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not very neutral POV

There is a great deal here which is not neutral point of view, thouigh I suppose an organization with such a history as the BSofA has fairly much precludes neutrality. Just checking differences for the past month or so, I was struck by the text, "The BSA goal is to train youth in responsible citizenship" which is decidedly incorrect and, if you'll forgive my own opinion, properly the realm of propaganda.

There is much in the entry here that could be said to have once been the history and origins, goals and policies of the BSofA, but that is history. Contenporary BSofA goals and policies are decidedly not in accord with Baden-Powell's desires for the organization he created. The Church of Ladder Day Saints has successfully revectored the BSofA to accord to their religion's unfortunate ideologies to the point where more than half of the BSofA Troops are now LDS, and that has altered the direction of the BSofA considerably.

My suggestion is that the entry here on the Scouts be uppated to reflect the current BSofA, and providing better context for the different goals and policies that have been the focus of the BSofA National directorship over the decades since the organization's founding.

Thing is, I don't see the religious among us wanting to see an accurate, factual, truthful description of the contemporary Boy Scouts organization, I see in the differences and the history of protection of this Wikientry indicate that accuracying and neutrality is, well, impossible. :) Or very much very close to impossible.

Question: Is there a Wikientry that better covers the contemporary BSofA goals, aims, and policies that reflect reality than this particilar entry? If so, let's add a link to that. If not, let's solicit volunteers to create one. Damotclese (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by Wikentry. Here would go by the sourced defined objectives, and at the top level article it doesn't get in much deeper than that. In the linked articles (such as the membership controversies article) it gets in deeper in the general areas that you discussed but still follows sources. If you have reliably sourced coverage of the areas that you are describing that would probably be a good place for it. For general expressions of opinion such as your post (whether to put your opinions in or see similar opinions by others) I think you'd have to look somewhere which is not an encyclopedia. Possibly a blog, or a forum page on an advocacy website. North8000 (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement in a wiki article of the goal of the organization is not prohibited propaganda since it is implicitly quoting the organization and is a fact about the organization and a fairly important one. If it were rephrased to sound as though it were an observation by a third party then it could be propaganda. The vision statement of the BSA is "The Boy Scouts of America will prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law" [2] which seems pretty close to the paraphrase in the article of their goal (well except 'eligible youth' is only a subset of 'youth' and does not include gays, godless, or younger female youth so perhaps the article should quote not paraphrase). Whether in eyes of others it is carrying out the goal is another matter and sources can be quoted on that (admittedly this tends to be expanded upon in the controversies article). Note that one has to quote sources about explicit conclusions (e.g., I can update the table on membership numbers since I can get them from the BSA publications; however, I or someone has to use reasonable sources about any conclusions [e..g, , Prof. J. Dover says BSA policy ion gays/godless is driving youth away or BSA CEO says all scouting like organizations are declining in numbers or that ...). --Erp (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's reasonable, Wikipedia's entries aren't intended to include everything about subjects, the links and external links are expected to be followed by anyone interested in subjects, true. Accuracy of contemporary BSofA policies and behaviors is the issue I was wondering about here, though I believe there's the understanding that accuracy in Wikientries on any controversial subject is impossible to achieve since contentious issues harbor contentious edit fights.

It's not important, though. People reviewing the BSofA are already going to know its history and what its current policies and procedures are, and I expect everyone -- including the religiously extreme -- can spot the inaccuracies. If people want truth, they don't come to Wikipedia. :) Damotclese (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually when I hear "The truth about xxxxxx is ....." what follows is usually going to be a negative opinion about "xxxxx". North8000 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the truth! HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

local councils

I would be interested in a separate article about the councils. Especially one that ranks them by size. 71.178.132.203 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.scoutingnews.org/2009/01/30/top-10-largest-councils/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.132.203 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Local councils of the Boy Scouts of America --evrik ^(talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Questionable claim in controversies section

Under the subsection on the gay scouts decision/Southern Baptist reaction, it reads:

"On June 3, 2013, the Southern Baptist Convention announced its plans to disaffiliate with the Boy Scouts of America due to the church's moral standards. They are the first church denomination as a whole to announce plans to disband their Boy Scout Troops after only two weeks since the BSA National Council voted to remove the restriction. The Southern Baptists currently host over 4,000 Boy Scout Troops composed of over 100,000 youth, all of which are expected to disband from the Boy Scouts of America in the coming months. The Boy Scouts of America are expected to lose between 2% and 5% of their total membership from the Southern Baptist disaffiliation.[56]"

Bold added for emphasis. I am unable to access the source at the moment, but will check later.

I think this is a misstatement of the nature of the non-binding resolution. It does not seem to require the member churches to do anything (and it's my understanding that it can't do so, as they are essentially independent franchises...i.e. it's up to each church.)Here are some sources that are probably more reputable:

• NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/12/191125481/southern-baptists-condemn-policy-shift-on-gay-boy-scouts describes nature of resolution
• Fox news source http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/12/southern-baptists-expected-to-address-boy-scouts-homosexuality-decision-at/ specifically says that the resolution does not call on churches to stop sponsoring troops.
• LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-baptists-boy-scouts-20130612,0,4980775.story specifies it is a non-binding resolution

I'm not sure what that "theblaze" article says, but it seems to be in conflict with arguably more reputable sources (though I grit my teeth to put Fox News in that category given the inflammatory language in their newspost).

I'm changing this for now until we can get consensus here, as we are stating something as fact that is in question. I'll leave it neutral to the implications. 204.65.34.238 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this was my post...didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Made the edit to the section...I aslo was able to review the original reference...the reference did not support the statement made. The article was written prior to the meeting, and was speaking on what they THOUGHT would happen. We had it stated that it DID happen. What actually happened was not in line with that article, as shown by the references above. I left a single line in that simnple says they passed non-binding resolutions in opposition. It will need further editing after people have weighed in. Though, after seeing the blaze reference, it's pretty clear it was just an inaccurate statement. Open to suggestions for repalcement text/additional sources to the ones above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I should point out the figures are wrong also. Over 4,000 units (which are boy scout troops, cub scout packs, and venturing crews not just troops) and over 100,000 refers to all Baptist chartered units (and the unit number is actually 3,981 as of 2012) not just Southern Baptist Convention (and the SBC is about half of all Baptists though that ratio may well not carry over to units/members). My guess is a reasonably large chunk may be American Baptist (it would not surprise me if it were at least 25%). However I haven't been able to find numbers. --Erp (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Trail life addition

I think that something brief on this would be good, but IMHO the current addition (including what "several units" did) is too much / undue for the top level article / article of this scope. North8000 (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That section should be a summary of the main article. As usual, it attracts the most up to date content from the media. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. (I assume that you are referring to the membership controversies article) I think that I might copy the new material into the membership controversies article and then condense the addition here. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. But I only condensed it a little. ....was afraid of losing meaning or sourcing and it was already shorter than I realized. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the shout-out to Trail Life, without mentioning any of the other alternatives to BSA that have formed, for various reasons, through the years? I could list at least 15 BSA-type groups that have formed since 1911, because they disagree with various BSA policies. I can name six that have formed since the gays & god debate started heating up in BSA in the 1990s. I would recommend we removed reference to specific BSA alternatives, because that list is quite long and evolving, and is not the main focus of this BSA article. In place of listing BSA alternatives, we can put a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_the_United_States#Breakaway_organizations, which would be a more appropriate place describe the BSA breakaway organizations that exist. If there is no discussion or disagreement on this issue, I will do the edit myself, as was already done on the BSA Membership Controversy page in the last month. Cwgmpls (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good points. I was also thinking about that from the start. In my mind the main / important point worth covering in the top level article is that BSA received significant blowback from the "you went too far" side as well. I think that me sticking with trying to work with the material and sources already in there and remain encyclopedic, I really didn't do much condensation/summary, and it ended up with the problem that you describe. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

BSA has received significant blowback, on one issue or another, since its inception. It kind of goes with the territory. I think the "Breakaway organizations" section in the general Scouting article does a better job of outlining that specific type of blowback than any attempt to re-describe it here would do. This is an article about BSA, not about political disagreement with BSA. That can be covered better elsewhere. I would suggest removing mention of specific breakaway groups, and including a link to the "Breakaway organizations" section, as was done in the BSA Membership Controversy article recently. Cwgmpls (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Good thoughts. I was thinking that some mention of blowback might be relevant to that paragraph (given that it includes comment on the decision by gay rights groups.) But I'm on the fence on this and so have no objection to your proposed edits. North8000 (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The current Trail Life paragraph seems to imply that one would be allowed to join even if they committed homosexual acts, as long as it was within a marriage. --208.92.197.13 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think so. Of course with respect to youth, that would be a rarity. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the sentence on their membership policies since 1) It didn't adequately summarise their membership policies which amongst other things defined marriage as between one man and one woman so effectively forbade any homosexual acts even those occuring in the context of a marriage recognise by the members church. 2) Most sources say they forbid openly gay youth membership. Considering their origins, this seems likely. While their membership policies don't explicitily forbid it, they do say they don't allow members to "engage in or promote sexual immorality of any kind, or engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the program" which taken together with the earlier mentioned requirement, would like include most openly gay members, regardless of whether they always said they only intended to ever engage in sex in the context of a church recognise same sex marriage (heck probably including any who said they wouldn't until their church say the Catholic church or Trail Life USA recognised such marriages which they thought they should). 3) It ultimately seems unnecessary to try and summarise their membership policies here. They can be covered in the article on the organisation if necessary. Particularly since, echoing the above sentiments this come across as either recentism, an NPOV failure or both if there isn't some evidence that Trail Life USA is particular unique in terms of organisations which has formed in response to disagreements on the membership policies to be worth of such a high level of coverage. Nil Einne (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)