Talk:Scouts Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

state based articles

I have added a template for links to articles for Scouting in each State. Please be bold and add some of them. Each State article should have [[Template:Scouts Australia States]] as the last line. Note this template also puts the article in the [[Category:Scouting in Australia]], so there is no need to add that at the end of the article. --Bduke 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have started adding the articles on Scouting in the various States and Territories. You can see from the template at the bottom of the Scouts Australia page what progress I have made. The Scouting in South Australia page is poor on the history of Scouting in SA. Their web page is very light or difficult to find about the history or maybe both. The NT web pages are much better, in spite of the fact (or perhaps indeed because of the fact) that all their records were destroyed in Cyclone Tracy. Please add to the articles, particularly the SA one which looks rather thin. --Bduke 18:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All State and Territory articles now exist as stubs, but they need more information. I also added one on Australian Scout Jamborees. --Bduke 03:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would current political struggles between states, branch et al be appropriate for this article?

In particular, the uniform debate (Mmm, Drama).

Above 2 lines added by User:59.167.96.52

Before I comment on the above, welcome to Wikipedia and the Scout pages. Please register and then we can debate stuff on your own talk page. Also please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ at the end.

I really have no direct knowledge of political struggles or the uniform debate. However if you do them in a neutral point of view they might be appropriate for the State and Territory articles or if it is a national perspective on Scouts Australia. Go for it. If you get it wrong someone will help you. --Bduke 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting museums

I have added a section for Australia and added the Heritage Centre in Victoria. Can anybody else add others. Also I have heard that all the Scouting museums are going to be moved in total to the Jamboree next year. This is a notable item to add to the article but we need a cite for it. Anybody got one? --Bduke 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there any Australian Scouting memorials? --Bduke 02:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scout/Guide equality on WP

I have just pointed out on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting that we are not dealing with Guides on an equal footing with Scouting. I think we should. Can we lead the way in Australia? Both organisations are organised on a State basis I believe, so we do not have the problem that UK has of the Counties/Areas being different. So could we change "Scouting in State XXX", e.g. Scouting in Victoria, to "Scouting and Guiding in State XXX" and add the Guide material? Should we change Category: Scouting in Australia to Scouting and Guiding in Australia? Importantly, could someone knowledgable write Guides Australia?

Why do I raise it now? On the WikiEN-l e-mail list there has been a discussion about sexism on WP and one woman editor reported that after discussing this on the list, she was overwhelmed by e-mails from other women saying they were intimidated from contributing to the list and to some WP discussions. This can not continue.--Bduke 11:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. We could move Scouts Australia to Scouts and Guides in Australia. We already mention Guides and non-WOSM Scouts, so we could aim to properly cover all Scouting and Guiding in the country. Another question, should it be "Scouting and Guiding" or "Guiding and Scouting"? --Bduke 11:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting has become quite extensive. Please take a look. --Bduke 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting I have created a stub for Guides Australia and also for The Girl Guides Association of the Solomon Islands, Girl Guides Association of Papua New Guinea and Guides New Zealand. Please expand them. Then we need Guide State and Territory articles. The debate is going against a combined Scouting and Guiding in Australia article. The debate on categories is moving towards having Category:Guiding in Australia but there is not much to put in it as of now. --Bduke 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Norfolk Island and Australian Indian Ocean Territories

Christmas and Cocos Irsland are the Indian Ocean Territory. I have done much OR on Scouting and Guiding in these places. None of it amounts to very much and none of it is verifiable, so none of it can be added to any article. The information I have as a set of quotes from various e-mail messages is:-

• "There has been a scout group on the Cocos Islands 15 years or so ago and there has not be any since then"
• "I do not believe there is any Scouting or Guiding Association active on Christmas Island"
• (Christmas Island) "I don't think there is any at the moment. But, there used to be a small group of brownies some 7-8 years ago"
• "There is a scout group on Norfolk Island which is administered by the NSW branch international section. This group is currently inactive due to a shortage of leaders"

Given a decline in numbers of Scouts Australia, it seems to me doubtfull that there will ever be Scouting on these islands with very small populations. --Bduke 03:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Has Quentin Bryce accepted role of Chief Scout?

Bduke asked above whether Quentin Bryce has accepted the role of Chief Scout? This Qld Scouting page states The Chief Scout and Governor of Queensland, Ms Quentin Bryce AC, recently announced that all members of Scouts Queensland will be ‘challenged’ to raise $100 each.... This newspaper report from May 2008 also states The organisation has State Governor and Governor-General-designate Quentin Bryce as its Chief Scout. It seems that Qld like WA has the State Governor in the role. I am not sure whether she has accepted the role in her capacity as GG --Matilda ^talk 22:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox on State articles

Some time back, I altered the lead to indicate that the State and Territory articles are dealing with all aspects of Scouting in the State or Territory and not just the Scouts Australia organisation. This follows the pattern set in the UK with new region articles that cover all organisations. In both countries they do not cover Guiding as the term "Scouting" in not seen to include "Guiding" in Australia or the UK. This raises the question whether the Scouts Australia infobox should be in these articles. I added it for South Australia, the only one that did not have it, while cleaning up a problem with the Chief Scout name. What do others think? I am inclined to think it should, as it is the dominant Scout organisation. This raises two further questions. First, has Quentin Bryce accepted the position of Chief Scout? If so, she needs adding to all of them. I have commented out the previous GG (previous previous in one case!). Second, the WA article has what I assume is the State Governor in this position, All the others have the GG. What is the situation and the respective roles of the GG and Governor? Can we get this consistent? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Since these state article potentially cover multiple Scout organizations, I would recommend against using the infobox for a specific NSO. How can we adapt the infobox to cover regions with multiple NSO? Perhaps we could add fields to list the known NSOs in the region? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that this is "potentially cover multiple Scout organizations". Of the 8 States or Territories four certainly do not have a presence of the B-PSA and I am not clear that two of the other four still have a presence. There are the odd Group of Scouts in exile, but no more than one or two in any State. No other organisation exists to my knowledge. Scouts Australia really does dominate in Australia, even more than the Scout Association does in the UK. I am inclined to leave the infoxbox as is, as it is clear I think that it refers to Scouts Australia. If the B-PSA gets more members we can add another infoxbox for them in the articles on the States where they exist. The infobox does make useful information very easily available to the reader. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What of Guides Australia? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question. First, we have no Guide editors in Australia that I know of and the coverage of Guiding is very poor. Second, it is quite clear to me that nobody here (or indeed the UK) would expect to find anything about Guiding in an article with only Scouting in the name. I am thinking about adding stuff on Guides Australia to the State and Territory articles, but I do not have time right now. The article names would however have to be changed to "Scouting and Guiding in Victoria", etc. Alternatively we could have separate articles on Guides Australia in the States and Territories as we do for the UK. Either way we could add another infobox for Guides Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regional articles intended to cover single NSOs should have an infobox specific to the NSO. Regional articles intended to cover multiple NSOs should have an infobox that lists all the NSOs in the region or is just generic. It is trivial to add fields to the infobox to cover either case. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Section names

• Joey Scouts (Australia) → Joey Scouts (Scouts Australia)
• Cub Scouts (Australia) → Cub Scouts (Scouts Australia)
• Scouts (Australia) → Scouts (Scouts Australia)
• Venturer Scouts (Australia) → Venturer Scouts (Scouts Australia)
• Rovers (Australia) → Rovers (Scouts Australia)

Australia here implies that these are universal to the country; they should all be renamed to Scouts Australia. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I am not sure what point you are making. If you are suggesting a merge, I disagree --Matilda ^talk 00:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Ed is suggesting a move to Venturer Scouts (Scouts Australia), etc. as the B-PSA sections are not the same. I agree with him. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being not very bright about this - why would we put an extra word in the disambiguation that repeats a word - are there other Venturer Scouts in Australia? If there are then I would agree. --Matilda ^talk 23:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact I would go one step further - why are we disambiguating Venturer Scouts when there was no article on them - so presumably no need to disambiguate. I have now created a redirect disambiguation to Venturer Scouts (Australia) - but to make the dab more complicated seems very weird and against Wikipedia:Naming conventions - Titles should be brief without being ambiguous. + Titles should make linking to the article simple. - disambiguation should only be used when necessary - it doesn't make linking to articles easy. --Matilda ^talk 23:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are Venturer scouts in Turkey so I have disambiguated Venturer Scout to Turkey and Australia for the time being --Matilda ^talk 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to this. The disambiguation of Australia points to the country, and implies that these sections are part of the country or are the only Scouts in the country. Where we need to disambiguate Scouting sections, it should be to the full name of the national Scout organization. If there is no other organization named Joey Scouts, then there is no need to disambiguate it at all. The other sections do need disambiguation, and leaving some sections without disambiguation seems to confuse some editors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For all of the articles but one (Rovers) it would be restating the word "Scouts" and I don't think that is helpful. Disambiguation is meant to make it clear but not unwieldy per the naming conventions. I think each of the section names would be the only scouts in Australia - there other scouting type organisations but not with the same names. --Matilda ^talk 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation for Australia looks different to say the United States as the US organisation does not use the country name - hence Cub Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) makes more sense. I am not sure that Cub Scouts (The Scout Association) does as it is not clear from teh name alone to the uninitiated that refers to the UK branch as opposed to the world-wide level. --Matilda ^talk 18:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with just using "(Australia)" after the section name is that the articles are about the Scouts Australia sections, while there are sections in the Groups of the Baden Powell Scout Association (BPSA) in Australia. Therefor we either need to make sure that we mention the BPSA in the articles where they use the same name for the section, or we change the names back to use "(Scouts Australia)" after the section name. The one BPSA editor here is not active at present, but the BPSA editors in the UK are very active quite rightly asserting points similar to the one I have made here. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I dropped this. The proposal is to rename the section articles so that they are associated with the organization, not the country. I have updated the list to illustrate this. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

States and Territories

Please look at a proposal at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Australia#State and Territory articles and comment there. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I don't think the link to the pagan church website is a reliable source under our guidelines. I believe this section is pushing a particular point of view and seeking publicity for that minority view - in fact the reference leads one to the campaign. Without reliable references this section should not stay - if it does it needs to deal with the facts and all of them referenced. --Matilda ^talk 18:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A read of the pagan church link tells me that, yes, issues were raised about whether members of that church could be members, and that the issues were all satisfactorily resolved. Because the issues were resolved, I see no point in the comments about monotheism being there at all. If the article mentioned anyone and every group that ever raised an issue with Scouting, it would be ten times as long, and quite unreadable. On that basis, I intend to remove the reference to monotheism entirely. To me, the only remaining religious issue involves people with clear and strong atheistic beliefs. Scouts Australia's policies would clearly seem to ban them. If someone wants to add comment to that effect I would have no objection. I might do it myself one day when I can figure out how best to word it.Roblowe48 (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing the material about the pagan church seems OK. The question of "people with clear and strong atheistic beliefs" needs very good references. In practice I think a lot of atheists think that duty to "my" God is a duty to nothing so there is no problem about the Promise, whatever Head Office says. It may be difficult to be NPOV. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a refreence to the Scouts Leader Guide that says it "insists leaders have a faith or belief in god". This, along with the promise makes it quite clear that atheists are excluded from the group. I do not agree that there is no problem with the promise "in practice". People who do not believe in the monarchy are given the option of removing reference to the queen from the promise. No such allowance is made for atheists. --Ozscout (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How about responding to the immediately preceding post? Your source is a NSW one, not Australian. This is a controversial area and you must tread carefully. An up-to-date, reliable, external source would be ideal. You may be raising a valid issue within Scouting, but try to not use Wikipedia as a place to conduct a debate and run a campaign. HiLo48 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

NSW is in Australia but I can add the distinction with the verifiable external link. The current statement does not have any external source and is incorrect/incomplete. The fact that Australia is rooted in Christianity is also irrelevant. Baden-Powell's world view was one of Christianity and he clearly states that God is an integral part of Scouting. Had Australia been rooted in Buddism, Scouts may have started up but still restricted to those who believe in God. I am not conducting a campaign, I am simply stating facts. If you are saying I should respond to the post from 2009 where a theist "thinks" atheists wouldn't have a problem "in practice", well I strongly disagree with his view and the only way to know what atheists think would be to ask an atheist. I do agree with RobLowe48's comments regarding Scouts exclusionary policies needing comment. --Ozscout (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to see the "god" part of Scouts Australia's policies clarified. But for Wikipedia we have to have reliable external sources that tell us what has actually happened. This could be an article in a good newspaper telling us that person X chose to not join and become a leader because of the policy. In practice where I come from, I'm not aware that religion has ever been an issue in appointing a leader. I suspect that the current Australian promise was made deliberately unclear, to keep the religious folk happy, but to also allow non-religious folk in. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"in practice where I come from" is OK for you to decide what's factual is it? I am a current leader who was told at training that Leaders HAD to profess a belief in A god. I have provided a verifiable link to an official Australian Scout web site that tells you "what is" and you continue to reverse edits because your POV is that it is controversial and doesn't happen where you come from. As far as an article I will provide a further reference to the Atheist Foundation of Australia's submission to the Human Rights Consultation (section 4 Children and young people's right) www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/.../Atheist_Foundation_of_Australia_AGWW-7R3TX8.pdf But this will start to become a discrimination whereas the only fact that I was pointing out under the religion heading was that atheists are excluded.--Ozscout (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me that you have in NSW some leaders and trainers who are trying to push religion rather harder than the rest of Scouts Australia is. The use of the term "my" God, is, I think, unique to Scouts Australia, and it is clearly intended to give the individual, not the organisation, the right to define the term God. I am not a member of Scouts Australia, because I am an atheist and I can not in honesty make the promise even if the "my' waters it down. However, I have been told on many occasions that I can define "my God" how I want and there would be no problem with my joining. I have also been told that I take much too strong a view and that "my God" can really be taken to mean nothing whatsoever. I think we need a reference from Scouts Australia policy or rules, not from a guide for leaders in one State. I note that this link to a page trying to recruit adults to help in general or as leaders, does not mention the word, "God". --Bduke (Discussion) 01:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Ozscout, I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying about the policy. It can be used to prevent non-believers joining up. I've given my experience and you have given yours. As Bduke says, you must have encountered some who want to push religion more strongly than intended by those who softened the Australian requirement. I'm interested in that Atheist Foundation document. Can you provide the full link please? It may be usable here. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The link was found this morning by typing in a couple of key words into google and I will add it to the end of this post. Giving someone the option of defining their own god does not make it acceptable to insist that someone believe in a god. Bduke says himself that he is not a member because he can not reconcile the required promises with his beliefs. You will be hard pressed to find anything in the official policy apart from LSG 20 and 35 on the nsw scouts site. Scouts Australia have a don't ask, don't tell policy like the US military and gays. No mention is made on the recruitment page but it certainly is during training. The law was softened to include other monotheistic religions - not atheists. Can I add my edits now? https://www.humanrightsconsultation.gov.au/www/nhrcc/submissions.nsf/list/9EFDD1C84F47FCD2CA2576070019FE5C/$file/Atheist_Foundation_of_Australia_AGWW-7R3TX8.txt?open&query=scouts --Ozscout (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"The law was softened to include other monotheistic religions" - I do not think there has ever been an issue with any religion, whether monotheistic or not, that is acceptable by another Scout association in WOSM. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't link to that document. Getting a message "The site's security certificate has expired". What was your Google search string?

Anyway, back to your proposed additions - Your interpretation of it being like Don't Ask Don't Tell is probably pretty accurate (that's just been repealed, by the way), and you encountered some trainers who wanted to push the Ask button. Not sure about that approach being appropriate, but I can certainly believe that it happened. But, that's what Wikipedia calls original research, which isn't enough to justify addition to an article (even though it's true). The NSW material could perhaps be used to describe the rules in that state, but not the whole of Australia. As I said earlier, by far the best kind of source is one external to Scouting which describes the inability or unwillingness of people to join up because of the "god" policy.

Believe me, I'm not disagreeing with your unhappiness with this aspect of Scouts Australia rules and policies. (I wish the god thing would disappear too.) It's just how we handle it for Wikipedia that's the issue here. HiLo48 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said I was unhappy with this aspect of Scouts Australia rules and policies, I just wanted to add some relevant facts to the original article which I thought was factually incorrect. I think the NSW link is acceptable given its relevance, the fact that it is an official Australian scout site, all the leader support guide headers carry the Scouts Australia logo, and nowhere does it state that the support guides are state specific. As for the human rights link try the following search words in google (australian atheist human rights scouts). I will re-write my additions and put up later today if I get time. I would appreciate if you could tidy up any of the references that aren't done properly. Also, I was notified last month in a Scouts Australia E-Bulletin that they were restricting access to some web content to registered members. The on-line 'policy and rules' is one document that is now available to registered members only. There is a link on the Scouts Australia page that bypasses the login screen and goes straight to a document on the website. I will remove that link and reference the hardcopy rules and policy booklet that is available to all. --Ozscout (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Scouts Australia

OK, we've made some real progress with that change. Good work. A couple of areas I think we could still work on...

1. "Those not believing in a "God" or supernatural being and unable to make this promise are unable to become members" is not true in practice. Since the Association doesn't generally ask, it's entirely up to the individual to choose. An atheist could join, and just go along with the ceremonial bits, paying lip service to the religious requirements. Or, as has already been mentioned elsewhere, an individual could say to themselves "I have no god, so duty to my god is simply meaningless, not a barrier".

2. I'm a little uncomfortable with the list of allegedly religiously specialised Scout Groups. It's unsourced. It's all NSW. (Yes, I know people from other states could add more.) And the meaning of the list isn't clear. Coptic, Korean and Judean may be OK, but I have no idea what the others represent.

HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both points. On the first, it should just say "Those unable to make this promise are unable to become members'. This also better fits Buddhists, who may say they have no God and their belief is not supernatural. One the second, there has always been the distinction between "Open" and "Sponsored" Groups as is the case in the UK, but the number of sponsored Groups seems to be much less than in the UK. We have also removed lists of Groups from many other articles and I agree this list should go. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I am just now looking at this and I don't grasp the meaning of the section, as it seems to be a number of points just strung together. Is there some controversy about religion in Scouts Australia? The statement about Atheist Foundation of Australia is just thrown in there— have they made statements specific to Scouts Australia? How does the UK's current religious outlook affect Scouts Australia? Does the Judean group really have services on Sunday? Why is the list of groups included? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Is there some controversy about religion in Scouts Australia?" There is another section above where most of the discussion took place. "The statement about Atheist Foundation of Australia is just thrown in there— have they made statements specific to Scouts Australia?" The article clearly states that the AFA specifically mentioned Scouts Australia is their submission. "it seems to be a number of points just strung together" I have tried to quote sources verbatim so it may seem a bit disjointed. Any help in making it flow would be welcome. --Ozscout (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 - Someone told me once that what we know as fact is not admissible. If you have a source saying that scouts don't ask and are open to Buddhists and atheists we can remove that point. In practise (for me at least) I know we are asked nominate a religion on our application and on the "update details form" that is retained by Scout Australia. And as stated before I don't think telling someone that they have to make a promise to god, but that "god" can be anything is going far enough to allow a true atheist to join. By paying lip service to religion and participating in the rites you are basically proselytizing by your actions. I think if we are talking about religion in scouts we there should be some mention sponsored groups. The 3 Islamic groups may be the ones you are unsure of. We can remove the lists and just add the religions. --Ozscout (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The mention of Buddhists is quite wrong. I am quite certain that Scouts Australia would tell a Buddhist that "my God" can be interpreted as "my religion", which I believe is the Thai Promise, or "My Dharma" which is also used by Buddhists. The only thing you can say is that Scouts have to make the Promise. You can not speculate on who might find that impossible. I have changed that sentence to something like I suggested above. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - even though what scouts would do is only your POV. Buddist was added in deference to HiLo48's point. I agree with your POV that Scouts would allow the interpretation of "my god" as "my religion" and as we have discussed they would probably allow "my religion" to be interpreted as "chocolate cake" but I know they would not allow the interpretation of "my god" as "no religion" in which case it is not speculation that atheists would find it impossible and I would like this mentioned as the current religious scout promise renders the movement exclusionary to Atheists. The Thai promise is actually that "I will be loyal to the Nation, the Religion and the King" The Indian promise is "to do my duty to my Dharma/God and my country," with the member being able to choose either "God" or "Dharma". --Ozscout (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of speculation going on here. Is there any evidence from a reliable source that says that a person is currently not a member of Scouts Australia because of the religious policy? I'm not aware of any such evidence. (Happy to be corrected, of course.) In which case, we cannot actually say in the article that anyone is prevented from joining, as an adult or a youth member. And, I've just checked, the youth membership form asks nothing about religion. There is a promise that mentions God, but what does that mean to a six year old? The adult membership form does have a section where one can fill in "Religion", but there is no indication of the consequences of leaving it blank, or saying "None" or "Atheist" or lying or..... The form also contains details of "Your commitment", which includes "I understand and accept...the Religious Policy of the Scout Movement in Australia". But again, nothing about the consequences of making a false commitment, nor are there any details about how one must interpret those policies, and they're obviously open to interpretation. My point is that it's all very vague. Without some clear evidence that it has ever prevented someone becoming a member, or caused someone to be expelled or to leave, we must not suggest that possibility in the article. We can write what the policies are, but cannot draw conclusions as to their effect. HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 - I am beginning to find your posts a bit offensive - I hope that is not your intention. Saying it is OK to ask a 6YO to promise to God because they wouldn't know what it meant brings the discussion to a new low. And all of your speculation about what may or may not happen if you leave 'Religion' blank or suggesting that lying or making a false commitment may be OK. What a load of nonsense. The vagueness is all of your own doing. The sourced policies clearly indicate that to be a member you must make a promise to your god. I am saying this effectively precludes atheists who do not believe in a god from membership (unless of course, as you suggest, they want to lie). Instead of speculating can I suggest you contact Scouts Australia and ask them what the consequences are for lying on the form? And if we can bend the truth, how about on the PED* - would you be happy with that? *(I know the Prohibited Employment Declaration was replaced with the 'Volunteer/Student declaration' two weeks ago). --Ozscout (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No offence was intended. Sorry you read it that way. I suspect I'm much more on your side on these matters than you realise. I don't know what you mean by your interpretation of my 6YO comment. I do believe that most 6YOs would be simply parroting the promise with no meaningful, in depth understanding of what they're saying.

I have to say that again you appear to have an exclusively NSW perspective with mention of "Prohibited Employment Declaration" and "Volunteer/Student declaration". I've never heard of them. So be careful when discussing a national body. And again, I'm convinced the vagueness is deliberate from Scouts Australia, because they don't want to frighten the horses. I'll just go back to the guts of my previous post. Is there any evidence from a reliable source that says that a person is currently not a member of Scouts Australia because of the religious policy? We can write what the official policies are, but cannot draw conclusions as to their effect. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On a light note, back in the 1960s in UK, our local CSL had her warrant refused because she wrote "Atheist" against the slot called "Religion" on the form. The form was returned to her and she changed it to "Atheist (C of E)", C of E being the established Anglican Church of England. The warrant was granted and she became the best Cub Leader I have ever seen. All indications I have seen in Australia is that Scouts Australia is even less uptight about religion than the Scout Asoociation in UK was back in the 1960s. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bduke, this makes my point (albeit in a different time and place). Warrant refused until she nominated a known religion on the form. And an Atheist that made a damn fine leader. If Scouts Australia is less uptight they should be actively doing something about it. At the moment all we have are their published policies, all of which clearly indicate a belief in a god is necessary for membership. It may not be in the case in practice, I don't know and you don't know. Perhaps I should update my details and find out the hard way? Or can someone contact Scouts Australia and ask? Bags not me. --Ozscout (talk) 02:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're drawing your own conclusion that it's the Association's uptightness that's leading to no change. I suspect it's something slightly different. The current approach doesn't appear to really block anybody except perhaps someone who wants to really confront the system. We really don't know. If Scouts Australia was to change its official policy to formally drop the God requirement, it would definitely upset some current adult members. Some would probably quit in disgust. (OK, that's speculation, but I'll bet that would be an excuse for some "retirements".) I suspect some wise heads near the top are just sitting back and not rocking the boat. As a matter of principle, I would like to see it change too. Maybe, one day, when I have the time to play that game properly, I will tackle it! (I'm already known as a stirrer in my little corner of Scouting. ;-) ) HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not drawing any conclusions and I'd wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. It is you and Bduke that are saying that Scouts are really softening their stance by making it "my God" and then allowing ANY interpretation of God. I'm saying if they are softening their stance they could do it officially. Not the "don't ask, don't tell" approach that seems to be the current policy "in the real world". I'm sure they could do it without upsetting any current fundamentalists by changing it to "my spiritual belief" or some such term that does not refer to a divine being, "A ruler of the Universe" (their words, not mine) and making prayer at meetings optional. I'm saying that all source-able documents, both in-house and public, point to the fact that atheists are excluded from membership. Not because they want to confront the system, but because the promise is written in a way that precludes their (non)beliefs. --Ozscout (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One reason we must be very careful with what we say on this matter will be seen by looking at the Boy Scouts of America article, in particular the Membership controversies section. That section links to Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, which gives considerable detail. In that country the barrier to atheists is explicit and has been an issue in court on a number of occasions. Both articles are well referenced, with documentary evidence of atheists being barred and expelled. There has been massive discussion on how that material could be represented in the article. Scouts Australia is nothing like that, and we cannot suggest such a barrier exists in Australia in the article without equivalent evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the BSA entries I can honestly say we do not have it that bad here. I have reversed some of my additions and will look at putting some of the salient points together in something that doesn't look like a bullet point presentation. I am sure everyone here has Scouts best interests at heart and we do not want to be scaring people away. --Ozscout (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Over the many years I have been involved with Scouts Australia I have experienced nothing to suggest that atheists are unable to participate in scouting. I have heard the promise made without reference to a god quite a number of times with no repercussions. In the Adult Member Aplication Form the only section relevant to this issue is in the Code of conduct section, which states:

"This Code of Conduct is expected of all adults, uniformed and lay side, who work within The Scout Association,

recognising that at all times they should act responsibly and exercise a 'duty of care' to the Youth Members. The Association, on behalf of the young people in your care, expects that you will:

•accept the Scout Promise and the Scout Law, the Aims, Principles and Methods and any other rules, directives and policies of the Association;

• recognise the importance of and encourage the spiritual development of Youth Members;

• not use the Movement to promote your own beliefs, behaviours or practices where these are incompatible with Scouting;..."

All this requires is that you recognize the importance of and encourage the spiritual development of youth member. It does not require a member to be religious or to encourage religion in other members. 121.214.84.3 (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Foundation of Australia

I believe I found the referenced Atheist Foundation of Australia "Submission to the National Human Rights Consultation".[1] The pertinent statement seems to be:

Clubs and organisations should not be permitted to discriminate against children who disbelieve in supernatural forces.

This continues with an anecdote related to Scouting, but does not identify Scouts Australia specifically, but can be construed. As a primary source, this shows that the AFA made the statement, but there is no context to link it to the rest of the text. What other sources have discussed the AFA statement in conjunction with Scouts Australia? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The context with the rest of the text will be apparent when we add back in the bit about atheists not being able to be members of this organisation. (Currently under discussion.) --Ozscout (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I will not support adding "atheists not being able to be members of this organisation" unless we can find a specific source that says exactly that. I realise that my story above is more relevant to Australia than I thought. I know lots of people here in Western Melbourne who describe themselves as "cultural catholics" rather than "ex-catholic". They are likely to describe themselves as "catholic" on a form, but they really do not believe in a God. Whether in Scouting they are prepared to make the Promise is entirely up to them, but if they fill in the form, I do not see any sources that say Scouts Australia would question them about their faith. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we can state that atheists cannot be members, we need reliable third-party sources. I did a quick search for "scouts australia" religion and "scouts australia" atheist and have found nothing specifically related to Scouts Australia. I would expect to find something if this were a major issue. Is there at least a specific case where a youth or leader has been denied admission or expelled due to atheism? A youth being denied or expelled due to their beliefs would be incompatible with WOSM guidelines. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The most I found was the Bill Hayden, Governor-General of Australia 1989 – 1996, refused the position of Chief Scout since he was an atheist but did serve as patron. I'm not sure whether the Scouts tried persuading him it was ok to be an atheist and a Scout or what would have happened if he had accepted. (I searched on "scouts australia" humanist)--Erp (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw that as well— it was his choice to decline the position. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As a true Atheist he had no choice but decline the position as he could not make the promise. --Ozscout (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency in dates

The History section claims the association was formed in 1958, but the introduction claims it has been a "national member of the World Organization of the Scout Movement since 1953". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.156 (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in membership census numbers

The infobox at the top of the article claims the association had 73,523 members in 2010 but later in the article it is stated the association's 2010 annual report gave membership at only 65,810. That's a huge difference! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.213.66 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Scout Association of Australia is a branch of The Scout Association of the United Kingdom

An IP editor has been adding the information in the heading to a few articles, including this one and Scouting and Guiding in Australia. The IP editor seems to me to be pushing a POV, as, while the statement might be technical true (or at least was technically true in the past), it seems to have no relevance now. Scouts Australia (which BTW I am not a member of) is a full member of WOSM and thus an independent national Scout Association. I have drawn the line at having it in the lede and reverted it. It should be discussed here. Maybe it can be mentioned further down but it is given undue weight to a minor point in the lede. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Gee, that's an interesting one. The article's History section certainly speaks of the Australian Association being a Branch of the UK Association, and the citation there, Scout Association Act - amendments to 2003 (an amazingly brief and readable act of parliament!), reinforces that position. However, in fifteen years of very active adult membership, working with people at all levels, I have never heard any mention of a current connection to the UK Association. It looks real enough legally, but seems to be completely ignored for ALL practical purposes. So I'd agree that it doesn't belong in the lead. It would be interesting to know the UK Association's position on the matter. (Is Bear Grylls really in charge of Australian Scouts too?) I'm off on a training course next weekend for a new leader role I'm taking up. Might take that Act of Parliament with me and bring up the matter over late night coffee or some other appropriate time. See what reaction I get. Could be amusing. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That is what I thought members of Scouts Australia would say about this idea. Take a look also at Scouting and Guiding in Australia where he also claimed that non-British subjects could not join Scouts at one time in Australia. I am not sure what POV this IP is pushing. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That claim is in this article too. In both cases it has a citation needed tag. (Did you do that?) I was a youth member before the date claimed, and never heard of that restriction, but as a kid may not have been aware of it. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten that. I think I did add the cn tag. It seems odd to me. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI knowledge POVos:

Yes, The Scout Association of Australia is a branch of The Scout Association of the United Kingdom as stated in its royal charter of incorporation and Scout Association Act 1924 (Cth) and disclosed almost nowhere else. Wikipedia is an open source encyclopaedia, not a private home page, why not disclose the facts here clearly?

As to admitting only British Subjects prior to 1976 - "Membership of the Association is open to British Subjects (including the nationals of trust territories) of every class and denomination. Foreign subjects, and residents of Australia awaiting naturalisation may be admitted as members, subject to the approval of the D.C. ... The full name and present address of any person so admitted ... should be sent to B.H.Q. for record." DCs were given unpublished conditions and procedures for foreigners. I've added references in the article to: Policy, Organisation and Rules of The Boy Scouts Association, 1959 Rule 24; POR of The Australian Boy Scouts Association, 1969 Rules 2/3 & 2/4; POR of The Scout Association of Australia, 1976 Rules 2/3 & 2/4. After 1976 British Subjects were still automatically admitted while foreign subjects including residents were not (per POR 1981 and 1993 - effective until 1996).

As to Teddy "Bear" Grylls he's the Chief Scout of the United Kingdom and Overseas Territories - see Chief Scout (The Scout Association). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.237 (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's arguing that the official situation should be hidden. Just that's it obviously has little impact on the Australian operation, so it doesn't belong in the lead. And there had to be some really easy way of bypassing the British subject requirement for membership. I grew up in an area of massive immigration. Among 40 kids in Grade 6 I was one of only five born in Australia. I did Scouting from Cubs to Rovers, all prior to 1976, and never heard of anyone being excluded for being a foreigner, or of there being any complications surrounding someone's membership. Had people of many national backgrounds in our Group. I suspect it was effectively a rubber stamp. But it's interesting to see those official connections back to the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of Scout leaders just ignored official requirements. As you're probably aware, there's no audit of membership returns and figures. There is endless records of "unofficial" this and that including whole units. In reality its the only way people have managed to suffer the bureaucracy. Unfortunately there were also leaders who loved officialdom and would have excluded every immigrant. Fortunately, socio-economic conditions (i.e. housing affordability) usually kept these people apart.

It is too dismissive to say something "obviously has little impact". An encyclopaedia is not a home page, news report or magazine article. If you give weight to what you consider to have current impact you are merely reinforcing existing bias and a POV.

Its not the connections back to the UK that are of interest but the organisation's deep connections to the Establishment, that, in the past, was British, imperialist and monarchist but moved on from those values but not from its control of scouting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.229 (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The Establishment? (And I note the capital E.) Wow. Wikipedia has an article on that which could really do with some Australian content. Please educate us all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

State articles on Scouts Australia

The lengthy articles on Scouts Australia in states and territories are about this organization and belong in this article rather than articles about Scouting and Guiding generally in each state and territory. Some years ago editor Bduke spent a lot of time setting up the state articles on Scouting and Guiding but now Kintetsubuffalo is edit warring (and resorting to offensive comments) to create multiple articles about the same organization. If it is about Scouts Australia it belongs in this article about Scouts Australia with a simple reference link in the general article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.54 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I am rather unclear about the point you are making, or at least the reasons for your edit. First, could you please create an account so we have a user name to discuss with you, and then sign your contributions on talk pages. It appears that you have made a series of edits under different IP addresses over several months. There is no clear solution that fits all countries. However in many cases a consensus developed to put all Scouting and Guiding organisations together at the level of, for example, State (for Australia) or Region (for UK). In the case of Australia these State articles are mainly about Scouts Australia and Girl Guides Australia, but it is also where mention can be made of very small organisations. The sections on Scouts Australia and Girl Guides Australia in the State articles are quite long. To put all the Scouts Australia stuff for each State in the Scouts Australia article would be too much. So basically I support the current way we are doing it. Your first sentence is rather dogmatic and you do not gives reasons. You appear to be a Scout in Scouts Australia in perhaps NSW. However, we have to take a broader view that also fits Girl Guides Australia in the Australian case and other organisations globally. Kintetsubuffalo does take a global view, although I do not think he has direct experience of Australia. Finally take a look at the material created by members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. This is a good place to discuss it further. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No one would set out an encyclopaedia with the majority of information about an item in articles other than the article about the item. Would you leave the story of the organization in the states out of a book on the organization? Where would readers expect to find information about the organization? As Bduke states above, "The sections on Scouts Australia ... in the State articles are quite long." Too long for broad general articles covering several organizations. A better structure would be linked separate (sub-)articles about each state and territory branch for both Scouts Australia and Girl Guides Australia but it is illogical to put so much information about the organizations in an article on scouting and guiding generally in each state while leaving it out of the article (or sub-article) specifically about the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.176 (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As I suggested above, please get a username. Also sign your comments by typing 4 tildas(~) at the end and not leave it for a bot to do. There are two issues here. First, why is it illogical to put the information about Scouts Australia in a State article about all Scouting and Guiding organisations in the State. It gives the reader a broad picture. Second, it is doubtful whether Scouts Australia in a particular State meets our notability guidelines (WP:NOTE). Indeed, it may not be notable as the national organisation, but it more likely to be. There are few independent references but they need investigation. Some only support minor details. However Joey Scouts (Australia), Cub Scouts (Australia), Scouts (Australia), Venturer Scouts (Australia) and Rovers (Australia) are doubtful to put it mildly. Not one of these has a reliable independent reference that deals with the section in depth. These articles are likely to be proposed for deletion, so we should decide where to move the material and cut the material back. We should be consolidating material and ensuring that the articles meet our guidelines not adding new articles that do not meet our guidelines. Unfortunately I do not know of another experienced Australian Wikipedian other myself who is interested in the Scouting articles. There used to be several but they have dropped out. Perhaps you can gain that experience. Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Glossary... merged?

Hi scouting wikipedians, the "Glossary" wikiarticle was supposedly merged into this one, however can't find that info. Can anyone please clarify? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is now a redirect, so all the material is available in the history of the redirect page. What needs to be added here that is not here already? I am not convinced that anything needs to be added. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

More recent changes on religion

A section on religion has recently been moved from the NSW article to here. The statement "Those unwilling to make this promise would be excluded from membership. Atheists are actively excluded from Leadership, as Scouts Australia "insists that leaders have a faith, a belief in God.", with God being defined as "One who is; a Supreme Being – a Creator – a Ruler of the Universe"." is taken from a NSW source that is several years old. It seems to me to not reflect current views, but I understand these are currently under review with a report promised this year. I will try to get more information on this review. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See http://ypr.scouts.com.au/perch/resources/ypr3-2-3dutytogodspiritual150901.pdf for some proposals from that review. These include:-

• The following definition of spirituality should be formally adopted by Scouts Australia: Spirituality refers to the feelings or beliefs of a person regarding their purpose in life, connection to others and place in the world around them. These spiritual feelings or beliefs may change as a person develops and guide their actions throughout their life.
• The phrase “to be true to my spiritual beliefs” should be used to represent the fundamental principle of ‘Duty to God’ in the Australian Scout Promise.

These seem to be about members, but something like it will flow on to the leaders. The report says "Overall, the changes suggested seek to modernise the language used to describe Duty to God and spiritual development to reflect a broadening in the understanding of spirituality and the reduction in identification with formal religion amongst Scouts Australia’s members. The changes suggested will make scouting more inclusive, and reduce anxiety over what remains a fundamental aspect of scouting.". If this report is accepted, we need to use it as a valuable source for material in this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can anybody update this? Has this report been accepted? Does it lead to us making a change to the article? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good news for once!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/scouts-enjoys-comeback-as-parents-want-kids-off-devices/news-story/271bd8f9f3bd9dcf5f26a5c17388d781 Scouts enjoys comeback as parents want kids off devices--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scouts Australia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012082612/http://scouts.com.au/main.asp?iStoryID=734 to http://www.scouts.com.au/main.asp?iStoryID=734

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Non-British subjects?

Under History we have "Until 1976, it admitted only British subjects to membership and programs and other nationalities only on special conditions and approval. After 1976, British subjects continued to be automatically admitted to membership while others, including residents, were still subject to special conditions and approval." That may have been the official rules, but in practice it wasn't the case. My early Scouting experience (pre-1976) was in an area of massive immigrant population, certainly not all British. Many of my fellow Scouts would not have been British subjects. More recently, as a Group Leader, I never asked, nor was I told to ask, nor did the form new members filled in ask anything about citizenship. HiLo48 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)