Talk:Trail Life USA

Notability

Article is waiting for noteworthiness. See you in about four months. Wikchard (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I have enough source for notability, so no it will not wait for four months. Spshu (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The point here is that there are no membership numbers, nothing but news articles and a website. I'm sure this will be forthcoming. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Other coalition members

Is there any thing available about TrailHead USA and Frontier Service Corps? It would be nice to have any information about them besides they existed for the background section. Spshu (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction in the lead

Can someone with topic experience clarify the lead? It currently says 'irrespective of religion, race, national origin or socio-economic status', yet the lead also says "christian", furthermore the group's faq is very clear, no Jews or Mormons allowed. It appears to me the last statement of the lead is false. Dave (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading more of the FAQ, the lead is clearly false. Never mind, I'll attempt to correct it myself. Dave (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No Jewish or Mormon adult leaders or chartering organization as it is a Trinitarian Christian organization, but they would allow youth of Jewish or Mormon faith to join a Trail Life troop. from the FAQ -What about Jewish youth?:

Thus, according to our membership standards, Jewish churches and organizations would be precluded from chartering Trail Life USA troops. And those of the Jewish faith would indeed be precluded as adult leaders based on their beliefs. However, a Jewish youth could join.

Similarly so for the Mormons. So it is correct but could be clearer. Spshu (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep I see that now. They can join, but not charter or lead. Thanks for the clarification.Dave (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Improving PROGRAM section content

Addressing particularly the revision of <15:10, 10 June 2014‎ Spshu>, the "Program" section is mislabeled in that previous versions don't discuss the Trail Life program, but rather talk about age demographics, salutes, oath, and an extraneous reference to a TX troop that renamed its wooden car derby. None of this is the "Trail Life Program". More recent edits have attempted to better categorize these things into "Troop organization", "Identifying features", and actual "Program". New material identifying examples of the Trail Life Program (activities) is primary-sourced for lack of secondary sources, but the nature of these primary citations is not so suspect that the material being referenced should be suppressed to the detriment of the article content. From an encyclopedic standpoint, the article is much stronger and informative with the primarily-sourced material included than to omit it while waiting for secondary sources to appear. We want Wikipedia to be useful and informative and it is easily shown by thousands of examples that Wikipedia clearly tolerates primary citation sources elsewhere. I suggest that rather than continuing to suppress noncontroversial material which strengthens the article, a banner be installed calling for better citations if they exist, while allowing the material to persist so that other editors can improve upon it. Regarding the deletion of the reference to the renaming of a wooden car derby, that isolated event is far from representative of the the organization's "program", whereas the examples given in later edits are multi-unit activities that are indicative of the Trail Life national program. ⁃ Firewall 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Trail Life is a scouting "program", so troop organization, identifying features are part of the Trail Life program or else should be remove from the article. With little in "Troop organization", "Identifying features", and actual "Program", there isn't much to justify those section. They primary citations are suspect as they are the main pages of their websites and that information will not remain. The article is not stronger from an encyclopedic standpoint from primary sources that just indicate activities that a scouting organization might do, as there is an article about Scouting. You proclaim the "an extraneous reference to a TX troop that renamed its wooden car derby" which is 3rd party per the highest expected standard of WP, so too then the primary sources are therefor "extraneous" as they are only represent isolate events of multi-units. WP only "tolerates" primary sources put doesn't prefer them and does not want an article to rely on them. So, not of that strengths the article as they are not the standard WP sources and can be removed. You consider an event that many Trail Life Troops might adopt for their younger that a single troop gave a name to as "extraneous" then what is the point in the "extraneous" multi-unit event? Spshu (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please review the policy at WP:PSTS. Primary sources may be used with care. Secondary sources may not exist yet. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Spshu again entirely misses the point about the extraneous nature of the renaming a "BSA pinewood derby" event to have a Trail Life name. That has nothing to do with program, it is entirely extraneous insofar at it is not an action that is at all representative of the Trail Life program, but rather a decision of a single troop to rename something. I believe that the primary sources are the best that we can do when writing about an organization that just officially spun up less than 6 months ago, and as Gadget850 points out, while this is not the preferred method, it can be used sparingly when it benefits the article content. So I give up and will not waste any more time trying to increase the value of a new article when editors bent on legalism prefer to dumb down cogent content rather than letting the community grow the article with what is validly available at the time.  ⁃ Firewall 21:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Census data

"Why continue to report OLD 2014 data when NEW 2015 cited data is now available?" Because, the March 2014 is the earliest data in number of scouts and troops are know and you are not removing the Pre-charter troops known in January 2014. New 2015 data was included over the November 2014 as the latest. Despite having current membership numbers doesn't negate that TLU had different membership numbers at different times in its existence. Eventual, a table for census data should be place in the article to track census data. Spshu (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that a table similar to that found at the BSA article should appear here. The reference used and the current numbers were given to me by a member of the TLUSA Board of Directors. The article is more accurate using these latest 2015 numbers, and the inaugural 2014 numbers, which is the kind of reporting that would go into an annual chart/table mirroring the BSA article table that is (or should be) updated annually. I will reconfirm this with my TLUSA Board member contact and comment further here before making any further revert/change. ⁃ Firewall 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks "Gadget" for creating the chart alluded to above. The comment by Spshu above was reviewed for accuracy and no one I talked to could understand it (in fact, neither do I). Wording was reverted to mirror the new chart which talks about inaugural (2014) numbers and first year (2015) numbers-- all of which are validly cited in the text. ⁃ Firewall 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)69.131.196.77 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

One "Gadget" didn't create the table I did. In other words, you or any one else didn't look at what you did to the article to understand. Revert/changes do not and should not depend on confirmation with TLUSA Board member. The March 2014 numbers were validly cited. Stop editing the article under the COI guidlines since you are friends with the TLUSA Board member and intend to make edits based on his say so. Spshu (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought suggestion: I think that it would improve the look of the article to have the new chart created by Spshu to appear at the right hand margin similar to the other called-out items. ⁃ Firewall 04:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits are based on cited information. Having subject matter experts review articles is entirely appropriate according to Wikipedia. You, however, have made numerous mistakes in your use of terminology in the above discussion showing that you are not familiar with the subject. Your insistence on the use of old data degrades the article. Stop reverting to old data. Lets use the most current credible information available. ⁃ Firewall 03:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I made some minor technical edits to the table. Spshu is correct: you cannot use anecdotal sources, you need reliable published sources. This is on of Wikipedia's cornerstone policies; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My edits are not based on anecdotal sources. The source cited is in the open internet "literature". Nothing stated by me is based on other than quotes taken (in some cased verbatim) from the cited reference. Lets make the article verbiage comport with the chart and the current facts as cited. If the reference cited is deemed unreliable, then I would understand the concern, but the source of the citation is a member of the Trail Life USA Board. One would think that membership numbers reported by someone at TLUSA headquarters in an open literature article should be accurate. ⁃ Firewall 04:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article currently fails to acknowledge the significant criticism the creation of the group, and the group's anti-gay stance, have generated, as well as its ties to Focus on the Family and other far-right bigoted groups.[1][2][3][4] JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

JoelleJay, please be careful that your own (clearly strong) feelings about this organization do not influence your own ability to comply with WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies as you edit this page. MonMothma (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

These sources aren't written from a neutral point of view. Do not put the POV back in the article until consensus has been built here. PerseusMeredith (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be written from a neutral point of view. It is perfectly acceptable to use biased sources as long as the content they are being sourced for comports with BALASP and DUE. The article fails NPOV by providing a whitewashed perspective on the topic that emphasizes the org's own descriptions of itself without including any mention of criticism. JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The articles you site are from Fringe sources and 8-10 years old. They are not appropriate for an encyclopedia description of an organization. PerseusMeredith (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all of the sources for this article are 8-10 years old! And since when are Mother Jones and regular newspapers "fringe sources"?! The whole point of this org is that it was formed in opposition to the BSA decision to allow openly gay boys, yet the article minces around the subject and emphasizes quotes from its supporters rather than neutrally summarizing the controversy behind its origins and the criticism it has received.[5] JoelleJay (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

One of your articles cites, the "new Hitler Youth." The Hitler Youth attempted to destroy religion, spy on Bible studies and discourage youth group attendance. All of this is the exact opposite of Trail Life; this is not a serious article or position.

Confronting the Nazi War on Christianity: The Kulturkampf Newsletters, 1936-1939 - Richard Bonney - Google Books PerseusMeredith (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That has no bearing on all the other articles describing the criticism of Trail Life. JoelleJay (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

One issue is that not much has been written about the organization from a neutral or even a critical point of view since a small flurry at its start. Also is it a "Scout-like organization" or, as the article states, "Non-aligned Scouting organizations" (the link goes to the same place). In List of non-aligned Scouting organizations it is under Scout-like organizations. I'm inclined to agree with that placement so have made the change. Erp (talk) 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I must admit their annual reports are remarkably vague on numbers. See for instance the 2023 annual report https://www.traillifeusa.com/2023-annual-report with 50,000+ (and in fine print that seems to be a year end projection). Erp (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The main thing all the sources agree on is that the org was formed in protest of the move by BSA to admit gay boys, but this point is deemphasized and obscured, particularly by quoting Stemberger so much without even mentioning the criticism he and the group received. JoelleJay (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It is considered just another conservative Christian church youth group so not much criticism directed at it specifically. The BSA received criticism in large part because it claimed to be inclusive of all Americans no matter what religion when it wasn't; this group doesn't. I've tightened up the wording in the intro of this article. One could quote their membership standards which are pretty explicitly anti-gay and anti-trans people though that would be primary source. Note the intro and history do note why it was formed. Erp (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"The BSA received criticism in large part because it claimed to be inclusive of all Americans no matter what religion when it wasn't" Such as? Or is this criticism really "BSA won't let me use my religion to exclude others"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha Very delayed reply, see Boy Scouts of America membership controversies section on religion though it is a bit watered down. Erp (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)