Talk:Boy Scout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Scouting Wiki Project Boy Scout is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Good articles Boy Scout has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Maintained The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Rlevse (Talk)
Peer review Boy Scout has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Recommendations for further improvement

  • resolve tricky redirection (eg. Boy Scout vs Boy Scouts vs Boy scouts etc.
      1. 2 & #3 come here, do you think #1 should too?
      • 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] Naming

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

  1. About the movement: Scouting, Boy Scouts of America, Venturing (Boy Scouts of America), etc
  2. About the persons: Boy Scout (sic!), Eagle Scout, Robert Baden-Powell, Brownie, etc

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).
Rename a done deal. Rlevse
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)

[edit] duplicate entry

((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)

[edit] Cover photo

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.
--Egel Reaction? 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 --Egel Reaction? 10:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girl Scout

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? --Egel Reaction? 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:
  1. Boy Scout who is a member of a single sex Scouting organization
  2. Girl Scout/Guide who is a member of a single sex Scouting organization
  3. Boy Scout who is a member of a mixed sex Scouting organization
  4. 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)

[edit] Boy Scout

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. --Egel Reaction? 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)

[edit] BSA Bias

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)
Boy Scout Handbook is a article about the BSA version. Ernest Thompson Seton has relevance to Scouting outside of the USA see Fédération Nationale des Eclaireurs et Eclaireuses du Luxembourg and Junák but the article is too BSA. Seton is relevant to scouting as inspiration for BP not as founder of the BSA. Maybe see also Woodcraft? --Egel Reaction? 14:43, 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)

[edit] "Controversies"

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]--Egel Reaction? 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 Association Horus 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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 --Egel Reaction? 10:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect oddity

moved to Talk:Boy_Scouts

[edit] RFC

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)

[edit] RFC2

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.
--Egel Reaction? 08:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boy Scout --Egel Reaction? 15:34, 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:
--Egel Reaction? 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
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!--Kchase T 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)

[edit] Woggle

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)

[edit] Links to National Scout Articles

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/y/Talk%7EBoy_Scout_c898.html"