Talk:Boy Scouts of America

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)

GA Reassessment

Boy Scouts of America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Numerous unreferenced sections, including the entirety of the "Groups and divisions" section. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Delist per uncited content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

• If I remember, Drmies is a long-term Scout volunteer, as are many of us. --evrik ^(talk) 04:06, 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)

Meeting of the minds

@Graywalls: The last few days, you have been all over the BSA related articles:

• Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Philmont Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Scouting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Then there's this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Big Sur, California area touristy contents

I'm not sure what to ask here, but clearly you've decided to focus on scouting articles, and you seem to be taking a lot of unilateral actions on long-established articles. I'm going to bring in @Jergen, Btphelps, and North8000: to see if they can help focus this discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 04:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik:, After some digging following the Big Sur thing, I've come across sufficient proof to show btphelps have a strong COI with Béla H. Bánáthy and White Stag and a probable WP:UPE as well as I've started working on it once I've identified their insertion of Whitestag.org sources into various articles. They've been asked to answer on their page. We have a WP:OUTING policy, so I can not discuss the proof on Wikipedia Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

btphelps has overlapping interests. This is not a COI. This is simply throwing mud and seeing what sticks. --evrik ^(talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the other ones but for this one you deleted long standing material core material on the basis of which wiki formatting method was used. And then are claiming that a consensus is needed to retain long standing material. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have changed the article back. --evrik ^(talk) 21:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

per the comments above, look at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Quotes_based_on_primary_sources_on_Boy_Scouts_of_America. --evrik ^(talk) 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik ^(talk) 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For ease of finding it, now Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined) -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)