Talk:Scouting in popular culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Footnotes

If a movie or TV show has an article, then cites such as the IMDB reference belong in the article. The footnotes are going to get long enough on this as is. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Stamps

If anyone want to add notable stamps, go ahead. The SOSSI site has good references, but there are an enormous number of stamps out there. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge from List of Eagle Scouts

Propose that Fictional Eagle Scouts be merged to here, and the following text added to the beginning of List of Eagle Scouts:

During almost a century of existence, Scouting has entered into many elements of popular culture, including movies, TV and books. A number of Eagle Scouts have appeared in fiction, as noted in Scouting in popular culture. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with this, but I can see it in either spot. Rlevse 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some of the Eagles have already crept into this list. I don't think we need it both places. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I meant one spot or the other, not both. But where it ends up should link back to the other. Rlevse 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Someone should just do it. evrik 13:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I will do this in the next day or so. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just did it. evrik 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

I think we need to tighten up the criteria a bit before this list strangles on cruft. We should only include references to Scouting only where they are central to the plot of the book or show. We should not include references where Scouts have only a minor appearance. By this criteria, the 3rd Rock from the Sun episode "I Enjoy Being a Dick" would be excluded, whereas "I Brake for Dick" would be excluded included. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed, could you clarify this. You have used "excluded" twice, when I think you intended to use it once and use "included" once. I have no idea about the episodes you mention, so do not understand the example. However, I agree with your central argument. --Bduke 22:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. These are just two examples for the TV section We would include "I Brake for Dick" because Boy Scouting in central to the theme of the episode. "I Enjoy Being a Dick" merely mentions Girl Scouts. Some more I would remove (this is not exhaustive):

• Justice League and Justice League Unlimited; Superman is given the nickname of Boy Scout most notably by Batman.
• Lost episode "Hearts and Minds" (2005) US; Johnathan Locke notes that he was a Webelos Scout when he learned how to tie knots and identify birds.
• Lost episode "The Other 48 Days" (2005) US; Goodwin tells Ana Lucia Cortez that he is in the Peace Corps, and compares it to grown up boy scouts.
• The Sopranos episode Made in America (2007) US; Cub Scouts and a leader appear in the diner scene at the end of the episode.

And move these from TV to the fictional Eagle Scout list (I think most of them are already there, so they are duplicates):

• CSI: Crime Scene Investigation episode "Toe Tags", 05 October 2006 US; Greg Sanders, played by Eric Szmanda is called a Boy Scout while rappelling down a cliff and he replies: "Eagle Scout! I didn't earn a chestful of merit badges for nothing". (cf Fictional Eagle Scouts)
• Doctor Who episode "Delta and the Bannermen" (1987) UK; Stubby Kaye's character Weismuller states that he was an Eagle Scout.
• King of the Hill episodes "Flush With Power" (2000) and "Unfortunate Son" (2002) mention that Hank Hill is an Eagle Scout.
• Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Rogue Planet" (2002) US; Captain Jonathan Archer and Malcolm Reed are revealed to be Eagle Scouts.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

'Brussel Sprouts'

I remember a controversial TV film in the 1970's broadcast in the UK with the above title (Cockney Rhyming slang for 'Scouts'). It caused a furore amongst the Scouting establishment at the time and has never been mentioned since. Did it really exist or is it a figment of my imagination?

Mspice2215 17:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is spelled Brussel Sprouts. I did not find anything in a quick search. An early pejorative jeer towards Boy Scouts was "Here come the Brussel Sprouts, The stinking, blinking louts." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling mistake corrected!  :-) I was still a Scout when this came out and can remember reading about it in 'Scouting Magazine' The film portrayed a bumbling and incompetant Scout Master, I never saw it myself. Mspice2215 11:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot from Indiana Jones

I think this screenshot should be included. There are precious few instances of Boy Scouts being depicted in movies (as opposed to merely mentioned) and this is one of the most well-known ones. Neither WP:FAIR nor US law requires "critical commentary". Providing "critical commentary" makes it more likely that a court would find in your favor if you are ever sued for copyright infringement, but it is not a necessary standard. This is a notable example of Boy Scouts being depicted in a movie and is thus significant to the topic. --B (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with B. What that pic is used for here is prime example of valid fair use. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, its use here is a prime example of a violation of WP:NFCC#8. If this is such a well known example of boy scouts portrayed in movies, why does it merit no more than a brief one-line mention in a bullet point? WP:FAIR does indeed require "critical commentary and discussion" when film and television screenshots are used, and this article has none. —Angr 14:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does number 8 say you have to actually talk about the image vice use it to illustrate a point in the article? Whether you knew about the discussion or not (which you've now commented to) you still removed them without discussion. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There was an IFD discussion at WP:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 17#Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg and the result was Keep. It was then taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 25 and the result was Keep. Considerable additional content regarding the image has been added to the article. JGHowes ^talk - 03:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Girl Scout Cookies in popular culture

Merge Girl Scout Cookies in popular culture. This is a split from Girl Scout Cookie, most of which was a fork from this article to begin with. --Gadget850 (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Borderline, if expanded some, this'd warrant being a subarticle of the main one. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it would also be a subarticle of this one and duplicates should be removed. --Gadget850 (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

merge here Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Why Alphabetical for films?

I can understand why it would be used for tv sections or books etc, but I just feel that if you are going to make a list like this for films, then chronological order makes a lot more sense. I came to this page because I remembered a film about scouts and wanted to remember the name of it, but I could not find it on here because it was too difficult to see it. If it had been in chronological order, at least I could have confined my search to the 1980's and 1990's.Wild ste (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

We could convert this to a sortable table. What are you looking for? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of non-notable work

I am again removing a reference to a non-notable work added by a blocked sockpuppet. Flowanda | Talk 07:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who entry

I have added a "citation needed" tag to the new "Doctor Who" entry. In particular I think the actual quote needs sourcing. Since this show is a British show, I doubt it would use the US term "merit badge" which is not used in the UK. They were called proficiency badges when that show went out. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The term Desert Storm was being used in Parliament instead of Operation Granby, so who knows on that. I vaguely remember watching this episode ages ago, but it is on Netflix, so let me check. Frankly, a minor mention like this is not relevant to the list. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes— merit badge is correct at 2:37 into the episode. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. The BBC must have been looking, even back then, at sales in the US! --Bduke (Discussion) 23:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh. Den mother still gets tossed out now and then even though it was renamed den leader in 1967. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? Eh? I do not understand. The term "merit badge", as far as I know, is an Americanism. It has never been used in UK Scouting. The BBC now makes a great deal of money by selling its programs to the US. I was merely commenting that it goes back quite a while. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just now watching Doc Martin on Netflix, and a character mentions earning a merit badge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Information regarding fictional scouting organizations and official position on usage?

I'm watching "It Happened to Jane" from 1959, and I was struck by the fact that they were real cub scouts, as opposed to some fictional name like "kitten campers" or something. Usually when I see current films/TV that deal with scouting, they are made-up organizations that have no relation to the actual scouting organizations. I was coming here to see if the actual organizations had requirements that they not be portrayed in film, or if there was a potential for a lawsuit if they were portrayed negatively. Another possibility is that the names, uniform designs, etc., are trademarked and can't be used without permission.

The only line in the article says [not verified in body] and is as follows: Scouting is often dealt with in a humorous manner, as in the 1989 film Troop Beverly Hills, and is often fictionalized so that the audience knows the topic is Scouting without there being any mention of Scouting by name.

That line barely touches on the issue, and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I was hoping to see some statements or policies from some of the organizations involving representation on film.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the list separated into "real" scouting (such as in It Happened to Jane) and "fake" scouting, where the show uses whatever made-up name instead of Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire Girls, Cub Scouts, etc.98.162.209.39 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentions in passing

There is already a comment in this article, in the TV section, which says that a character merely being a scout does not merit inclusion on this page. Evrik, do you dispute that minimum standard for including an example? Because I'd be glad to show you an RFC consensus that sets the bar even higher than that. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sure. Let's see what you have, and how it relates. --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's the RFC from October 2015, which states that popular culture examples must, in almost all cases, be cited to a secondary source outside the pop culture work itself. I believe this standard should be enforced, but I don't enforce it when editing IPC sections because there would be nothing left of most of them, and then certain editors would accuse me of vandalism and engage in revert wars. However, I do require that (1) pop culture examples are complete sentences, rather than brief callouts of the work's title, and (2) that the cultural reference is not merely "in passing," such that its removal would not appreciably alter the work. I investigate this if I can find online resources to do so, but if I can't then I rely on information provided in the example itself. The comment in this article indicates that I'm not the only editor who believes that such a standard should be applied here. Most of the article meets those standards, and I don't know why it's so important to you to keep the parts that do not. If you want a different standard applied other than mine or the one in the RFC, you can appeal to the editor community.

By the way, it is somewhat difficult to assume good faith on your part when you revert changes that merely move comments from one end of a section to the other and then leave a nastygram on my talk page for it. So don't do that please. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• While the RFC is nice, it's not actually made its way to the policy page. While while what you say has some merit, your actions are not justified. --evrik ^(talk) 18:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Evrik, you asked me to come to the talk page, so I came. Is there anything you want to say, or will you continue to revert all of my changes without explanation? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Why don't you log in and stop driving an edit war? --evrik ^(talk) 18:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is policy. How do you believe that policy should apply to this page? And why have you reverted my changes that don't even remove examples? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 22:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Your changes are little more than vandalism. --evrik ^(talk) 21:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Since your attempt to report it as such didn't work out, maybe you should give that a second thought. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you can find more productive ways to fix this article. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)