This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Should it read "readership"? or "leadership"? Dnajenks 17:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)dnajenks
Readership is correct, as the book was intended both for the boys who were to be Scouts, and the adults who were to be leaders. -- Horus KolTalk 23:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Boy Scout goes to an totally superfluous disambiguation page, and Boy scout comes out at Scouting. I'd say: all come out here! You don't even have to merge the disambiguation list into this article since all is already here. And I have been thinking this yesterday too: I recommend a move of the whole article to Boy Scout (singular), as that is the wikipedia standard. Remember this is not about the movement (which is indeed named in plural), but on this little guy with his funny uniform and a christmas tree of badges on his arm.
You didn't check that I fixed "Boy scouts" yesterday-;)
Using "Boy Scouts" keeps it inline with "Cub Scouts". Made "Boy Scout" redir here.
Rewrite history/Foundation, to focus on the boys in the story, not the organization or the movement
tiny bit
I'd say a bit more, and leave out the words on the movement (see item one)
Adding more about ranks and badges, not only the top ones for all countries, but more on the principle
did some. May I suggest a bit more: remove the obscure highest ranks (and the organizations) and add some info about how to get there. I recall that there are before getting Kroonverkenner I could also earn tresses in three kinds of colours: red/white, green/yellow, gold, and a woodman whistle cord (leather) for various things. Do these still exist?
did some more, but can't get too specific, it's a generic article.
Organization is good now for the time being
More on the uniform (Randy, do you recall those thick corduroy shorts? Wish I had a pair still ;-)
did tiny bit
Repetitively, I would hope for a little bit more.
like what? can't get too specific, it's a generic article tried a bit even more
Illustrations. A good one would be a boy scout in a full uniform doing a scout activity outdoor (pitch a tent or so). Go set up Ben modelling for this.
emailed you some, put up your modified one
copy-edit, copy-edit, and did I mention copy-edit? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
We need more refs too.Rlevse 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Refs seem well covering the subjects, and also good number of refs!
Foundation is giving me trouble. Can you be more specific? For B-class, that's all I feel we need, maybe a bit more here and there for GA. Rlevse 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I give it B-Class now. I'll give it GA after all this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
Nibbles
I nibbled away more tonight at the above. Please put new comments here as it's getting hard to follow all those indents. Rlevse 02:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Naming
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
We have now several closely related articles, which must be clear and distinct. A for me very important distinction is between the movement of scouting and the type of members
The article here is about a boy who is a scout: Boy Scout (singular). Hence my recommendation for a move. And I don't recommend altering the text to make it fuzzy so it al becomes about the movement again. I much prefer a well defined subject (e.g. B-P House over Scout method)
Using this directive, the history section of the article shouldn't be a problem anymore either: first there were military scouts with B-P's books. Boys read those military books too and used them: voila Boy Scout. First formal use of the term on Brownsea I guess. After that, the new book targeting boys, and a formal movement came into being. Development of Scout values and traditions up to now.Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC).
I don't care if it's "Boy Scout" or "Boy Scouts", but I do strongly feel it should match "Cub Scout"/"Cub Scouts". Right now that one is "Cub Scouts", so either we change both Boy and Cub Scouts or leave them both as is. Rlevse 01:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia cares: it should be <singular>. when designating a group of <singular>s. But as an article move has impact (e.g., the article must probably be copy-edited, I recommend to propose this move somewhere central. Better yet: let's seriously discuss the whole tree of scouting wikiproject articles. After my vacation, please. 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC).
I've fixed it - article moves should be done using the move facility or, if that won't work, WP:RM. violet/riga(t) 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. We were just trying to follow wiki policy.
Not a problem at all - only took a few moments - and you are correct about the singular naming policy. violet/riga(t) 12:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently "Boy Scouts" redirects here; the term once redirected to "Boy Scouts of America". Yet some people are using the claim that this is an article "on the individual Boy Scout" to justify removing anything that suggests controversy about the Boy Scouts. This situation could be amelioriated in several ways, with two being obvious: (1) Have "Boy Scouts" go to a disambiguation page; I suspect that more people who enter that term are interested in finding specific scouting organizations than about a "Boy Scout" as such. (2) Have a line at the top pointing to the Boy Scouts of America as an alternative; this is US-centric, so I think it's the less desirable solution. A variant would be to have a line at the top point to a page with a list of national/regional Scouting organizations (is there such a page?). GMcGath 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"to justify removing anything that suggests controversy about the Boy Scouts." --presumptive and untrue, so Hogwash. The controveries article is about the BSA specifically, not Scouting associations nor the individual Scout on an international level,-but specifically about American Scouts. If this were "Boy Scouts of the BSA" it would certainly apply, but it isn't. Rlevse 22:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
"Hogwash"? May I note that you recently removed a simple link to a page itemizing the controversies. Not a discussion, simply a link in a list of links. One is supposed to assume goodwill when discussing Wikipedia editing, but you are straining my ability to do so. I have restored the link. If my claim is "Hogwash," someone is forging your signature. GMcGath 12:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
duplicate entry
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
((this was pasted from Cub Scout for informational purposes}}Rlevse 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me this article should be merged with Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) <<unsigned by User:212.143.232.2>>.
No. This article is about the worldwide Cub Scout movement, not just the BSA. If anything, it should be merged with Scouting. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The Scouting article is on the worldwide movement, Cubs, Boy Scouts, Exlporers, male, female, etc. There are separate international articles Cub Scout and Boy Scout, as well as specific associational articles. The anon user has too USA-centric view of Scouting. Rlevse 13:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Cover photo
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The cover photo shows BSA Boy Scouts. Suggest that a photo of a world jamboree showing Scouts from multiple countries be used instead or other photos be added of international Scouts. --Jagz 17:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
If I find a good one, I'll use it...it'd also be good not to reuse the one in Scouting. What's good about the current one is they're in uniform, bright colors, in focus, no adults, outdoors, you can see their faces, and they're having fun. Rlevse 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this a good one?: colorfull, mix-race, uniform, bright colors, in focus, no adults, outdoors, you can see their faces, and they're having fun.--EgelReaction? 07:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I like that one. The only flags are Swiss though-;). Rlevse 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The only thing about this one is that there are girls in it and this is an article specifically on Boy Scouts. Some may object to that; but on the other hand several Boy Scout organizations are now coed. So, I feel it's fine to use for this article. I think this is a better lead photo for the article than the previous one (I moved it to "Activities", which I feel is an excelleent spot for it). This Eurosong photo would also be good in an international article. Glad Egel found it.Rlevse 10:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Altavista translation of the italian description: Scout coming from from various nations sings with the Lager-Song to the festivity of closing of Eurojam 2005 --EgelReaction? 10:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Girl Scout
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
What to do with Girl Scouts? There two kinds of Girl Scouts:
Girls who are scout and do the same as Boy Scouts, described in this article (WOSM members or WOSM/WAGGGS members)
Girls who are guides but are called scouts like in the USA, Taiwan or Armenia, described in Girl Guides (WAGGGS members)
Maybe some kind of Disambiguation page? --EgelReaction? 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the intro does say some units are coed now and it's discussed in thr organization section and there's a link under "See also". Girl Scout, Girl Scouts, and Girl Guide all redirect to Girl Guides, which is on the Girl part of the movement. What is lacking is a girl version of this Boy Scout article; wherein the focus is on the girl, not the movement. As for your first bullet, I'd leave it as it is; as for the second, I'd suggest some knowledgeable person start the girl equivalent of this article and fix redirects accordingly, perhaps rename Girl Guides to Girl Guiding, focusing on the movement and make Girl Scout or Girl Guide the focus of the girl.Rlevse 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that you have several categories:
Boy Scout who is a member of a single sex Scouting organization
Girl Scout/Guide who is a member of a single sex Scouting organization
Boy Scout who is a member of a mixed sex Scouting organization
Girl Scout/Guide who is a member of a mixed sex Scouting organization
The last two should really be covered in a single article since other than sex and sometimes name there is no difference between the two within each of their mixed sex organizations. In addition the differences between individual youth members of the same sex but of different national organizations is likely to be as great as that between a girl and a boy of different national organizations.--Erp 00:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite true, neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts are necessarily single sex now. But what to call the article "Boy Scout and Girl Guide", "Co-ed Scout units", "Boy Scout"-but include girls (what this article does), etc. "Scout" is legitmately a redirect page. Then there's the issue of difference in Boy vs Girl organizations--such as in the USA there is a HUGE difference in the way BSA and GSUSA operate and their programs. Changing the article structure of several articles is a can of worms. I say just leave the names the way they are and discuss what has or is going on in the article. However, I can see renaming Girl Guides to Girl Guide (to match the Boy Scout convention) and making the focus girl-oriented vice movement oriented as the movement is well covered in Scouting and there are enough historical differeces to warrant this. Combining them could easily make the article lose focus. Rlevse 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
In the UK we don't have any "Boy Scouts" or "Girl Scouts", we have "Scouts". We haven't (officially) used the name "Boy Scout" for 40 years. DuncanHill 08:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Boy Scout
Latest comment: 16 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
I don't know about anywhere else, but we haven't had "Boy Scouts" since the 60's in the UK... plus, the age range of Scouts has been 10.5 to 16 until 2003 and is now 10 to 14... I know this is a nit-pick, but when the first sentence says "A Boy Scout is a boy of 11 to 18 years of age, participating in the worldwide Scouting movement." we actually need to set this in the universal context, and not just what it means in America... Horus Kol 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It's an inherent problem, if you set it to the UK age range, it leaves out any country that doesn't have the same age grouping. I'll change it to "generally 11-17".Rlevse 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a paragraph in the body of the article could be added about these age range variations its history.Rlevse 15:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The title "Boy Scout" is the best of the alternatives, otherwise you get something like "Scout (scouting)"
Problem with the ages is this: He may later join another affiliated program for older boys while simultaneously still being a member of a Boy Scout troop, such as Exploring or Venturing. -- In many countries you stop being a (Boy) Scout when you start Exploring or Venturing. --EgelReaction? 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Egel about "Boy Scout" being best title; for ages, all true what Egel and I said, there's no way to cover all cases--not in the intro, which is why we may want a para on this.Rlevse 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that the majority of members of WOSM admit both boys and girls the title of this article should be changed to "Scout". In Australia for example some Scout groups have a majority of female members and I know of one case where a group was entirely female for a while. The points made above re the article title and/or ages seem not to make much sense. Both issues could be dealt with by disambig and explication within articles. Overall the article reads like an article on BSA members and activities - which it shouldn't be, Albatross2147 08:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you know a beter way to say "a person in the core section and not in the female tradition of Scouting" ? So, not a Cub Scout or a Rover Scout and not a Girl Scout or a Girl Guide. Scout is often used as a overall term for all agegroups, sexes and traditions. So keep the title at the moment, but start rewriting the article to make it more worldwide and sex-indifferent. --EgelReaction? 11:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me remind everyone that, besides Egel making an excellent point, the ScoutingWikiProject article structure and naming conventions for the group that this article falls into was conceived and designed by User:Wimvandorst, who is from the Netherlands. It was then agreed upon by the project as a whole. You'll find this structure at the top of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting.Sumoeagle179 12:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the Project reached a consensus on this, not everybody agreed. I did not. I think we have to recognize that there is a problem and that perhaps we should look again at this. The problem is that while articles such as Cub Scout and Rover Scout go quickly into talking about the section, Boy Scout claims to be about the boy. Cub Scout starts "A Cub Scout is a member of the section of the worldwide Scouting movement for young persons". It talks about "a member" but goes directly to the section. Rover Scout goes straight to talk about the section with "Rover Scouting is a service division of Scouting for young men, and in some countries, women". This article starts "A Boy Scout is a boy, usually 11 to 17 years of age". What is wrong with this? It goes on to discuss the section and we have no other international general article on the Scout section, while we do for all other sections. Internationally the Scout section is not all boys and the age range is often far from 11 - 17. Many associations split that age range long ago and now have Senior Scouts or Venture Scouts for those over 14 or 15. The presence of girls is widespread. This article is thus badly confused, if not biased. We need to change it in a fundamental way and not just fudge a change by saying for boy also read girl etc. I do not think the BSA folks really understand how completely sold people in countries like the UK and Australia are on having Scouting contain both boys and girls at all levels. "The female tradition of Scouting" is now just as much a WOSM thing as a WAGGGS thing, if not more so. A fudge will continue to irritate new editors from many countries such as Albatross2147. They are quite right to be irritated. We need to change it. --Bduke 22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
No matter how this is setup, someone/group/country will be irritated and turned off simply because not every country has its Scouting organizations setup the same. One wiki setup will never do total justice to every Scouting group/country in this area. Having said that, I'm open to rational discussion.Rlevse 22:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree in general, but this article at present presents the BSA view of the boy/girl mix and assumes that everyone else is out of this mainstream. Setups do differ, but it has to be written so it covers everyone. Cub Scouting differs. Rover Scouting differs. Those articles do not have the problem that this one does. I strongly suggest that all BSA editors recognize that there is a problem here. If we all recognize that there is a serious problem, we might be able to work to a resolution, which I agree will not be easy, but it has to be done. I do have some ideas, but I want to think them through further and I would like others to comment. --Bduke 22:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read through what all of you have said carefully. A modest proposal would be to keep the article name "Boy Scout" but have that article document the historical use of the term world wide including a note on the 1949 Reader production for the Scout Association in London, and then talk about members of WOSM who are not co-ed. Another article could then be constructed using a working title of Scout (co-educational Scouting) to cover the co-ed situation. Or would this lead to even more horrid confusion? Albatross2147 09:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This may be one possible way forward, but at this stage I would like to see if we can improve this article without splitting. The Cub Scout and Rover Scout articles deal with "all boy" and "mixed boys and girls (or young men and women)" situations perfectly well. This article is about the Scout section and its members. The relationship to the general Scouting article needs to be clear. Could you please explain what "a note on the 1949 Reader production for the Scout Association in London" is all about? I presume you refer to Ralph Reader, but the significance of your comment escapes me. --Bduke 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
BSA Bias
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I've seen BSA bias in the many articles that are supposed to be more generic - unsurprising what with the large numbers of BSA members on the project... still, as more and more articles are being put up for other nationalities, could we try a bit harder on spreading the load? For example, in the see also section in this article, three of the links (Daniel Carter Beard, Ernest Thompson Seton, and History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)) have no real relevance to Scouting outside of the USA... Horus Kol 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
True. I'll cut them....Also true while our project is open to all, most who've joined are from the USA. I sincerely wish more were from outside the USA. What is more of a difference is the proportion of members that work on Boy Scout articles vs Girl Scout articles. We need more Girl Scout editors worse than we need more non-USA editors.Rlevse 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt it - I wonder how we recruit all these people... what with millions of members across the world, you'd think we'd have representatives from all walks of life 13:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm flip flopping here. I'm adding Seton back as he had lots of influence in Canada and UK. The handbook article is BSA-oriented but until it or its cousin is more international, I think it should stay as it's basic to Scouting.Rlevse 16:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
"Controversies"
Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion
I'll say theres a bit of bias. There's not even a link to the Boy Scout contriversies on the boy scout page! Spazik007 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Boy Scout contriversies are BSA specific. Most NSO have no problem with gays, lesbians and bisexuals and this is a generic article. [1]--EgelReaction? 09:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that the material about discrimination has been added back again on the grounds that this article is in english so the discrimination is important. Please!! The question about BSA discrimination is dealt with on the BSA article and has an article of its own. Discrimination against gays is a purely US issue in the english-speaking world. It is not an issue in the UK, in Canada, in Australia or in New Zealand or in any other country that english is the main language. This section is pure USA and should not be on an international page. That does not mean that I think the issue is unimportant. It is important but it is covered elsewhere and rightly so. --Bduke 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And in addition to that, this article is about youth in the program, not the organization he may be associated with.Rlevse 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That may be the case, but there is no link on this page to said article and no information explaining that. How is somebody with no knowledge of the Boy Scout Association supposed to absorb the informatiom I added unless they decide to type "Boy Scout Association" instead of simply "Boy Scout", which they wouldn't do unless they already knew the difference between the "American" boy scout association and the alleged non-discriminatory international one anyways! You guys have that information locked up in such a way that it would be very difficult for the average lay-person to find, which suggests obvious bias. Furthermore if you were to do some research into the Boy Scout Organization you'd find that it originated in America and is primarily based here. The claim that this page is about scouts in Timbuktu and not the organization of scouts and scoutmasters is disingenuous at best. If the keepers of this page were to add some information explaining the boy scout assosciation of america (which according to you is the only one that discriminates against homosexuals and atheists) discriminated and provided a link to this controversy, or something like that, then I would be satisfied. But what it seems to me that what your doing is trying to keep otherwise ignorant people from getting a bad impression about Boy Scouts, which while doing so may protect your own intellectual intrests I don't think its for the best regarding the goal of building an accurate online encyclopedia. If you want to delete my work, please find a legitimate reason,. Spazik007 02:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I put a direct link to on your talk page. Did you not read it? The "Boy Scout Organization" as you call it started in England, not America, you need to do that research, nor is it primarily based here. A section on any one aspect of any of the many Scouting organizations in the world would be out of scope in this article, is out of scope of the article. If that were done to cover the hundreds of Scouting organizations and all the issues affecting each, this one article would become a large book unto itself. Rlevse 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Boy Scouts of America has long had a section on this with a main link to the full-length controversies article and a summary thereof. Rlevse 09:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There are over 28 million people in the World Organization of the Scout Movement, in all but 2 or 3 countries (this does not include Scout Assocations and Movements who are not WOSM)... to place a specific paragraph about one member nation in a generic article is spurious, at best. And as has been pointed out already, the Scout Movement started in the United Kingdom in 1908 - something that you would have found after some research: The Scout AssociationHorus Kol 11:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I placed a simple link to the controversies page, and that was removed too, under the pretense that it has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts. The reasoning is simple enough. This article is about Boy Scouts. The linked article is about an issue concerning the Boy Scouts. Your placing a message on my personal message page instead of discussing the issue here was entirely out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMcGath (talk • contribs)
Horus' reasoning is precisely right. That is a BSA controversey, not affecting the Boy Scout on an international level. Simple and plain enough. Rlevse 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see that my mod to the "Boy Scouts" redirect hasn't been reverted, and in fact has been expanded upon. (I bent over backwards by not initially including a link to the BSA.) That indicates some measure of good faith. So perhaps if I explain the matter clearly enough, the reason for including a link to the controversy, or some form of related information, is appropriate. To be a Boy Scout, one must be a member of a Boy Scout organization. To be a member, one must meet its membership requirements. The BSA has, notably, established a religious requirement; one must believe in some kind of deity to be a member. You may consider this a good or bad thing, but it's certainly important and controversial. It may or may not be typical of Scouting organizations worldwide; I personally don't know. But that's also important. If the BSA is alone among world scouting organizations in imposing a religious requirement, then that's something people would want to know. If all Scouting organizations have such a requirement, or if some do and others don't, the same applies -- and in that case, it most definitely does affect "the Boy Scout on an international level." Like it or not, the BSA is the most visible organization with regard to this question of membership qualification, and people may well draw conclusions about organizations in other countries based on the BSA's criteria. Attempting to keep the issue undiscussed merely creates the impression of not wanting people to know. If the "controversies" link is not the appropriate way to do it, then a statement about whether or not a religious requirement is typical of worldwide Scouting organizations may be more appropriate. The view that Boy Scouts can somehow be regarded in isolation from the membership qualifications of Boy Scout organizations is, in any event, untenable. If you don't like my putting in a link, then put in something more informative and to the point. But let people know whether Boy Scouts in general exclude non-theists. GMcGath 22:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have several problems with this. First, it is not just that this article is an international article. It is that the article is about Boy Scouts - the Scout section - as opposed to Cub Scouts, Beaver Scouts, Rover Scouts, Venture Scouts or members of other sections. Second it is not just a question of the religious requirement. All members of WOSM have a religigious requirement, but the consequencies of it differ. For example, only the BSA, as far as I know of organisations that have Buddhist members, insists on the wording "duty to God" in the Promise. Others allow "duty to my religion" or "duty to my Dharma" as alternatives. So the religious controversy in the BSA differs from that, if any, in other countries. The controversy about homosexuals is also not shared by other countries. Scouting is the article that deals with the movement as a whole world-wide and that article with its discussion of the Promise and links to articles about the Promise and to WOSM quite adequately, in my opinion, allows the reader to find out how different countries differ on membership requirements. If you do not agree, then that article, not one on a single section of Scouting, is the one to clarify whether all Scout organisations exclude non-theists or not. There is no need for a link to a specific BSA page or indeed a specific page from any Scout organisation or country on any international page. It is inappropriate. --Bduke 00:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have made an edit addressing the issue in a way which hopefully will alleviate concerns about stressing any single national organization. I have, necessarily, cited three specific organizations; not mentioning any organizations at all would mean having no content. Additional information on the range of policies by those with additional knowledge could be appropriate. GMcGath 00:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is still inappropriate in an international article on one section of Scouting. If it should go in an international article it should be in Scouting or are you going to repeat it in Rover Scouts, Cub Scouts, Venture Scout and so on? --Bduke 00:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Bduke. This last edit of GMcGath is simply out of place here as this article is about the boy, not his organization or the movement. However, I think it would quite acceptable and appropriate for the "Conceptual influences" section of Scouting. Rlevse 02:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously Rlevse is not going to be satisfied by any mention that someone might object to the Boy Scouts' practice of religious exclusion. You objected that the previous link wasn't international enough -- I put in international information. Now you're going with a purely arbitrary assertion that the article is not about the organization. I notice you aren't deleting the sections about troop organization; if this article is about only the Boy-Scout-in-Isolation, what are those doing here? There is a word for what you're doing, Rlevse, and that's VANDALISM. Stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMcGath (talk • contribs)
Obviously, GMcGath has not fully researched this matter. The UK Scout Association does NOT exclude atheists out of hand - a declared atheist (or Humanist or Wiccan, to take two examples I personally know of) will be put through a slightly different process on application for an adult appointment, but this constitutes a conversation with their local commissioner (who has final approval on applicants - not national HQ). The only time national HQ can and will bar an applicant is someone who fails a Criminal Records Bureau background check. As you can see, each national organisation has very different policies and approaches to this issue - while the other items covered in the article (such as troop organisation) are pretty much universal. This is the argument for why they are in, and the (controversial) religious policies that you keep referring to should not be. Horus Kol 14:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not purely arbirary, Bduke agreed with me and you are the only one supporting your viewpoint, which makes the vote 2-1. Your claim of not allowing objections is specious and non sensical-if that were true, I'd not have put in the Scouting article, which is where it belongs. And oh by the way, this is NOT vandalism. Rlevse 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Make that 3-1 Horus Kol 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Make that 3-1 plus inaccurate. Rlevse 14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I reaffirm my agreement here with Rlevse. I think part of the problem is the assertion that this article is about the Boy. It is really about the Boy Scout section and its members. It stands alongside Cub Scouts and Rover Scouts. This is why there is discussion about the organisation of the Troop. The insertion into Scouting is appropriate. It should not be here, anymore than it should be in Cub Scouts or Rover Scouts. Would others please comment? User:GMcGath should try to get support for this move here on the talk page and not act unilaterally. --Bduke 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, Bduke. And make the vote 4-1 now. GMcGath seems to think it's okay for him to act unilaterally and against consensus and logical article structuring. I agree with you and Rlevse that his edit is totally appropriate for Scouting, but not here. Sumoeagle179 00:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points, Bduke. Rlevse 01:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Make that 5-1 --EgelReaction? 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
I am initiating a Request for Comment on the issue of whether all references to the Boy Scouts' membership policies with respect to religion should be repeatedly deleted. To summarize: I added a link to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. That was deleted on the grounds that it was specific to one scouting organization. As I pointed out, the controversy regarding the BSA is significant to all of Boy Scouting. So I did some research and added some text, covering the issue internationally (within the scope of the information I could gather) and without bias. This was deleted on the grounds that the article is only about the "individual boy scout" somehow existing apart from any scouting organization. After I pointed out the fallacy in this, the people who don't want the issue mentioned are resorting to mere superiority of numbers. Wikipedia does NOT give veto power on the basis of larger numbers.
The material which I added is relevant to what a Boy Scout is. It was presented properly. No one has disputed its factuality. Getting four people to say they don't like it counts for nothing. GMcGath 23:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Factuality--see Horus Kol's proof your research was in error. The BSA controversies are specific to the BSA, not all of Scouting. The international scope of the religion issue is better covered in the Scouting and MOVED there, NOT deleted, yet you fail to mention that; nor is that reasoning fallacious so claiming we dont' want it mentioned is a blatant untruth. Rlevse 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
To suggest that anybody "got four people to say they do not like it" is uncivil. I watch these pages and comment when I feel like it, and nobody asked me to do so. It is also uncivil to keep saying that the material has been deleted when it has been moved. WP works by consensus within the contraints of its policies. There is no policy that says what you added has to be in this article and not in a more general article, but consensus is saying it should be in the general article. If it is in the Scout article, logically it should also be in the Cub article, the Rover article, the Beaver article and so on. It is best in the general article. Nobody is supporting you. --Bduke 01:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
1. I am not attempting to cover every article. I don't have time for that. Deleting something from this article is deletion; whether or not it appears in some other article is a separate issue. It is simple truth that the information was deleted; whatever was done to another article doesn't somehow turn that into "blatant untruth." If it's "uncivil" of me to mention the fact, that's too bad. If the other Scouting organizations also practice religious exclusion, then the fact should be mentioned in the appropriate article; The BSA's practice gets the most publicity; if other organizations are doing it, that should be brought to the light of day as well. Should people have to read every article to learn about a serious problem in an organization they might be sending their kids to join? And if they should, why was my link facilitating their doing do deleted -- sorry, "MOVED" out of the article? The deletion of both links and direct information in the article adds up to only one thing: an attempt to keep readers ignorant.
2. Regarding "factuality," the correct approach is to correct facts, not to remove them (or "move" them out of the article). I stated that the BSA excludes people on the basis of religion and others do not, at least not to the same extent. If there were errors in detail, that's a good reason to keep the information there and correct it. What is so frightening to you about people's knowing the facts?
3. Let's look at what the dispute policy actually says. "Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it." Following the policy, I'll continue to pursue the resolution process. As far as I can tell, my RFC hasn't brought in any new comments; I'll wait and see if anyone joins in once it's a weekday, and if not, see what else can be done to bring in outside mediation. GMcGath 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What part of "Applies to the whole Scouting movement, not just the Boy Scout section" and "move vs delete" do you not understand? If the Scout editors didn't want it, they'd have completely removed it from wiki and not put it in the Scouting article. Sumoeagle179 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I just came here because there was an RfC, but I don't see a properly presented question. What is the specific text proposed to be included, with citation? It should be stated at the start of the RfC. That makes it easier to vote include or don't include. Please try again. Thesmothete 04:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
GMcGath - your addition to the Boy Scout article was irrelevant to the scope of that article. However, the (originally incorrect) information was copied to the Scouting article where it belonged. The information about the UK policy was also corrected. The paragraph is in the article where it is most relevant to subject of the article. If you do not feel that this paragraph is relevent to Cub Scouts, Beaver Scouts, Rover Scouts, or any other page on the individual or section within Scouting, then why are you fighting for it to be placed in this one? Horus Kol 11:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please reread my statement. That's not what I said. GMcGath 18:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
RFC2
Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
I am proposing to add, in the "See Also" section, a link to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies. According to Thesmothete, I didn't get the form of the request quite right the first time, so this is an attempt to fix the request by naming only the simplest satisfactory alternative. Regulars, please wait for someone to respond before piling on; this is an RFC section, not a general discussion section. GMcGath 18:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Weak include In general, providing information is better than not providing it, and having links is better than not having them. I don't think this link is essential, but I also have no problem with including any articles about membership criteria for any national scouting organization (particularly one that makes up the plurality of boy scouts). However, I can see why this link might seem to be seen to give undue emphasis to one particular membership controversy, if appropriate weight is not also given to, for example, coeducational scouting worldwide in the "See Also" section. However, the best course would be to include all links to membership issues related to scouting, since that helps to explain who is, isn't, can, and cannot be a scout -- the subject of the article. Thesmothete 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I also think it should be included in a See Also section. Tuviya 23:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong don't include the information is relevant to Boy Scouts of America - not Boy Scout. If we were to have a link or information concerning the membership criteria of one organisation, then we would have to have it for the other 150 members of the World Organization of the Scout Movement. All of that information is relevant only to the individual associations, and not a generic article. Horus Kol 07:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't include First: Scouting in America and specially the Boy Scouts of America is atypical for Scouting in the world. In most countries who have a national scouting organisation with this kind off closed rules (often a religion-based non-WOSM/WAGGGS organisation) there is also a more open national scouting organisation, so in most countries you can be gay/atheist etc. and Scout.
Second: Boy Scout is a article about the boy / the program not about scouting organisations.
Summary: We have one "Weak include," and the other responses are from the people who were already involved in the discussion. This is effectively a no-conclusion. The next step, as I understand dispute procedures, is a mediation request. I'll proceed with that. GMcGath 12:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it looked like one "weak include" from me and one "include" from Tuviya (who also seemed new to the discussion). Still, there was no consensus, good luck with mediation. Thesmothete 23:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong include. The linked article is clearly a subarticle of this one. It must be linked from here. Whatever disputes on the membership controversies should be discussed in that other article. Think of Wikipedia as a whole, not as isolated articles. --Sugaar 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
We do. Do you put all your furniture in just one room of the house or does each piece have its place.Rlevse 11:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Data, unlike furniture, can be in more than one place at essentially no cost. The idea that each fact should "have its place" is fallacious. The more you jump from one logical fallacy and bad analogy to another, the plainer you're making it to everyone that you just want to keep the information out, and the more badly it reflects on Scouting. GMcGath 18:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
To quote GMcGath: "Until the mediator says something, I'll wait." In the maintime something to read:
Seems to me GMcGath is the one with the logical fallacy here and reflecting badly in not understanding article scope.Sumoeagle179 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't include This article has an international focus, so it seems inappropriate to link a subarticle of BSA to this article. That said, I'm surprised BSA isn't linked more prominently in this article, if it does indeed represent a plurality of scouts. One viable compromise might be to add both links, with the membership controversy link double-bulleted to make it obvious it's a subarticle of the BSA page. An better option might be a template to organize these various Scouting articles. Good luck resolving this!--ChaserT 20:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BSA does not represent a plurality of Scouts. Its scout membership is a bit under 3 million youth (with Learning for Life membership this would be a bit under 4.5 million and with adults about 6.2 million). WOSM has about 28 million members (youth and adults) with the largest single nation being Indonesia with 8.9 million members. --Erp 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, then the table for this article is wrong, since it shows that the BSA is the largest. Erp, if you have more accurate information, would you mind updating that table? Thesmothete
The table includes GSUSA as well as BSA membership but the comment was that BSA represented a plurality. Indonesia's org does include girls (but then so does BSA in Venturers). --Erp 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If I understand your statement correctly, then the USA does appear to have the plurality of scouts who are boys -- if the proportion of scouts who are boys to scouts who are girls is the same in both Indonesia and the US. However, the original point is that the BSA represents and enormous proportion of scouts, and its policies may be particularly notable to readers of the EN Wikipedia, even if it were merely second in number compared to Indonesia. Thesmothete 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
First I consider it invalid to differentiate boys who are scouts from girls who are scouts in organizations which are co-ed unless the organization does also. Second we have no way of knowing whether the boy scout members of the BSA are a plurality of boy scouts in the world. The actual number of Boy Scouts in the BSA is about 894,000 in 2005 (note I'm omitting cubs, venturing, learning for life, and adults [and note the last three all include women in the count]). I don't know how many of the Indonesia scouts are of the right age and gender (note that for Indonesia, Scouts ends at 16, those 16-21 are Rover Scouts which complicates comparisons). Third 6.2 out of 28 million is not an overwhelming plurality. Fourth English speaking countries would also include many of the Commonwealth countries (over 800,000 and not including India and Pakistan, another 2.6 million, where many of the scouts probably speak English as a second language); I suspect many of the Commonwealth scouting orgs share similarities that are not shared with the BSA. --Erp 01:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The question is: is this dispute (the originial one, about who gets to be a scout) notable and relevant to the topic of the article? I believe that a big enough proportion of boy scouts are affected that it bears mentioning. You do not. Reasonable minds can differ, I suppose. And we do this time. This issue of what's a "plurality" is a third-order question and not worth pursuing further. I appreciate and respect your view, though I disagree with it. I think that's the end of what needs to be said. Thesmothete 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Woggle
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I can't believe there is no mention of the woggle on this page - it is a crucial part of the scout uniform! Suicup 00:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
If you mean Wood Badge woggle, see that article. This article is about the youth Boy Scout, not adults.Rlevse 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
actually, I agree with Suicup - there's no mention of Woggle in the Boy Scout article - but why is Wood Badge listed as part of the Boy Scout uniform? Horus Kol 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall and I didn't notice it was in there yesterday, but I suppose because it's a worldwide uniform part. Since it's not a youth piece, I took it out. I also noted that woggle is also called slide since many people don't know what woggle means. Rlevse 11:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair does... I didn't know if other Scout organisation gave Wood Badges to under-18s... one of my leaders has started a system of giving something similar to the Wood Badge to Young Leaders. Horus Kol 11:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In the US they have youth training programs like Wood Badge, but it has various names over the years, but they don't get the WB neckerchief and woggle. Rlevse 12:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Links to National Scout Articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Cub Scouts article has links to nationally specific articles for the Cub/Cub Scout/Wolf Cub sections - could we do a similar thing with the Boy Scout article? Horus Kol 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should remove the national ones in the Cub article. A link to a list of national associations would be okay, similar to what we just did on the Scouting article. Rlevse 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So you're proposing that we have sections in this article on each countries take on the Scout Programme (and Cubs and so on)? Horus Kol 08:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Some new suggestions for the lead
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Following the discussion above on this article, I would like to make some proposals. I think this article should be about the
Scout section and its members, just as the articles on Cubs and Rovers are. Note I stress members, because this allows us to deal with all boy situations and combined boy and girl situations in a reasonable and NPOV way. There has been an attempt to focus it on being about the boy, but it is actually only about members of the Scout section, not Cubs, Explorers, Rovers, etc. I think that focus on the boy is unworkable. That leads to an unequal description of sections like the Scout section in the BSA which is all boys and the sections in the UK and Australia, which have been fully integrated boys and girls for a long time, and those in Europe which are mixed boy and girl, but I know less about them. That focus will cause division and difficulties.
The problems, I think, are almost entirely in the lead which currently is:-
"A Boy Scout is a boy, usually 11 to 17 years of age, participating in the worldwide Scouting movement. This movement began in 1907, when Lt. General Robert Baden-Powell held the first Scout camp on Brownsea Island, South England. To advance his ideas, Baden-Powell wrote the book, Scouting for Boys, which targeted boy readership, and described the Scout method of using outdoor activities to develop character,citizenship, and personal fitness qualities among youth.
Boy Scouts are organized into troops averaging twenty to thirty Scouts under guidance of a Scout leader. Troops subdivide into patrols of about six Scouts and engage in outdoor and special interest activities. Troops may affiliate with national and international organizations. Some national Scouting associations have special interest programs such as Air Scouts, Sea Scouts, outdoor high adventure, Scouting bands and rider scouts. Some troops, especially in Europe, have been co-educational since the 1970s, allowing boys and girls to work together as Scouts."
I would like to see this article take over the Scouts title and read something like this:-
"Scouts, called Boy Scouts in some countries, are members of the original section of the worldwide Scouting movement. This movement began in 1907, when Lt. General Robert Baden-Powell held the first Scout camp on Brownsea Island, South England. To advance his ideas, Baden-Powell wrote the book, Scouting for Boys, which targeted boy readership, and described the Scout method of using outdoor activities to develop character, citizenship, and personal fitness qualities among youth. The original age range was 11 - 17 and this is still used in some countries, while others have split the age range with Scouts being 11 - 14 or 15 and the older members being in a new section called "Senior Scouts" or [[Venture Scout]s] or Explorer Scouts. While the section was originally open only to boys, in many countries, from 1970 onwards, it now contains boys and girls working together.
Scouts are organized into troops averaging twenty to thirty Scouts under guidance of a Scout leader. Troops subdivide into patrols of about six Scouts and engage in outdoor and special interest activities. Troops may affiliate with national and international organizations. Some national Scouting associations have special interest programs such as Air Scouts, Sea Scouts, outdoor high adventure, Scouting bands and riderscouts."
The changes are not great. The rest of the article probably needs little change, if any. It is all about the activities of Scouts. Countries that have admitted girls to the Scout program have found no need to change the activities.
While that is my prefered option, I think we could live with leaving the name as Boy Scout for a while while we discuss it further and start if off with:-
"Boy Scouts, called simply Scouts in some countries, are members of the original section of the worldwide Scouting movement." Then as above.
The diambiguation lines at the top probably only need to say:-
Note that Girl Guide and Girl Scout needs some changes too, but let us look at them one at a time. I have hesitated making any of these changes because we need consensus. I do however suggest that if you do not like them and want to maintain a focus on the boy, the onus really is on you to explain how you can deal with those who think that girls are and should be equal in Scouting and how you can avoid this article being continually a divisive place in the heart of our Scouting articles. This article is currently very divisive. My ideas are only a start, although I have thought about them long and hard. Please let us have your views here. --Bduke 10:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I like Bduke's suggestion a lot, it seems to me to be a balanced and appropriate amendment. DuncanHill 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Image
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The image Image:ScoutFun.png is not appearing for some reason. --Jagz 17:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Lots of images aren't showing up right now. Don't know why. See here.Rlevse 18:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The image don't like to be 200px wide at the moment. Don't know why. Some serverproblem? --EgelReaction? 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Have found out there is a notice on commons that the thumbnails aren't working, they are working on it.Rlevse 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. This article would benefit from more sourcing, and I'd recommend sourcing statements that readers may question over their verifiability. These include statements such as "Many boys joined Scouting activities, resulting in the movement growing rapidly to become the world's largest youth organization.", "Only a small percentage of Scouts attain them.", and "The original uniform, which has created a familiar image in the public eye and had a very military appearance, consisted of a khaki button-up shirt, shorts, and a broad-brimmed campaign hat." If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
is going to continue, because these two disambiguation statements are a mess and offend people. I note that the latest IP editor involved is from a UK IP. In the UK, the name has been Scout, not Boy Scout for decades and equal participation of girls and young women is accepted as standard. This article, in spite of many well-intended editors trying hard to change it, is still written from a USA POV. The very title grates with Scouting readers from the UK and other places such as Australia. The second disambiguation statement says boys in UK troops are covered by Girl Guide and Girl Scout, but the first says the girls are covered here in Boy Scout. No change of wording is going to make this satisfactory. Girl Guide and Girl Scout, of course, has similar problems. Note too that many WAGGGS organizations do not have troops, but companies.
I have two suggestions:
Combine the two articles into a single article called Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations, or perhaps, Members of Scouting organizations, although I think it is very much better to be quite clear here. The article could then deal with all the variations around the world in an NPOV fashion. The current titles could then be used for articles about the 11 - 15 or 11 to 18 or whatever, Scout or Guide section. That is if we decide to not remove all the international articles on sections, as Ed has suggested.
If people do not like this suggestion and insist on two articles, then the wording of the disambiguation has to be completely different and I am not sure that is possible. It needs to be along the lines of "This article is about the members of Scouting organizations affiliated to WOSM or following related programs independently. For members of Scouting or Guiding organizations affiliated to WAGGGS or following related programs independently, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout". In Girl Guide and Girl Scout it needs to be essentially the reverse. This would also allow the articles to avoid being "boy-" and "girl-centric" and deal with the coeducational situations fairly. However, the respective use of "boy" and "girl" in the two articles would still be a problem. --Bduke (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Another symptom caused by the fact that the various national organizations are structured too differently to make this easy and to please every one. I'd like to know what Kingbird has to say about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We have Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding. It has a section on "generic" articles, then a very nice table for many national Scouting organizations. The table then breaks each NSO down into sections by age and links any articles thereof. From that list, the only NSOs to currently use "Boy Scout" are the Boy Scouts of Bahrain and the Boy Scouts of America.
The devil is in the details. Scouting does a good job of being universal without being overly specific or overly general. When we start trying to do this at the section level, I think it starts to break down. Compare Boy Scout to Scouting— both articles are covering the same ground and describing the same things. We have some history, age groups, activities, progression and uniforms in both. Boy Scout also tries to cover organization, but it appears very BSA-centric to me.
Well is anyone going to have the intestinal fortitude to flag the article for merge? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Before anyone does that, the whole scheme of restructuring the Boy/Girl articles should be worked out. Otherwise, we'll just have another huge mess. Keep in mind, this set of articles will never make everyone happy and will always be unstable. As long as the grand scheme makes sense and is logical, I have no particular preference. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this largely redundant article is only here still because of rearguard actions fought by some. The article could be usefully written as a short historical overview of what a "boy scout" was with links to the two(?) gender specific organisations to cover the current position. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
But there are no gender specific organisations at the international level as you well know from Australia. The historic stuff is done elsewhere. Let us try to get it right, by moving carefully and slowly. There are several different issues here (see also the discussion on the Project talk page):
Do we want international articles on the various sections. If so, is this on the one on the Scout Section?
Do we want articles on "the boy", or "the girl" or "the member"? I am inclined to say we do not, but if we do I strongly maintain that Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations is the way to go. These days, any article on "the member" has to be gender neutral. What do others think about this specific point? --Bduke (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation is to merge any applicable bits of this article into Scouting. The unit affiliation material should be developed in NSO articles, as each is unique. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This debate is on going on in 3 places, at least two. It needs to be consolidated. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think everyone is aware that there are several inter-related discussions; each article should be discussed individually as well. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 12:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Only to a point, a grand scheme needs to be fleshed out rather than a piecemeal approach. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1. this is the one on the Scout Section. Merged it with the Girl Guide/Girl Scout section article and make it unisex.
2. An (short or long) article is needed to connect the NSO specific core section articles and sections. An article that explains the different ways: horizontal or vertical patrols, one or two core sections , etc. so readers known what to look for in the the NSO specific core section articles or sections.
3. The article is not BSA-centric but somewhat unitair-centric. (unitair = one core section) I have tried the last month to make it less BSA-centric, but some of the wording is still from BSA sources.
Also, why does this article on "Boy Scout" have a picture of both boy scouts and the female equivalent. Whereas the Girl Scout article just has Girls in it - either the Girl scout article has a generic picture (same as this) or the boy scout article gets an image of a boy scout, not both sexes.
Another thing - the "Girl Guides" article title is incorrect - because a Guide can either be a girl or a boy - so while we are talking about these gender related issues - the title of the "Girl Guides" page should just be titled "Guides" as it is supposed to be gender NPOV. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
When we get to that level, what is the difference between a Guide and a Scout? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is all in tradition and history, which is why I suggested that the explanation should lie with words such as "This article is about the members of Scouting organizations affiliated to WOSM or following related programs independently. For members of Scouting or Guiding organizations affiliated to WAGGGS or following related programs independently, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout". Anything else is going to be wrong in some sense to some people. I single article on "the member" would get around a lot of difficulties. --Bduke (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In response to Bduke's question 2 above, I think that it has become very difficult on wikipedia to say anything general about Guiding and Girl Scouting because someone will always point out that some Guides are boys. This is a fair point, but I think it has become overdone. If you take a look at the WAGGGS website, it's all about girls. Not girls and a few boys. They say of themselves "The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts is a worldwide Movement providing non-formal education where girls and young women develop leadership and life skills through self-development, challenge and adventure." Their catchphrase starts "Girls worldwide say..." WAGGGS has not felt it necessary to change its name. This is not because they don't realise some WAGGGS member organisations take boys, it's because taking boys is an anomaly, not the norm. It's an anomaly we shouldn't ignore, but nor should we get too wrapped up in it. Kingbird (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but the same (replacing "girl" by "boy") can not be said about Boy Scout. Why can we not have a general article about the member? That is if we want any such articles. I think we can talk about the organisation and structure the members are in and hence what they do, but it is doubtful we can talk about "the girl" or "the boy" as our guidelines suggest we do. I would like an attempt at one general article about the member to see if it can work, and then a new look at worldwide articles on sections, including the key historical first sections for Scouts or Guides, which currently we do not really have, while having reasonable ones on Cubs, Beavers, Rovers and I think Brownies and Rangers. --Bduke (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Have I got this right? Are we collectively proposing three types of articles? Type 1 - articles about the movement - most importantly Scouting and Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting (or acceptable variant name) Type 2 - articles about different age sections/branches in individual organisations, for example, Cub Scouts (The Scout Assocation), with an umbrella page called Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding. Type 3 - article(s) on an archetypal Scout/Girl Guide/Guide/Girl Scout/Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations. Kingbird (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, I think. There is a concern that Ed has introduced that the articles on sections at an international level should not exist. I'm not sure. There is, to me, to take an example close to my heart, a case for a general article on Rover Scouts to cover the concept across the world and then articles on Rovers in UK or Australia (I forget the actual titles) or where ever. I am sure there are Guide equivalents. That argument seems to be one part of what this discussion is all about. Another part is the view that Scouting covers everything, so Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting is below that. I'm not sure that you really accept that, and I'm not sure that I do, and I'm not clear that the BSA guys understand the issues, although they are acting in absolute good faith and we just may be not understanding each other..--Bduke (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have centered here, so let's keep it here as much as possible. I am seeing signs it will eventually yield a result that we can all agree upon. The way I see it, Scouting is one movement with different facets, including but not limited to Rovers, Explorers, Girls, Cubbing, Sea Scouts, etc. They are all offshoots (spawned from) of the same initial movement, found by B-P in 1907. Girl involvement first started by girls showing up at the "boy only" meetings, which surprised B-P and also impressed him and it led to the founding of the Girl facet of the movement. Each of these facets deserves its own article, with Scouting being the parent, just as they all can be traced directly back to Brownsea Island in 1907. These facet articles I view not subordinate to but in conjunction with Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
If you change the article so "Boy Scout" doesn't exist - then you have to change the article that says "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting" to just "Guides" and merge the Girl Scout article with this one - we cannot have a general "Scout" article, (removing the boy scout name) and keep a girl scout article - thats just blatant sexist and I do not agree with that. We either keep "Boy Scout" and "Girl Scout" articles as they are or we have a general "Scout" article and a generic "Guides" article. Also remember that in some countries still, girls still "have" to join the Guides and boys still "have" to join the scouts - they are still single sex, so creating a universal article may not relect the true structure of the movement everywhere.--Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why hashing this out is so difficult, things are quite different in various countries, but they do all have one common source, Brownsea Island, 1907. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Guides (including Girl Scouts) are 99% Girls, that is not sexist, that is reality. Part of being a Guide is being proud to be female. The Guide movement has besides their roots in the Scout tradition, strong roots in (First-wave) feminism. It is impossible to make a gender-neutral/non sexist article about a partly feminist movement.
Gender not as important for a (Boy) Scout as it is for a (Girl) Guide (or Girl Scout), and at least 15% of Scouts are female. So it is possible to make a gender-neutral/non sexist article about Scouts. I even think the article about Scouts needs to be gender-neutral.
There are more countries where girls can choose and boys can't, than there are counties where boys can choose and girls can't. In the countries where girls can choose, there are often more girls member of the girls-only organization than of the co-ed organization.
Still, by saying that its Girl Guiding, when boys are in it is not correct. It should be "Guides" not girl guides. In the UK a Guide can be a girl or a boy and in some parts of the USA too. You're basically saying that we have to make scouting gender neutral but, guiding not, that stance is sexist in itself. 15% of scouts are girls, that is an extremely small percentage the same as Boys that are guides. Also, boys do have a choice in most countries. One of my friends' son's is a guide, I should know this sort of stuff. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should not have universal articles (better than generic), but we can't think of them as international. Scouting does a good job of being universal without saying that every NSO does things a certain way. I still believe that we cannot write about a member without writing about the program and vice versa— you can't have a Scout without Scouting. We need to examine each of the existing universal articles carefully and individually and ensure that they are not trying to state that every NSO uses the same programs and methods. We also need to ensure that a universal article does not degenerate into generalities.
As noted, most of those with Scout sections are now co-ed.
The age is listed as 11–17, but Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding shows that Scout section ages vary— most are 10–14 with another group such as Venture Scouts or Explorer Scouts for ages 14–17.
Compare Boy Scout to Scouting—these articles cover much the same ground. What information in Boy Scout is unique as compared to Scouting? The only unique section I see here is Unit Affiliation— this appears to be presented as universal, but I am rather doubtful.
The article uses a lot of general terms: most, many, may, some, usually and the like. This is a symptom of attempting to describe a Scouting section that is used in different ways in different NSOs.
Note the WOSM even lists Boy Scouts of America, which obviously has "Boy" in the title, as COED as it admits girls to Venturing and other older Scout programs though it does not admit them to Troops and Packs. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think there is some merit in Ed's suggestions about age groups, but I do not agree with his last sentence. I think Lone Scouts, Air Scouts, Sea Scout and Extension Scouting should remain but the first three renamed to Lone Scouting, Air Scouting and Sea Scouting to concentrate on the organisation. Note two of them are redirects now. They certainly should have similar names and similar redirects. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I was ambivalent on the specialty idea. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bduke's comments on changing the names of the Lone Scout etc articles. I'm not sure about Scouting for xxx youth as titles. It's an ingenious solution, but I'm not sold on it yet. Kingbird (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Scouting and Guiding are international movements. Sections are not international movements, just the manner in which the NSOs package and present the program. There is no international Beaver or Rainbow movement as these are levels within a program. There is a bit of confusion in naming, since Boy Scouting was the seminal movement that has now expanded into Scouting. I know a lot of NSOs use the term sections; the BSA makes a distinction here by referring to Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing as membership divisions of a unified Scouting program. We can certainly compare similar sections, but trying to write about them as if the sections were the movement is misleading. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 12:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
copied from Talk:Girl Guides:
For what it is worth, my daughter is a Guide in Queensland, Australia, and while there are non-co-ed guiding organisations like that in Australia, I think there should be a separate article with links to other scouting articles. Folding the Guides under Scouts would be a bit like folding USA under England. An article like this allows other scouting movement articles to be linked to in a way that clarifies Guidings relationship with the rest of the movement, rather than implying that Guiding is a sort of appendix to Scouting. Alexlaw65 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Stale
After seven weeks with no further discussion, I presume we are leaving the article as is. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Restart
I only left it because I was sick of some peoples' obtuseness and unwillingness to concede an inch. The meaninglessness of Some troops are co-educational, for those troops this article is relevant to them. For girl troops and boy scouts in co-educational troops see: Girl Guide and Girl Scout. is self-evident and possibly (on an umpteenth reading) possibly deliberately constructed to inflame and annoy. If I had my way I would reduce this article to An obsolete term used to describe a youth member of s scouting organisation. For Boy Scouts of America see... Thinking about it that's what I might do... Albatross2147 (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a very stale discussion, but Albatross2147 is right that the problem is not sorted out. Let me try to convince you about a solution I proposed long ago. The problem is that this article is trying to do two things. We have no international article on the Scout section, although we have international articles on Cubs and Rovers. So this article is trying to be that, but it is also trying to talk about the "Boy", i.e the member of this section. We are then faced with the point that in many countries, half the "Boys" are actually "Girls". I think it is just impossible to write about the member. We should write about the "Scout section", explain that we have mixed or single sex units, and describe what they do. While we do not do this for Cubs or Rovers I suggest that we merge in the Guide article that covers the section. Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting is the one about the member. Interestingly Girl Guides starts with "Girl Guides or Girl Scouts is a parallel movement to Scouting" - not single movement, but parallel movement. I think that article should stay. Scouting should remain as it is as the main article on the whole movement. It is remarkably odd that we do not have an articles on the first sections to be founded. This should be about the section that follows Cubs and Brownies (whatever they are called) and that covers roughly the (10,11) to (14-16) age group. I would go as far as to say that an article on the member is not encyclopedic. We certainly do not have sources on the member. We have sources on organization and activities. This is not going to be easy and will involve a major rewrite, but I think we should try. --Bduke(Discussion) 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
[Section split for editing convenience]
I agree that this is still an issue, and indeed it had popped to the top of my issue list after six months. I am still not enthused about any of the universal articles that are about "persons" such as Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Rangers or Rovers. Scouting and Guiding are international movements. Sections are not movements, just the manner in which the organizations split the program by age, and none are the same from one Scouting or Guiding organization to the other. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Re-restart
This matter should be addressed urgently. The page visitation stats show that 200+ people per day are visiting the page. That is 200+ too many who are being mislead as to the nature of scouting. Even the caption on the first image is misleading - there is no evidence that the females in the image are "guides" they could just as easily be scouts and in fact given the context of the image probably are. The page should probably be amended to a disambig page with links to the appropriate pages including but not limited to the BSA page. I would concede that some notes on the historical use of the term would be appropriate but that would have to include the pejorative usage. I am sure that this change will be strongly resisted by some here who do not concede the possibility that females can be scouts but that rearguard action must be overcome. Albatross2147 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Please clarify. For example, are you saying girl scouts are Boy Scouts? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In a large number of countries there is no distinction ie. Scouts are co-ed. A youth member of the national scouting organisation can be either male or female and can participate in all activities equally. Boys and girls are "scouts" not "boy scouts" and "girl scouts". In most countries the term "Boy Scout" is redundant or archaic or, worse still, used as a somewhat pejorative metaphor to describe someone who is both immature and a stickler for procedure. Does this help? Albatross2147 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
And what would you do with the material in this article? Also, it seems this would affect the whole set of articles on membership. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is that a problem? As Gadget pointed out almost a year ago this article has info which is covered adequately and appropriately elsewhere. If it isn't then it can be moved quite easily to BSA, Scouting or whatever or put in an article with a more appropriate name. To be quite frank we have pussyfooted around for too long: it has to be said that this article has only survived in its current form because of some editors' personal ideological, anti-feminist and political agendas. They cannot for whatever reason accept that scouting has moved on from the Edwardian era. Or to put it another way the term "Boy Scout" is pretty well redundant in scouting and we should reflect this. By all means have a detailed section in the BSA article and those relating to other non-coed national organsiations but don't try to push an agenda by maintaining the meaningless travesty that this article has become. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that crude language and personal attacks certainly isn't going to gain you any support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhh... the power of a "space" - I have provided an Wd link for your edification. That's dealt with the purported crudity (and I as a former sailor had to look thrice). Now where's the personal attack? And whilst you are at it come up with a substantive argument rather than red herrings. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "because of some editors' personal ideological, anti-feminist and political agendas" certainly does not help and it might be considered to be an attack. Nobody here is "not conceding the possibility that females can be scouts". Everybody is aware that they can. Nobody is anti-feminist. Yes, I agree that something needs to be done about this article, but I think we need to step back a little and think about it calmly. I will try to do that in the next few days. --Bduke(Discussion) 07:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia works by consensus, Albatross2147, ad hominem-type attacks slamming other editors' motives seldom carry the day. This article is correctly titled in accordance with WP:NAME, as evidenced by Googling the term "Boy Scout". It seems to me the best way to resolve the issue is by discussing the etymology in the Lead and explaining that most English-speaking WOSM members now use the term "Scout", etc. This would flow nicely into the rest of the article and related wikilinks for the general reader. JGHowes talk 14:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I get confused about who is anti-feminist. Guiding is a feminist movement, there is a direct link from the Women's suffrage movement to the start of Guiding. Guiding today is still gynocentric feminist, girls and women are equal (or better) but different to boys and men (opposite to Postmodern feminism). In many (developing) countries Guiding play a major part in the struggle for equal rights for girls and women. In many countries girls prefer to spend their spare time in a girl-only guide organisation even when there is also a co-ed Scouting organisation (UK, New Zealand, Canada etc). Often girls in a co-ed Scouting organisation, in countries without a girl-only guide organisation, proudly call themselves Guide ( a.o. Scouts en Gidsen Vlaanderen). In many countries/languages there is a different word used for a male and a female Scout, so "Boy Scout" is not completely redundant.
I think it is best to start with Bduke's idea from 22:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC) and see what an article about the section / theme will gives us. The (Boy) Scout and Girl Guide sections are for 90% the same, the rest can be covert in a section of the article. --EgelReaction? 15:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously I am happy to proceed on the basis of consensus otherwise I would have made a preemptive strike on the article itself (however futile that might have been). The somewhat inflammatory rhetoric was successful in getting people thinking about the issues here - so it is not necessarily a bad thing. I did not mention any particular editor(s) but if you know who I am talking about then you know there is some basis in fact for this. I am a bit confused by what JGH says about the relationship between SERPs and Wp article titles but I'd go along with what the rest of what he has to say. To Egel I would say that I am not looking to merge Scouting and Guiding. The Duke is as ever sensible and right. FWIW I would refrain from editing the content of this article during a considered re-write. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
My earlier views now in the archive referred to by Egel is here. I see that I first raised questions about this article in August 2007 also in that archive.
There are several thinks wrong about this article. Let me try to explain them separately and clearly:
"About the boy 11-17 years, activities he does in Scouting, Troop/Patrol, Scout Law, Motto, Uniform. Not about history, not about the organization or movement. This article should include a remark that girls may follow this line of Scouting too, instead of being a Girl Guide (Europe/World line of thinking)".
Now someone who has never known her or his Scout association to be other than one where in every section there are girls and boys mixing together on an entirely equal basis, this comes as a shock. "Why is it only about the boy"? "What about me?", she says. Then, the "girls may follow this line of Scouting too" is a classic example of making females feel on the outside or not "proper members". Feminists have, quite rightly, objected to this sort of position for many years. So for a start, this whole paragraph needs to be changed, but I do not think it can be changed without changing the article itself.
Second, the article does exactly the same. The lead starts with "A Boy Scout is a boy .." and ends with "Some troops, especially in Europe, have been co-educational since the 1970s, allowing boys and girls to work together as Scouts.".
Third, I have difficulty with the emphasis on the member. Our sources are generally about the organization, not the member and indeed much of the article is about how the Scout section is organized and what it does. If however, we are going to talk about the member, we can not talk about "the boy" unless we restrict this article to male only Scout sections and have a different article for those who equally admit boys and girls. I do not think anybody wants that.
I stick with my long held view that this article should be largely about the section. It has been said that sections differ and it is impossible to have such an article. Well we have perfectly good articles on the sections - Cub Scout, Rover Scout, Venture Scout and Beaver Scout. Is it asking too much to have an article on the core section that has a continuous link back to the early Scout Patrols that formed after the publication of Scouting for Boys?
Clearly, a change in title might help us considerably but we have overused the term "Scout" and a new name is not easy to dream up. I have thought long and hard on this. Two possibilities are "Scouts in Scouting" or "Scout and Boy Scout". With either of these we could start the article off as "A Scout or a Boy Scout is a member of the original section of the worldwide Scouting movement that began in 1908, after Lt. General Robert Baden-Powell published the book, Scouting for Boys. They are usually 11 to 18 years of age, although some Scouting associations now have a separate sections for members in the top part of this age range. Today they can be boys or girls. Some associations have the section only for boys, while others admit both boys and girls." Parts of the rest of the lead can be retained. Finally replace "Boy Scout" throughout the article by "Scout" and we have something that would be a lot better and more general that what we have now.
The "see also" at the top: "For girl troops and boy scouts in co-educational troops see: Girl Guide and Girl Scout." would be better altered to "For Guides and Scouts who are in organizations that trace their origin to the early Girl Guide and Girl Scout movement, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout. That article would need attention to make it clear that it is about organizations that owe their origin to B-P forming Guides. There is of course the same problem with that article that the title is about girls yet some of these organizations admit boys. That is a matter for another discussion. I see the article refers to the "Guide Movement" in linking to Girl Guide and Girl Scout. Perhaps that would be a better title.
Well those are my thoughts for now. I really do hope we can resolve this matter this time round. --Bduke(Discussion) 02:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The BSA makes a formal distinction between Boy Scout as a person and Boy Scouting as the membership level, also Cub Scouting, Varsity Scouting, Venturing and Sea Scouting. I don't know if or how this is used outside the BSA. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)talk - 14:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Often the name of the section is just the plural of the name of the member. In Dutch a "Welp" (Cub) is member of the section "Welpen", the name of the membership level is the concatenation of the themes in the membership level "Welpen en Kabouters" in Flanders and DWEK in the Netherlands. In France depending on the scouting organisation the section is called "louveteaux" (boy cubs), louvettes (girl cubs), Branche cadette, Branche jaune (the last two together with the "jeanettes" (brownies)), the membership level / theme can also be called "Louvetisme" (cubbing). --EgelReaction? 15:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
How is a Boy Scout a boy or a girl?
A Boy Scout (in most countries simply a Scout) is a boy or a girl, usually 11 to 18 years of age, participating in the worldwide Scouting movement.
Boy Scouts were originally the core membership section of Scouting for boys 11 to 18. As more Scouting organizations have become co-ed, only a few still use the term Boy Scout as the name for a membership section, the largest of which is the Boy Scouts of America. The mid-age section is now often called Scouts or a similar local name. Many Scouting organizations have a Scout section aged 11 to 14 or 15 and an older group from 14 to 18 known as Rangers, Rovers, Venturers or a similar name.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is it appropriate to have this section in this article? This article is an international article, yet this section is entirely about the BSA. The section is actually larger than the one in Boy Scouts of America. I suggest removing this section and adding some of the material to the section in the BSA article. After all, the controversy is not restricted to one section of the BSA. --Bduke(Discussion) 00:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, that section needs to go. This is supposed to be an international article. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't belong here at all. It is well placed in the BSA and the BSA controvery articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 03:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Clever boy
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
So we have 200+ people a day looking here do we? They are going to think that people who write about Scouts are idiots. Despite all the best efforts of many editors above, the first line still effectively says "A Boy Scout is a boy or a girl". Stupid!
This article is one of several that attempts to discuss the members as separate from the movement. It tries to generalize subjects that are disparate across the Scouting organizations. The hatnotes are a mess. I think a merge to Scouting would be the best solution. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 10:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That makes a lot of sense to me. I only just discovered this article today. I see nothing that isn't already recorded elsewhere in Wikipedia. I note we also have an article called Boy Scouts! It's hard to see what purpose this article serves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have on several occasions tried to say that these articles on members are inappropriate. We need to be talking about sections and organizations. Can we take this back to the Scouting Project talk pages to see if we can get a better outcome? --Bduke(Discussion) 11:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This topic comes up every year or so. However you put it into the nutcracker, it's a difficult nut to crack and please everyone, especially because in some countries the Scouting organizations are sex-segregated, some are unisex, and some (like BSA with its Venturing program) are a mishmash. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The title "Boy Scout" is clearly inappropriate for an article dealing with members, "Scout (Scout Movement)" would be more appropriate. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Boy Scout. The disambiguation page Boy Scouts well defines Boy Scout as a member of a Scouting organization. This article tries to deal with Boy Scouts in a very generalized manner as members and is made up of summaries of other articles. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion DuncanHill. No matter how tough a nut it is to crack, it cannot say "A Boy Scout is a boy or a girl". HiLo48 (talk)
Let me try to widen this discussion. As Ed says above, "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting and Girl Guides which are a similar mess", although the latter is not too bad and has rather different concerns. The problem in my mind is indeed the very first sentence "A Boy Scout (in most countries simply a Scout) is a boy or a girl" but not because it says a boy is a girl, although obviously that needs fixing. The problem is that it is about the members, as the summary at the top of the Project talk page says:- "About the members, boys or girls aged 11-17 years, activities they do in Scouting, the Scout section, Troop/Patrol, Scout Law, Motto, Uniform. Not about history, not about the organization or movement.". Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting has a top header that says "This is an article about the young person in the Scouting movement". It starts with "A Guide, Girl Guide or Girl Scout is a member of a section". These two articles should be about the Scout and Guide sections respectively and only about the member in the context of the activities that the section does. It is not the job of wikipedia to write about the members. Sources are not about members as such but about the organization and activities. Other articles focus on the section although the first few words are worded rather differently:-
Cub Scout - "A Cub Scout is a member of the section"
Note that while Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting starts with wording similar to three of the above, its content is more like Boy Scout. All four of the above are more clearly about the section. The start of Rover Scout is better but I would prefer "Rover Scouting is a section of Scouting .."
I think the suggestion to rename it to "Scout (Scout Movement)" is a good one. Perhaps with that we can make progress this time. We then need to alter the emphasis to be about the Scout section. I do not believe that would be a big job. Some material could be moved to Scouting or deleted if already covered there, but we do need an international article on the Scout Section. A similar job needs to be done with Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting. We should then slightly alter the other section articles. --Bduke(Discussion) 22:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I intend to boldly move this article to Scout (Scout Movement) later on today if no-one objects. This discussion has been open for some time, and has been linked to from the Scouting Wikiproject, and I have seen no objections so far to the suggested name. I hope that such a move will provide an impetus to the other suggested improvements which Bduke refers to above. DuncanHill (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking the same. "Scout (Scout Movement)" is a bit awkward though— how about "Scout (section)"? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do it, then get rid of that stupidest sentence in Wikipedia, about boys being girls. I like Scouting too much to see that idiocy remain. HiLo48 (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Utter utter confusion
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
What in this article is about? The article is supposed to be about "Scout (Scouting)" but nearly all of it is about particular national organizations' peculiar use of the term "scout", groupings, organizational structure and units which are only relevant to particular organizations and not necessarily related to a "scout" or scouts, programs, age groups, sections and most bizarrely "Foundation". How can you have the foundation of a scout? How can a scout be a pathfinder? A scout is a scout and a pathfinder is a pathfinder. Move all this rubbish to other articles. A lot (most) of this is just not necessary for an article defining "scout" in scouting. Take each sentence and ask if it is about a "scout" and necessary to define and explain a "scout". Not much of it is relevant. Then we have some idealogues trying to expunge the term "Boy Scout" and others trying to redefine words. A scout is just a collective term including boy scouts and girl scouts. We may not call them boy scouts any more but there are still boys and girls. Conversely, boy scouts and girls scouts are just particular genders of scouts. The term boy scout has a particlar meaning and historical meaning, it may not be in common use any more but it still exists as a term. The article is not trying to define your organizatons. Worst of all, the article has redirects to it trying to define other terms by this one.
I suggest separate very short articles on Scout(s), Boy Scout(s), Girl Scout(s), Scouting, the Boy Scout Movement, the Scout Movement, sea scout(s), air scout(s). These are separate terms with different uses, even if historical, so why try to define them all together. Articles on each of these should be kept free of the separate scout organizations and their peculiar points of view and the like of scout sections, scout programs, scout patrols, troops, companies, groups, clubs, etc. except by links.
Robert c2227 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
As you can see from previous discussion above, there is an awareness that there are issues here, and in the other universal section-specific articles in Category:Scouting. My opinion is that we should not try to create such universal articles as such, but instead have one article that details the age groups and notes the variety of methods used by the various national Scouting organizations. Age groups in Scouting and Guiding would be a good article to expand. --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 16:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
One of the problems is that there is in the world no clear majority viewpoint about Scouting, there are only significant minority views. These significant minority viewpoints overlap partially, but all in different places. To achieve a NPOV we can only try to patch those overlaps together (or write a extremely short dictionary definition). This applies in particular for the 11 to 18 year age group, where Scouting is organized very differently in the USA from the rest of the world. If you would limit to the largest minority view on this subject, this would seem very alien for a majority of the readers of this wiki. What a Scout is determined by what he / she does (Activities) and the environment where he / she is doing that (Unit affiliation). --EgelReaction? 18:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Some of the extremely short articles you will get if you remove all description of the variety of methods used by the various national or local Scouting organizations or unorganized Scouts:
*A Scout is an adolescent boy or girl who does something that is based on or inspired by the ideas of Robert Baden-Powell, especially the book "Scouting for Boys".
*A Sea Scout is an adolescent boy or girl who does something water related that is based on or inspired by the ideas of Robert Baden-Powell.
*An Air Scout is an adolescent boy or girl who does something air related that is based on or inspired by the ideas of Robert Baden-Powell.
*A Rover Scout is a young adult who does something that is based on or inspired by the ideas of Robert Baden-Powell.
The various articles on Scouting generally, as opposed to country-specific articles, have always been a problem, but this seems to be a compromise that is accepted. The point I think you miss, Robert, as it is perhaps easy to do so, is that this articles is about the member of the Scout section, as opposed to a member of a Cub Scout, Explorer Scout, Rover Scout, Beaver Scout, Joey Scout, etc. section. This is made difficult by the fact that the age group, roughly 11 - 18, is a single Scout section in some associations/countries, but split into Scouts and Senior Scouts, Explorer Scouts or Venture Scouts in others. The "Foundation" section is there because this section is the one that B-P first founded in the UK in 2008. All other sections were added later. My own view is that this article should focus on the section, not on the boy or girl who is a member of the section, although of course it will talk at lot about what the members of the section do. However, others do not agree with me. Finally, I have no idea what you mean by "Then we have some idealogues trying to expunge the term "Boy Scout"", and I suggest that you do not describe material that many people have worked on and struggled over for years as "rubbish". --Bduke(Discussion) 21:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, Bduke's final point is taken. The material is not rubbish, it just does not belong in this article and my comment was (poorly) directed at the structure and organization of the information rather than the material itself. I agree with Gadget850, who suggests that this material belongs in a different article - Age groups in Scouting and Guiding. Read each sentence and ask yourself does it define "scout" or something else. Bduke criticizes my comments but then indicates exactly what I suggested "that this articles is about the member of the Scout section". If that is what you are writing about, put it under that heading not this one. Each of the sections terms listed by Bduke is organization specific and belongs under an article on that organization or a sub-article. This avoids the very differences creating difficulties. Bduke suggests I miss the point of what this article is about but this article is about "scout" and it is Bduke and others who are trying to make it about something else. Robert c2227 (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
"Scout" needs to be defined. There are members of the movement in Cub Packs, Rover Crews, Venturer Units, Guide Companies, Brownie Packs, and so on as well as those in Scout Troops. Scout is used both in general and in particular on its own for members of the Scout Section, the first to be created by B-P. This article has all along been about the particular use as members of Scout Troops. This is also the age group between 11 - 18 or 11 - some lower age down to 14. This is the difficulty. The problem is not just the content, but the name of the article. There is a bunch of articles where we have long discussed the best name for them. There is even the problem that the general article Scouting for the whole movement, leads to problems about the name of the article about the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting movement, which like the WOSM organisations is a part of the whole Scouting movement, as well as the name about the article on the Guide section. We have perfectly good articles about "Cub Scouts", "Rover Scouts", "Brownie Guides", and so on. For completeness we should have an article about "Scouts" in the narrow sense of members of the movement in Scout Troops in the 11 plus age, as well as one on members in Guide Companies in the same age range. We can not avoid seeing this article in the context of many others. We have to consider the titles of the articles as well as content. Robert, you are new here. Take time to get a general view of all the Scouting and Guiding articles and get more understanding about the variation around the world. I do not know where you come from, but it always strongly influences how new editors approach the articles on wikipedia. Slowly we have all come to realise how marvellously varied the whole Scouting movement is, but that does not make life easy for us. --Bduke(Discussion) 07:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Case of "scout"
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The noun "scout" should be in lower case. See for example [2]. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Scout (Scouting). 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: 18 January 2022).
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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I didn't want to edit the section Unit Affiliation without discussion, but this sentence jumped out at me.
"The troop is the fundamental unit of the Scouts."
Is the troop the fundamental unit or the patrol? I would argue that the patrol has been the fundamental unit since Baden-Powell founded Scouting, but I have also seen where patrols are mear administrative constructs.
So, rather than personally edit a document that has an interesting history, I'd rather see what the consensus is on troop versus patrol as the fundamental unit of the Scouts. EyesBleeding (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Merge / redirect?
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is an expansion on my comments at the GA reassessment. There are challenges presented by the very nature of the title/subject. The term / title means a member of Scouting, which means a member of any one of hundreds of organizations worldwide with tens of millions of members, at any point in the over-a-century of existence of such organizations. What should be the content of such an article that would not be just of duplication of Scouting? I think that the current state of the article is the inevitable result of this near-impossible task. It's sort of a mashup of the subject matter and Boy Scouts in general and the Boy Scouts of America. IMO this should just be a redirect to Scouting, or else a very brief article explaining the term.North8000 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
It is not about a member in general, but a member of the "Scout" section so it goes alongside the articles on "Cub Scouts", "Rover Scouts", etc. The problem is that the sections differ widely across the world. The "Scout" sectioned used to be for boys 11 - 18, but is now generally for the age range 11 - 15 with many organisations admitting girls as well as boys. It just needs some work, --Bduke (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Stale