Talk:Scouting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Scouting is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2007.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Scouting Wiki Project Scouting 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.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Scouting Controversies and Concerns article needs expansion

The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies (both historical and contemporary) from countries and regions around the world. --Jagz 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been pointed out many times before: this isn't an international issue: it is only the USA where these things are an issue. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
The scope of the article includes all significant Scouting controversies and problems worldwide since the Scout Movement began in the early 1900s. The USA's current controversy over homosexuals and atheists is just a small part of this. Try reading what is in the article so far. --Jagz 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right: it has been significantly expanded, well done. I hope you won't take it amiss that I however won't take in active interest in these IMHO petty issues. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm sure they are not petty issues. --Jagz 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So far the article has these countries or regions: Canada, Cuba, Eurasian Scout Region, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. --Jagz 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed three of the newly added sections and shortend one because no controversies were mentioned. --jergen 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of a worry about this article. There are masses of arguments. Are they all to be included? From my knowledge (WP:OR) - UK Advanced Party Report (end of Rovers, uniform changes, etc,) that lead to B-P Scouts; Australia - uniform changes. I'm only starting to get into this. What is a notable controversy? --Bduke 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, a "SCOUTING" controversy is something that affects the "MOVEMENT", such membership, religios basis, should an association be coed, etc. An article on "SCOUTING CONTROVIES" should not include things like what uniform to wear, what the requirements for a certain rank in a certain association should be, etc.Rlevse 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some porposals on Talk:Scouting controversy and conflict#Proposal for some more content: In my eyes, controversies mentioned in this overview article should affect the movement as a whole - or at least a major part of it. Otherwise this article will sone become a duplication of the associations' articles - and thus would lead to an unusable mixture of local problems:
Is it really a major proble that Scouts Canada wants to sell some campgrounds? IMO only if the same controversy (including the deficits in internal democracy) rose in ten or more associations.
Can we continue this discussion on [[Talk:Scouting controversy and conflict#Scope of the article? --jergen 13:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone else can take the lead on the article or otherwise delete it. --Jagz 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the Scouting controversy and conflict article so it focuses more on the issues. --Jagz 07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You created the article and now you want it deleted? I think it covers important areas. Rlevse 11:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting organizations

See the following links:

All indeed interesting links. I have added the top one to External Links. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Scouting made FA

This article made FA because of a TEAM EFFORT. Congrats to all who helped, including non-project members. This effort exemplifies wiki's best. No one person can take credit for this one.Rlevse 00:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American English spelling?

Are you really going to use American English spelling? Maybe the article should use whatever spelling convention is used by WOSM. Perhaps they use UK English spelling. --Jagz 01:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Project policy is to use the local language dialect for country articles, people, etc. (The Scout Association, B-P, etc) but to use American English for international articles (Scouting, Wood Badge etc). To follow your rationale, what about non-WOSM entities? We cover far more than WOSM. Also, the anon editor that started this only changed a couple of paragraphs and we about all need to be consistent withing an article, the rest of the article was already in American English. Rlevse 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
WOSM uses mainly American spelling and WAGGGS mainly British spelling (WAGGGS even misspells World Organisation of the Scout Movement on its congratulations on the centenary). Ignoring all other local varieties of English spelling; I don't know enough of those.
Of course, to us Brit's its the World Organization of the Scout Movement that is misspelt... but hey, who's holding grudges? Horus Kol 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR says If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor which would be this one written in American English. --jergen 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
These are some of the reasons we came up with our own project policy, let's just stick with it. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards#Dialects. Rlevse 11:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

I just noted An Official History of Scouting on Amazon.

[1] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'd like to post an article about Scouting

The type of Scouting I'm wanting to post about is Wireless network scouting, and I was wondering where it would be best to put. A Scouting(Disambiguation) page may be good, but I do think the majority of searchers are looking for this particular article.

Please advise me where I should put my article. Thankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlanCorporation (talk • contribs) 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

What is "wireless network scouting"? Do you mean Wardriving? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Most articles are not on disambiguation pages, you just create them and put them into categories.Rlevse 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

However, scout is a dab page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Thankyou for your help, I have decided to indeed put just a small entry on the Wardriving page, instead of on this Scouting page. The quality of this scouting page is amazing, very well done.

[edit] History Origin

I have described the early Scouting history somewhat different, because it was stated that the Mafeking boys were the start of Scouting, which cannot be true. These boys were not trained by Baden-Powell and not according Scout lines. Baden-Powell even did not mention their efforts in his reports (see Tim Jeal: 359-390). He mostly used them afterwards to prove that one can rely on boys, when given responsibility. Also Scouting is not based on a military base which is suggested. I will write some notes on that soon.DParlevliet 15:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello D. Although I don't completely disagree with your points made, the proper method to rewrite an article that is already Featured Article (recently promoted) is to first discuss your point here on this talk page, and then a concerted effort can be given to further improve an article. Feel free to point out the things you think need correction and how. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
    • I agree with Wim on this, totall. Rlevse 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I like some of the points you are including. How about doing the rewite on a sandbox page on you userspace an letting us look it over. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think English is not your native language. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sandbox sounds like the way to go. I too like some of your points and look forward to the discussion. --Ctatkinson 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Dirk is from the Netherlands too. I think the best "startingpoint" of scouting are the cannoetrips of B-P and his brothers George an Warington.--Egel Reaction? 10:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And also his days at charterhouse. It seems to me that this section and [[2]] should have some level of synchronization. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • More than anything B-P was a product of the British Army and so it's natural that his thoughts on Scouting were deeply influenced by his first-hand experiences in military scouting, starting with the 1896 rebellion in Matabeleland. Learning scoutcraft from Burnham while camping out and scouting for Ndebele in Matobo Hills was a watershed event for Scouting. --Ctatkinson 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Mafeking is not where the movement started, but it is where the seeds for it were planted in B-P. For example, it caused him to write Aids to Scouting which led directly to Scouting for Boys. Rlevse 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Atkinson: Burnham and B-P's African scouting with Burnham need more prominence. Effectively, Mafeking only provided fame to B-P, which of course enabled him to spread the word of Scouting for Boys later. And Aids to Scouting was before Mafeking... But should not all this (or most) be in the Baden-Powell articles instead of here? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 10:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Yes.Rlevse 11:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
BP on the origin: "LISTENER" MAGAZINE INTERVIEW OF 1937 --Egel Reaction? 10:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know this was the way an article should be changed. I have put my version in my personal page, if this was what suggested (ages ago I was in a sandbox)? Indeed Englisch is not my native langauge. I would not make Scouting history here too complicated because it must be understandable and logical for the average reader. Discussions how BP was influenced could indeed be better in the Baden-Powell article. In fact according BP all his experiences leaded to Scouting for Boys, not one particular. The idea of Scouting for Boyscame up only after his return to England when he noticed the effect of his book on boys, how is was used by educators, their questions to him to rewrite it for boys and the urge in his time for improving society. I first thought that the Brigade inspection was the crucual moment, but reading Tim Jeal showed it was more a growing, based on all his earlier experience, then one event. Discussions about which was more of less important will result I fear in a Tim Jeal sized book, which I gladly leave to historians.DParlevliet 14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is a good one: it list the steps better (chronologically, better balanced). Two important copy-editing improvements are: grammar and spelling (there's a lot of Dutch in there, WP:BETTER), and refs (placements, halffilled fields, WP:REF). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Now there are no comments anymore and after Wim's changes is it now allowed to put the proposal in the article? DParlevliet 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entering again the role of the Mafeking Cadets, because this was the essence of changing the article. To my opinion the Mafeking boys is a even a prove that Baden-Powell had no thought yet about a boys scouting game. If he did, he would have brought together the boys himself, would have learned them Scouting like he did his men, and afterwards he would have proudly mentioned their effects in his reports. He did none of this. Later on he mentioned the Mafeking boys not as a first proto scouting group but only that he realised that one can rely on boys, when given responsibility. I have given [Tim Jeal 359-360] as reference for this. If there is a more important role of the Mafeking boy then please give references DParlevliet 15:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Try this: [3] and this [4]. They were one of the key seeds of the movement.Rlevse 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The first article is quite good and now I understand why it is a topic (the Netherlands was of course in favor of the Boers, so the Mafeking cadets have never been a Dutch Scout example). But also this article suggests the cadets to be a Scout "myth", showed that Baden-Powell told: "The boy messengers were not Boy Scouts ... but more in the nature of Cadets." and "Baden-Powell himself never said the Mafeking Cadets were the first Boy Scouts, moreover, B-P did not form the Mafeking Cadets. He did not even ask Lord Edward Cecil, his Chief Staff Officer, to form the Cadets as is so often stated." So the proven historical facts are that the cadets were formed before BP arrived in Mafeking, without involvement of BP, were organised as cadets, did work as cadets, were not trained on (military) Scouting, so the only resemblance with the later Scouts is that is was a group of active boys of these same age. From this one cannot conclude (and BP did not so) that these were a kind of first version of Scouts. I fully agree that later on, during writing Scouting of Boys, BP will be inspired by these cadets, but not more then the other items the writers above mention. If would certainly fit in an article about the seeds of Scouting (in which then also could be explained what Scouting took over from these cadets). But I think this overview article should mention the most important origins of Scouting and there is no proof or reference that this was the case with the Mafeking cadets (see also Scouting for Boys edition from Boehmer, note 10). DParlevliet 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've edited our article so it doesn't say he was the founder, but it is indisputable they were a significant influence. Our article never calls the Cadets as Boy Scouts, though even you concede they are a precursor to the movement. I totally disagree they aren't worth mentioning.Rlevse 21:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the text as it is now. I would suggest to reconsider the second reference: it is only a simple web page without scientific value and it disagrees with the very good first reference. DParlevliet 21:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military aspects of Scouting

I wrote in User:DParlevliet/sandbox2 a proposal of a new paragraph for the article Scouting, which is now open for discussion. DParlevliet 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wim that the information is better placed in the Controversies article - it might be possible to fit something into the Scouting article as a mention and a wikilink for more information, but I'm not sure where...Horus Kol 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is certainly a topic we should cover, but as it is not a core of the movement, it in full version shouldn't be in Scouting, but in controversies or BP article, with a possible link and/or short summary somewhere else. On this topic, I'll support whatever Wim, our article improvement director, supports.Rlevse 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this would belong in a history article. While Scouting had some military origins, at this point it is in the past. It is certainly not a current "issue" for any WOSM recognized group. Early militarism and pacifism issues are touched on in History of the Boy Scouts of America. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer it in the Scout article. Indeed military has never been a real serious accusation but still it lives in the background. Most recent changes of uniforms in European countries (like recent proposels of Dutch Scouting to change uniform and flag ceremony) are driven by fear for military impresssion. In a recent BBC documentary about 100 years Scouting it was stated that BP wanted to improve boys with military techniques. This gives a wrong impression for organisations who want to use BP's original principles (which then would be military). In the Dutch scoutforum discussions for instance I read the general idea that Scouting started military, but changed so is not anymore. So with the implied message of useless old fashioned principles which does not need to read anymore. I think therefore that a strong proove that Scouting by purpose was never setup with any military goal should be in the main article, because this is mostly read. The Controversies article is only read by specialists and contains mostly controversies of special countries or single scouting-organisations and not general controversions (I even think there are none outside the military subject). I think it should not be in BP article because it describes how the scheme was setup and only minor about the personal idea's of BP, only as far as realy needed to explain the subject. DParlevliet 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is fair to talk about that, in the origins of Scouting, BP was influenced by his military experience, but this was tempered by other influences from other people involved in starting the Movement - one thing in researching the Humshaugh article that hit me was that there was a lot more than BP starting the Movement... anyway, the military aspect was never a major part of Scouting - the idea of organising a group of young people in the way that Scouting does was very popular in other organisations of the time as well... anyway - do you mean the Dutch Scouting organisation are thinking of removing those extremely distinctive and, above all else, cool orange shirts? they look great! Horus Kol 00:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed BP did read a lot of other scheme's before writing designing Scouting. But I think the none-military was his own choice. Even in the first Scouting for Boys there is a paragraph about millitarism in which he explicitly stated that he did not do that. From the Boys Brigade and Seton he saw that when limiting to one game it would never grow large. Also his goal was scouting, more the survival then the reconnaissance, and scouting is in the army only a very limited part. For explorers the outdoor was a daily occupation and gave boys a much wider range of hero's to choose from with much more positive examples to be told. And although BP loved the military life he did not approve their instruction, which was so important in the Scout method (Anyway: Dutch plans were cancelled because a poll under members showed the majoraty did not want to (major) change uniform or flag ceremony) DParlevliet 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAGGGS

Members of WOSM are called National Scout Organizations. What are members of WAGGGS called? --Jagz 11:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Something like "WAGGGS Member Organization", "Member Organization of WAGGGS" or just "Member Organization" [5] [6] --Egel Reaction? 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the definition of Scouting?

How does this sound for the definition of Scouting (from m-w.com): the activities of various national and worldwide organizations for youth, directed at developing character, citizenship, and individual skills? This would classify organizations as Scouting organizations even if they are not associated with the Scout Movement and without regard to use of the Scout method. --Jagz 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't like it at all. The Scout method is the key. By the m-w definition, that would include 4-H (and a host of others), which is a fine org, but not Scouting. I do agree with your other thread that the articles in the Scout-like assns cat could use some purging. Rlevse 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's the category you are referring to for the benefit of others Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations. --Jagz 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Macquirie Dictionary (Standard Australian Dictionary) gives for Scout, "a member of a worldwide youth movement, originating in the Boy Scout movement founded in England in 1907 by Sir Robert Baden-Powell; members participate in organised activities which have the aim of promoting physical, personal and spiritual development, with emphasis on qualities such as self-reliance and citizenship". This is from the latest on-line subscription version. This has some similarity to the m-w version. While I think we can write an article on the Scout method, I'm not sure we can use it to define which organisations are in and out of our project coverage and our category. I think we have to cut back to those organisations that can be said to be included in "originating in the Boy Scout movement founded in England in 1907 by Sir Robert Baden-Powell". I think those that do not, including the Boys Brigade, do not consider themselves to be Scouts. Have we ever had anybody join the project who belongs to an organisation that did not, in some sense, go back to B-P and 1907? --Bduke 05:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, every active member of the project comes from an org that ties back to BP somehow.Rlevse 11:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Scouting involve camping, hiking, or some other type of outdoor activity? --Jagz 22:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly part of the programme, but Scouting is a huge encompassment of many activities - its kind of hard to list what Scouting is in a simple definition - the only way to really understand what Scouting is is to go through the experience... Horus Kol 11:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
PURGED, per our talk here and on the cat talk page, I've purged that cat. Someone seems to think "Youth organization = Scouting", but that is not always true (certainly not in the case of the Pioneering Movement that I took out. I left in a few that seemed to have historical ties to Scouting though that may not be true now: Fianna Eireann and Green Scouting, if folks want to rm them too, go ahead (rm both cat and project tag and stub tag). I think YMCA and YWCA should stay as they have close historical ties to Scouting. This is what I took out: 4-H, Boys Brigade in UK, BB, GB, Orel, Salvation Army, Church Lads, Jewish Lads, Jewish Lads and Girls, FFA, Pioneer movement, both Sokol ones.

Note: I took out the BB/GB articles because they predate Scouting and someone same most of their members don't consider themselves Scouts. If one want to put these 3 back in, go ahead. Rlevse 13:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)...I added BB back in as it seems to have been an influence on Scouting as BP was friends with Smith.Rlevse 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These articles may meet the Scout-like criteria of the Category. --Jagz 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried to simplify the description at top of the Category page so people will know which organizations belong in the Category. You may need to expand the criteria for Scout-like organizations. --Jagz 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

= While the overall definition of scouting may not include outdoor activities, with all of the age groups now involved, the originally targetted core age group of approximately 10-18 (US) definitely REQUIRES a vigorous outdoor program AND youth leadership in the planning of the program. The goal of a monthly weekend long outing requires the youngsters, at the most basic level, to : 1) plan a menu 2) prepare a shopping list 3) collect funds 4) purchase supplies 5) plan rotating duties for cooking and cleanup 6) prepare for outing specific activities 7) prepare or follow a checklist for packing... etc This requires that they cooperate on the small group level, the PATROL, the basis for developing all of the other desirable traits of good citizenship and leadership. All disguised as FUN. 71.229.180.107 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)hezw8ing

[edit] Polish Girl Guides photo

The photo is next to the nonaligned Scouting organizations section. Is it a nonaligned organization? --Jagz 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not WOSM or WAGGGS, but it is part of Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme, see article -- "It is not recognized by the World Organization of the Scout Movement or by World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts because the world organizations only accept one member association per nation. At present, Związek Harcerstwa Rzeczypospolitej is an associate member of the Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme, and has over 15,000 members." We do accept CEdS as part of the movement. Rlevse 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)...I've moved it to reduce confusion.Rlevse 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization categories

The organizations currently in Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations are listed in List of non-aligned Scouting organizations. I propose changing the category of the organizations listed in the Organizations not associated with the Scout Movement section to Category:Scout-like organizations. Of the organizations listed in the Organizations loosely associated with the Scout Movement section, I suggest the following categories:

  • Bleimor (Breton Scouting organization)- Non-aligned Scouting organizations
  • Camp Fire USA- Scout-like organizations
  • Fianna Éireann- Scout-like organizations
  • Friends Committee on Scouting- not sure, maybe it should be Category:Scouting organizations and associations. --Jagz 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explorer

Rover scouts which I have never heard of are obviously equivalent to the European explorer scouts and as Europe is a large part of the world I think they deserve a mention —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.147.90.113 (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Never heard any history of the movement? And you did not read the caption, did you?
The sections mentioned are the original ones. Explorer Scouts are a (mostly) British substitute of this section. --jergen 11:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason we listed the original names and age groups was that trying to list all variations would make the table very unwieldy.Rlevse 12:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Most other European nations call their senior section Rovers... the article on Rover Scouts includes information on the Venture Scout and Explorer Scout sections which have replaced Rover Scouting in the UK. Horus Kol 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scouting in popular culture

The sentence Scouting appears in the popular culture of countries besides America too: Gosh, really? Talk about stating the obvious! This sentence comes across as patronising and makes the rest of the section appear US-centric. 86.133.246.184 18:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, it was redundanat anyway.Rlevse 18:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Talking of US-centrism: it seems a little odd that many of the sections deal with the US examples first. Surely it would be more appropriate to deal with the UK ones as this is, after all, where Scouting started? Particularly odd in this respect seems the order of the "Influences" section, dealing with the US development (Frontier experience) before the Indian experience of Baden Powell himself which influenced British Scouting. Likewise the 'Duty to God' section. And the 'Growth' section: "Guides are known as Girl Scouts in the United States, Japan, and elsewhere." Where elsewhere? And where are they known as Guides? Also, where is the Ideal Scout statue? It would be nice to have its location mentioned in the caption. Oh, and another point - in the 'Origins' section on his 1907 tour it talks about BP adding references to 'backwoodsman' [sic]. This reads oddly - he certainly wouldn't have used the word himself (it's an Americanism) - can we use another more 'neutral' word which would relate to the bushmen etc he would have encountered in Africa? The article needs a really good copy-edit too to weed out use of the different types of inverted commas (double vs single) etc, to bring it in line with the Style manual. But despite all my niggles, this is a great and informative article - a big well done to all concerned.86.133.246.184 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Talking of UK-centrism. I highly recommend getting and regularly using an account.Rlevse 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer the anonymous poster:

  • US Examples - I'm not sure what you have in mind when you mention these - could you point out any specifics?
  • Influences - US specific influences should be in the BSA articles...
  • Duty to God - don't really see a problem there... except, I'm not sure it fits as information on "influences" as it stands at the moment...
  • Where Girl Guides are Girl Scouts - changed the sentence
  • Ideal Scout - no idea...
  • Backwoodsman - is it really an Americanism? I remember having a backwoods badge when I was a UK Scout. anyway, i changed the word to backwoodsmen, which is the correct plural

Horus Kol 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Significant revert: mil hist

Hi guys and girls, after due deliberation with Randy, I have removed the section on military info. The information in it is only marginally supported by references, and the text doesn't impress on me the quality that is required by FA status. Considering that the Scouting article is to show on the mainpage in two days from now, I for one wouldn't want it to be in a very bad state of changing then. I propose to freeze any further development on the Scouting article, apart from small textual improvements on refs, gr, and such, until after mainpage publication. Then, a humble paragraph on military history of Scouting may be reasonable to add: lets discuss that. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Concur with Wim's reversion, we don't want to be making major changes to FAs, especially ones that will be on the main page in two days. Let's revisit this after it's off the main page.Rlevse 01:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I support this view; in my opinion the removed parts were not on the same level as the rest of the article. Some parts of it read like defending Scouting from accusations of military training. If it should be included in the future, it must be NPOV. --jergen 08:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
So the article is "too badly written, too badly referenced" (see History). I posted it on your request in a sandbox and got no remarks on that, so what is the use of that? There are 10 references, more then average in the rest of the article. If they are not good, where were the comments? In "Scouting is a featured article" Wikipedia tells: ""If you can update or improve it, please do" and then the first line is "Be bold.. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles.". This article was not even bold. Reading the rest af the Wikipedia explanation I cannot imagine that it was the intention that featuring articles would result in freezing the article to only the highest level in constant fear of loosing the status. That is not Wikipedia. DParlevliet 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A whole PoV article

This whole article is PoV, starting with its first sentence:

  • "Scouting, also known as the Scout Movement, is a worldwide youth movement aiming to develop young people physically, mentally and spiritually, so that they may play constructive roles in society."

This is what scouts claim to be, not what we must accept that they are. This first sentence and the whole article are full of (positive) value judgments. If I were asked, as most people I talk to, scouts would be described as a sexist, militaristic and highly conservative organization. Obviously, I may be wrong, but that's not the point. An encyclopedic article shouldn't adopt a point of view. This was a bad choice for a featured article.
Velho 02:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the stated aims of the movement are fair place to start. Changing to "a worldwide youth movement which claims to aim to develop" would be rather clumsy. Also this article covers the scouting movement worldwide. I presume the reputation you refer to above applies in the US, I'm not aware that it has that reputation in Europe, where the movement is far more liberal. WJBscribe 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't really have a point of view, as it just describes the movement. The positive views are what the movement is focused on. If it was POV it wouldn't include information about the anti-homosexual and atheist views. Darthgriz98 02:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Velho is being POV by placing judgements on something he/she doesn't agree with, bad practice for a jurist. Let's say, just for the sake of argument Scouting is conservative, is this necessarily bad? Rlevse 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence doesn't take a specific POV at all, as evidenced by the use of the word "aiming", which is to say that the organization aspires to certain goals. They're aiming for the target, but nobody has said whether or not they've hit the mark. - TJLink 06:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
in reply to Velho - Scouting is co-educational in most nations, Scouting is non-militaristic (although there are Scouting-like organisations which have been or are militaristic), it is also highly non-conservative in most nations... We are happy to air that there are controversies in Scouting in certain nations, but please don't paint a picture of worldwide Scouting from the specific palette of one national organisation. Horus Kol 11:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if Velho has a PoV against Scouts (and I must admit, so do I...), I do believe he makes a just claim. The article describes the Scouts in their own terms. And implicitly passes the notion that those terms are the reality of Scouting. An encyclopedia is not about what the world is, but about what people say the world is. If there is no wide consensus but dissent, all PoV must be equaly presented in a neutral tone. This is not the case with this article. It should be changed. I agree with Velho. The Ogre 12:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I can not stand it when editors come across an article that they think is PoV or has something wrong with it and say that "It should be changed". Well, great stuff, care enlightning those of us who don't share your personal opionion on the subject matter what should be changed? At the same time care explaining why this article is PoV? -- YiS, Jediwannabe 13:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

"If I were asked, as most people I talk to, scouts would be described as a sexist, militaristic and highly conservative organization" This is a personal opinion on your part, and that is fine as it goes, but you can't place that in the article. To include any of this, you need proper references to illustrate these points as related to Scouting in the context of this article. By context, I mean Scouting and Guiding as a world-wide movement, and not any particular national movement.

"And implicitly passes the notion that those terms are the reality of Scouting." As noted, these are the aims of Scouting. Please provide some specifics on how the world-wide Scouting movement doe not maintain these aims. There is a short section with a main article on controversies that leads into more details and more articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, come on! I never suggested that my own PoV should be part of the article. The question is not whether I'm right, but whether the article should give assent to a positive view of a controversial institution. For instance, I suggest that the first sentence reads something like that:

"Scouting, also known as the Scout Movement, is a worldwide youth movement that, according to its self-description, aims to develop young people physically, mentally and spiritually, so that they may play constructive roles in society."

Wouldn't that be neater?
Velho 02:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"according to its self-description"- That grates somehow. The use of that phrase in U.S. DOJ Office of Special Investigations has always bothered me (and I've started to form a bad opinion of the OSI from some reading). How about:
"is a worldwide youth movement with the stated aims to develop..." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gadget850. Rlevse 11:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Gadget850 too. I believe that the whole article could be improved in the same direction. Velho 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Would you give some specific examples? I skimmed through, but nothing jumps at me. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Made the chg to the intro.Rlevse 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't the change made require a citation? "Stated aims" implies that a statement was made by someone, somewhere, at a certain time. TJLink 22:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Statements in the lead do not require a cite if it's a summary of material found and ref'd in the body, which this is as the statement in question in the lead summarizes mainly the "Scout method" section.Rlevse 22:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Good to know. Thank you.TJLink 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See the Talk section, "What is the definition of Scouting?"[7] --Jagz 17:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR removed

I have removed the FAR and archived it here. Per WP:FAR instructions, articles should not be listed for review during or after a main page stay, as most of the time on the mainpage is spent reverting vandalism, and other issues are often worked out after the mainpage stay. If issues aren't resolved in about a week, pls relist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the point of that listing, the controversy section has been added to already and also points to a full subarticle on the issue. There is also a FA on BSA controversies.Rlevse 11:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Can't article editing be temporarily restricted to people with usernames? --Jagz 17:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals are always a problem with the main page FA. I knew this would happen. Some feel like you and I that the mp FA should be protected, but others, lead by Raul654, do not feel so. There have been several debates about it. I always we should have to waste our time fighting the vandals, that it should be protected, but of course, no one cares about that, they think the vandals should be free to waste our time.Rlevse 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After Eagle Scout went on the main page, I observed the next few main page articles. I guess I just needed to vent a bit, so I wrote User:Gadget850/MainPage. My experience is that if you convince an admin to semi-protect the page, another admin will come along and unprotect it and note Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, we shouldn't have to worry about it in the first place. More time and effort by all valid editors is spent fighting them than good is gained. New editors can simply move off the mainpage article to edit, it simply wouldn't be that big a deal. Rlevse 17:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversed vandalism on 06FEB2007, 12:37 EST I understand not what you say sir, but I will defend to the death your right to confuse me! 17:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is we shouldn't have to fight vandals. Wiki should not allow them, wiki is too nice to them, everyone should have a verified account, etc. Thanks for fighting these scum.Rlevse 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse has a point, but if we block the main page from new editors then it could drive away new editors, since that is the first page they see. And I have seen a few cases of new editors reverting the vandalism they see, always a good thing. But yes, it is a hassle, thankfully lots of people have it on their watch page. Darthgriz98 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, how many of us had our first exposure to wiki via the mp fa? Few I suspect. Most people I know got to it by looking up info for school assignements, google hits on a topic of interest (my case), etc.Rlevse 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping we implement the German solution soon [8]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention someone vandalizes and then a new person sees vulgar stuff of the mp fa...I'll believe the German solution here when I see. This issue is one reason Citizendium has been started, where accounts are required.Rlevse 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My two cents on vandalism is this: if a featured article is being vandalized repeatedly, it makes WikiPedia look bad. Case in point, when I first went to this article (after seeing it featured on the front page), I discovered that it will full of link spam. Had I been a first time visitor, I would have been put off by what I assumed was a lack of attention to the article. I'm just sayin'. --Douglas Muth 17:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

But the point is Wikipedia is for everybody to edit, if the first thing you see when you click on the page to edit and you can't it defeats the purpose. Although, I hate vandalism just as much as the rest of us (especially personal attacks.) Then again, if they can semi-protect my userpage to stop vandalism, sometimes I wonder why they can't protect the main page. So I guess I just see both sides of the issue. Darthgriz98 17:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you PLEASE protect this page from vandalism?Anon 11:50, 6 February 2007 (PDT)

A guy with an IP starting with "69" keeps vandalizing this page and vandalized the Super Bowl XLI page as well. I think that IP address should be blocked immediately. -Daniel Blanchette 21:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Wiki does not block editing from unregistered people on the main page continues to amaze me. This article was reduce to garbage before my eyes at least 3 times in a matter of minutes. I propose that anyone that is going to offer anything helpful will be willing to register, it is almost to a point where I have to confirm other sources to verify if anything on Wiki is actually valid. Arzel 21:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Nice to see some interest in this topic. The most recent discussion about this "disputed policy", for those interested, has taken place here: Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. I honestly think everyone who disputes the "never-protect" garbage should at least make a comment on that talk page (that's what my "petition" subpage was for, but I was told that consolidated expressions of interest are evil, and that mine was especially evil). –Outriggr § 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not really an honor to have an article that you worked on appear on the Main Page because if essentially exposes the people who have put in their time and effort on the article for free to harassment. An attitude that the article on the Main Page should not be protected from unregistered users is insulting and fails to consider the welfare of the people behind the article. If there was nobody behind these articles the featured article on the Main Page would consist of a photo of someone's buttocks or whatever else the vandals might come up with that day. --Jagz 02:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've pasted this whole thread on the MP talk page Outriggr mentioned.Rlevse 02:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which one is bigger?

According to the reference links #58 and #59, the current biggest scouting organization in the world is Gerakan Pramuka of Indonesia (8 Million), and US come next with 6 Million Scouts. On the Scouting page in Wikipedia, US is the biggest woth more than 10 Million scouts. Where did anyone get this additional 4 Millions of BSA?. Politically incorrent isnt it if you guys put US on second? yeah yeah,.. US has to be always on the top.,.... never mind Indonesia,.. next time.

The Truth is out there and has to be revealed.

Thanks

Yours in Scouting Ari Garuda Scout- Indonesian Scout Movement —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anakmadiun (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Always forgetting the girls...
USA: 6,239,435 (Boy Scouts of America) + 3,854,202 (Girl Scouts of the USA) = 10,093,637
Indonesia: 8,909,435 (Gerakan Pramuka)
Just as simple --jergen 19:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
USA: 2,938,698 boys and girls + 1,146,130 adults members (Boy Scouts of America) [9] + 2.7 million girls + 928,000 adult members (Girl Scouts of the USA) [10] = 7,712,828 in 2005
simple? --Egel Reaction? 20:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
For consistency we should use the same source throughout the whole table; notable discrepancy should be explained (as it is done with Germany, France etc).
The differenc with BSA is connected to Learning for Life. Its participants are not considered as Scouts and not listed on the "Year in Review: 2005" but go in the WOSM numbers. The upper limit for WOSM membership fees is one million members. Above you can have as many members as you want; it does not change your fee. --jergen 21:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


There is a lot of damage done to the article, racist slogans and other types of vandalism, please someone help. (Noob at this) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.231.222 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Please remove the F* word found in the page

Hi,

The page has been vandalised with racial comments. Request the editors to remove the same as well as lock the page from further vandalism.

Thanks, Vijay \v/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.199.183.15 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, additional vandalism has occured. Please someone more comfortable with wiki please correctDrxwilke 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When is someone going to fix the vandalism! How do you fix it?

I no can find them, must have been removed. Please advise if reappear.Rlevse 11:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gang Show

A link to this article was deleted as "country specific spam". I thought Gang Shows were an important feature of scouting worldwide, but the article only seems to mention UK and Australia. Is the article too limited. If the article expands, I think it could be linked from here. --Bduke 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know of only three countries with Gang Shows: Australia, Ireland and the UK. I have never heard of anything alike from the rest of Europe. --jergen 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I missed that New Zealand is mentioned in the article. So it does seem it is not widespread if Europe and North America do not have them. That means it should not have a link on Scouting. --Bduke 10:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
What you seem to be missing the point of is that the Gang Show is an important in a number of countries and as such deserves a "see also". I mean I don't think you can argue that the inclusion of the link (only!) in any way diminishes the article or is any way irrelevant. My experience is that many international non-Anglo scouters are interested in the phenomenon. There are other areas in the article which could probably be improved. Get some perspective. Albatross2147 11:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The perspective seems to be that Gang Shows are part of Scouting in only 4 countries. BTW, these include the two countries where I have had some involvement with Scouting. People will find it from Scouting categories and other places. The "See also" links should be important widespread international Scouting articles. --Bduke 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It might not be called Gang Show in other countries - but surely other organisations have a similar thing? I support having the link in Horus Kol 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Bduke is correct, by the standard of including the Gang Show, virtually everything should go under See also.Rlevse 12:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The "See also" links should be important widespread international Scouting articles. - can you refer me to where I can read this Wp policy? Albatross2147 12:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also: provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one. Scouting describes the internationalworldwide Scout Movement, linked articles should be related to it. that is not hte case for an event praticised in only four of 216 countries. --jergen 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm... international is defined as concerning or belonging to all or at least two or more nations. Albatross2147 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed "internationa" to "worldwide" in my statement. --jergen 13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I responded to Jergen's comment re the inclusion a link to Gang Show in See Also without having looked at his User Page. My response was to provide a dictionary definition of international. This was not meant to imply that his command of English is inadequate although I now see that it could be interpreted as such. I provided the definition to support my contention that Gang Shows are sufficiently part of the movement internationally to merit a See Also link. I apologise if there has been any offence given. There was none intended. Albatross2147 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the Gang Show apply to at least half of the Scouting and Guiding organizations world-wide? Would Gang Show deserve a sentence or so in the article? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this looks rather like sabotage, to me.

QUOTE: "Scouting is taught using the rhythm method, which incorporates an informal educational system that emphasizes practical activities in the outdoors, and anal sex. Programs exist for Scouts ranging in age from 6 to 25 (though age limits vary slightly by country), and program specifics target Scouts in a manner appropriate to their age.[33][34] It is the use of the Scout method that binds Scouts together, worldwide."

216.74.244.66 00:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Don Granberry.

[edit] World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM) membership

Right now the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is the only Scouting association in the United States (USA) that is a WOSM member. If there was another Scouting association in the USA that wanted to be a WOSM member, they would first have to form a federation with the BSA, then the federation could be the WOSM recognized National Scout Organization. (WOSM only recognizes one National Scout Organization per country.) My question is, would the BSA be required to form a federation with the other association or could they keep them out and continue to be the USA's only WOSM member? --Jagz 02:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Scout and Scouting are (in the United States) trademarks of the BSA, so there can't be an other Scouting association in the United States. The WOSM wants the one National Scout Organization to be open to all faiths, so if the BSA wants to become christian-only, they are required to form a federation with an other association who is open to non-christians. (to my knowledge) --Egel Reaction? 10:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right there - we have a similar situation in the UK where the Scout Association is technically the only Scouting organisation. However, there are a couple of splinter organisations who call themselves Scouts, and are members of the World Federation of Independent Scouts. Horus Kol 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
So the BSA has a monopoly on providing the service of Scouting in the United States and they do not allow gays as members nor do they allow other organizations in the United States to provide Scouting to gays (or mixed groups) because it would violate their trademark rights? (See American Boy Scouts.) --Jagz 10:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I should have said: So the BSA has a monopoly on providing the service of Scouting to boys in the United States and they do not allow gays as members nor do they allow other organizations in the United States to provide Scouting to gays (or mixed groups) because it would violate their trademark rights? (See American Boy Scouts.) --Jagz 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Only if you define Scouting as WOSM membership, which we, the project do not. In the USA there are splinter groups such as Traditional Scouting, which is part of BP Scouts, GSUSA, Royal Rangers, American Heritage Girls, Spiral Scouts, Scouting For All, etc all of which are included in our project. I personally don't like WOSM's policy of one org per country. Germany has many, many different Scout associations, for example.Rlevse 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I corrected my statement above. --Jagz 11:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Since we are talking only about Scouting for boys now, that leaves BP Scouts, Royal Rangers, Spiral Scouts, and Scouting For All. In the article List of non-aligned Scouting organizations, the Royal Rangers and SpiralScouts are listed as Scout-like organizations. Scouting For All is just an organization trying to change the policies of BSA. That leaves just Traditional Scouting. If Traditional Scouting is active in the USA and has Scouting organizations, do they allow gays as members? Also, how can they operate without violating the BSA's trademark? --Jagz 12:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know.Rlevse 12:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
After a long search I have found a WFIS BP-scouts troup in the USA [11]
While the predominant Scouting program in the US, the Boy Scouts of America, has much to offer, Baden-Powell Scouting seeks to appeal to those young people and adult leaders who want a more traditional program, which is at the same time, inclusive and non-discriminatory.
The Baden-Powell Scout Association makes the entire program available to boys and girls. Female leaders are required for female units.
It looks like they allow gays as members and girls in the same group but in a different unit.--Egel Reaction? 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that is correct, but the site says they do not have a Girls unit. Note that link is for a Group - the 1st Tarrant Group in Fort Worth. It may not be speaking for all of the B-P Scouts in the US. I also note that there does not seem to be anything on the site since 2003. Is there anybody in Fort Worth who knows about this Group? --Bduke 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting for All is not a Scout group per se- I would think it more akin to a political action group in that they are attempting to change BSA policies. There are similar groups, such as BSA Discrimination.org, Coalition For Inclusive Scouting, Inclusive Scouting and the Scouting Legal Defense Fund. Two other US Scouting groups are Star Scouting America and Youthscouts [12], but they really don't seem to be very active. It appears to me that the BSA is not actively pursuing other groups usage of the Scout as a term (unlike the early days of the BSA under West). The BSA did recently elect to more closely enforce their trademarks, as any vendor who uses a mark on a patch, shirt or the like must now be registered and pay royalties. The BSA does sue when they feel a trademark is violated. Youthscouts used the Scouting article from Wikipedia as a reference during their trademark dispute with the BSA.[13], PDF page 42. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The link [14]] gives the full account of the BSA trying to stop Youthscouts from using their trademark, but it is far too long for me to look at in detail. I do not know whether the BSA can defend their exclusive use of the term Scout. I think that in most other countries I know they would lose on the grounds that the term "Scout" has long since escaped from being the exclusive use of one entity, but I could be wrong and the USA may be different. It is arrogant in the extreme for the BSA to claim exclusive use of the word "Scout", because it has long since escaped into wide useage. --Bduke 21:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that Youthscouts applied for a trademark and the BSA filed an opposition. [15] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouts Canada successfully uses the same trademark legal tactic to suppress rival groups.[16] If the BSA wants to get people to stop suing them, then maybe they should help in the creation of a viable alternate organization that has inclusive membership. --Jagz 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are straying from discussing the article here. From a historical standpoint, the BSA successfully defended the use of Scout for several decades after incorporation and federal charter. See History of the Boy Scouts of America#Early controversies. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Match-up

I'm reading through this article & I've run into a line which has a problem because its citation doesn't match the statement By the 1990s, most Scout associations had become co-educational. The problem is that the source that is referred to is an article about the history of the Girl Scouts of the USA. A source that supports this statement is needed. SailorAlphaCentauri 17:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"#22; ^ History of Girl Scout Organization. Girl Scouts of the USA." Any ideas folks? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, how did that get in there is a better question. I guess all we can do is look for another one. Darthgriz98 17:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That is true in Europe I think, but maybe not everywhere. I'll ask Jergen, he's most likely to know and have sources on this.Rlevse 17:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I just counted my way through "Scouting 'round the World", 1990 edition: 94 out of 141 WOSM member organizations were co-educational in some are all sections. --jergen 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have the statistics for WAGGGS as well? My impression is that girl-only organisations have been more enthusiastic to retain single-sex status. I'd be interested in seeing the statistics. Kingbird 18:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See List of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts members; about a third of the WAGGGS members is coeducational; in WOSM only 10% of the organizations are single-sex today.
WAGGGS has a differnt approach: it aims to develope the full potential of girls and women by the Scout method; WOSM provides Scouting but is not an emancipative movement. --jergen 18:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jergen, for clarifying those numbers. Kingbird 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing versus featured status

Regarding my experience editing this page I want to put forward the question if there is a conflict between editing principles of Wikipedia and the featured status. I did already quote what Wikipedia is requesting inside the featured article box: "If you can update or improve it, please do ... Be bold.. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles.". And about reverting: "A simple guideline for simple reverting is that it works best for, and is really intended as, a tool against CLEAR vandalism. So save it for that! In cases other than vandalism, somebody is trying to be constructive. Even if they are doing it badly, and even if they are completely and foolishly wrong, there are usually more polite and constructive ways to deal with them than simply returning the article back to the pristine way". I did some edits conformal the Wiki-rules, it was not large (only a small part of a chapter), I was not reckless (even not bold), did read what was written before, careful argued with references, posted it for a week (Wikipedia asks one day), and still it was reverted three times. The argument was it would endanger the featured status, being not as perfect as the rest of the article, mainly because of language. But every new edit starts as less perfect and is improved by later editors. That is Wikipedia. If Wikipedia asks to edit they must accept that articles are temporary less optimal during a change process. I don't think one need to be afraid for loosing the featured status for that reason, otherwise Wikipedia would act against its own principles. The text I wrote is the best language I can deliver. If that is not acceptable, then you rule out most not native English speaking editors. But I think an encyclopedia should matter above all about content, not form. You did a lot of work to get the article featured. I did not, nor have I plans to do so (I more interested in the Scouting content, so the method, then the history). So its your article and you decide what to do with it. But please consider if a perhaps unrealistic fear of losing the featured status will become a barrier for editors who can add to the content, but in other aspects are less perfect. DParlevliet 19:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting should be used for clear vandalism, clearly wrong information, unsourced material that is clearly controversial, libelous statements and anything that is so poorly written that no one can understand it.
The material you wanted to add needed a lot of work and it was added just before the article went on the main page. The issue here was not that of loosing featured status, but maintaining quality for the main page article. We do need to go back and revisit User:DParlevliet/sandbox1. I just skimmed through this and it still needs to be edited for English syntax. I would have no problem with this being place in the article now so we could get it cleaned up.
I have decided to not edit main page articles until they come off the main page. Editors are just too busy trying to keep the article vandal free. I always wait a day or so and come back to it. Even minor changes can get reverted when there is heavy vandalism. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox1 was already (re)entered in the article some time ago (without revert this time). The second revert was what is in sandbox2 (Military aspects). I did not edit during the main page. I noticed only afterwards that my timing was rather bad and I would not have objected to delay, if someone had explained me. But the third revert was in Baden-Powells article, not a main page article, where on request of Gadget850 I tried to make the text conformal with the changes in the Scouting article. So the main page does not explain everything. DParlevliet 19:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Always a good recommendation is to do small changes, that obviously improve the article. These can hardly be controversial, and linguistic errors can easily be fixed by all people watching the article. Gradually, with consent and understanding by all, the article can them move to an improved status. Large sweeping changes to articles will only be acceptable after due discussion and even they may remain controversial: having achieved Featured Article status involves many hours of editing to top quality. One can hardly be surprised to learn that these editors guard 'their' achievement actively, and will revert low quality sweeping changes as 'vandalism'. Good luck, and don't loose courage. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure of the details behind this discussion but I just wanted to remind everyone of the Scouting controversy and conflict article for appropriate subject matter. --Jagz 04:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

DParlevliet added a Military aspects section to the Scouting controversy article. --Jagz 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this statement correct?

Many countries have more than one significant Scouting association. --Jagz 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, USA has two (BSA/GSUSA), Germany has several, etc and so on. Rlevse 00:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Do most many countries have more than one significant Scouting association serving boys (including co-ed)? --Jagz 01:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, places like Spain and Italy have multiple organisations which operate as a federation Horus Kol 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
"Most", not sure. Germany, France, and Italy do though. Where did you get this from? I don't see it in the Scouting article. Rlevse 01:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm using the statement it in the BSA controversies article. --Jagz 01:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Remebering that about 50 member organizations of WAGGGS admit boys and girls, many is correct; for most this should be more than 80 - but I did not count the traditional or non-aligned organizations: Most of them are coeducational and WFIS and the BP-Scouts are active in many countries where Girl Guiding/Scouting is girls-only (especially in the Americas).
For any exact and sourceable statement this needs a very close view and a lot of counting... --jergen 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to use the word "many" but wrote "most". In my question above I did not mean "boys-only", I meant "serving boys including co-ed". --Jagz 09:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph from the BSA membership controversies article. If the last sentence is not worded correctly let me know.
"The Boy Scouts of America is by far the largest supplier of Scouting to boys in the United States of America. The BSA is the only Scouting association of significance in the United States that boys can join and there are no comparable alternative organizations available to them throughout most of the country. The situation is different in some other countries where a number of Scouting associations with varying membership criteria are available to boys." --Jagz 11:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the numbers - 500 million scouts in last 100 years

I have just been to a Scouts Own (Canberra, Australia) and it was mentioned 28 million scouts (assume the discrepancy is that this article includes Guides). Also the figure of 500 million past scouts in the last 100 years was mentioned. Obviously need a better source - but it was an impressive number--Golden Wattle talk 10:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The discrepancy is the inclusion of Guides (10 million) and non-aligned Scouts (estimated 500,000 worldwide).
The number of former Scouts seems to be taken from Scouts Australia Media Kit for Australian Scout Groups [17]; WOSM operates with similar numbers on some of its pages but gives also 300 million former Scouts. All numbers are marked as estimations. I think with such a difference we need a outside source for this. --jergen 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentence because:
  • It does not include Guides - like most numbers given by WOSM.
  • Newer documents of the World Scout Foundation give 300 million Scouts [18], dating from september 2006.
IMO, any number of this kind should be given by an outside institution. --jergen 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
And where is the external source going to get its information from? From a press pack created by WOSM... Horus Kol 11:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's press, yes - but for exactly that reason I wrote institution - hoping that some scientific sources are available. --jergen 11:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good action for good arguments. I doubt you'll find a non-scouting reference for this, though. A fairly reliable reference may be:

Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] International Scouting Museum

Should the article mention the planned International Scouting Museum? [19] --Jagz 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it shouldn't. But please add any useful data to Scouting museums, an article that is in dire need of a move and significant copy-editing. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Scouting movement

The article uses the term Scout Movement but the Language of Scouting calls it the Scouting movement.[20] --Jagz 00:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You refer to a BSA source. Perhaps the international World Organization of the Scout Movement should change its name? --jergen 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to make sure that the correct term is being used. --Jagz 12:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Child abuse

Don't see any reflection (either here or within the main entry) of the problems suffered by the scouting movement in relation to it being targeted by paedophiles (along with other places where adult men enjoy - or used to enjoy - trusted access to young boys, such as churches, schools and so forth). I could dig up newspaper sources on this, as there have been some significant scandals, but given the sensitivity of the issue - and the amount of historical vandalism on the page - I thought I should raise it here first in case previous and/or more experienced editors have something to contribute. Testbed 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)TestBed

Do you have any reliable source that this is a significant issue in the worldwide movement with its 38 million members (about 6 million adult volunteers)? --jergen 19:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if your question is rhetorical or not. If it is rhetorical, then I would reply that the percentage of (for example) convicted paedophile Catholic priests is (contrary to popular assumption) a tiny percentage of the very large number of priests around the world - yet this has not stopped the issue being widely discussed. If you are asking a factual question, I did a quick check and immediately found this recent(ish) article from the UK press (I assume the case was widely covered in the US and that background pieces would give the figures you want) Testbed 13:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)TestBed
The Times (London) / March 31, 2005 / National Boy Scout leader on child porn charges
Elaine Monaghan in Washington
ONE of America's top Boy Scout officials pleaded guilty yesterday to possessing and distributing child pornography over the internet after being caught in an international crackdown on paedophile material.
Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr, 61, faces a prison term of between 5 and 20 years without parole and a fine of up to $ 250,000 (£130,000). A court in Fort Worth released him until his sentencing on July 12.
He has been forced out of his job as national programme director at the Scouts' headquarters in Dallas after a 39-year career in which he has won repeated accolades from the organisation.
Two years ago he began running a "Youth Protection" task force that encourages people to use the internet and other resources to report child abuse within the Scouting movement.
Although his administrative job did not bring him into contact with children, he had in the past worked as a Scout leader. There was no indication that Scouts were in any of the sexually explicit photos found in his possession.
His downloading and distributing of pictures of children engaged in sex acts stood in stark contrast to the Scouting pledge to be "morally straight".
The organisation said it was shocked and dismayed at the prosecution.
Although the case is a first for the Boy Scouts movement, the organisation has made repeated headlines in recent years because of court battles over membership rules, which exclude girls, atheists and homosexuals.
I don't think that satisfies the claim that the Scout movement is specifically targeted by paedophiles and abusers that you made in your first post... However, I do agree that, unfortunately, child abuse has occured at times in the movement - in the UK, at least, The Scout Association took on a system of Confidential Enquiries a long time before the Ian Huntley case brought about the governments CRB checks to combat this (and, in fact, is more thorough as it does transcend police force boundaries).
I'm not sure what this means in terms of the global movement - but I doubt the UK is alone in its problems (although, whether Scouts are actually being targeted by abusers is an open question - like your example of the Catholic church... is it that it is specifically targeted, or that once accepted, the abuser may find more opportunity). Horus Kol Talk 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The cited article can't be right: Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution ISBN 0761500243 was published in 1995. But this books is BSA centered.
Are there really cases in other countries? As Horus Kol stated the British SA took meassures; were there incidents of child abuse before introducing the enquiry system?
As for Germany: There were a few (3 or 4) cases over the last ten years. In none of them the paedophile infiltrated Scouting for molesting children but were members of Scouting from their youth. The major German associations made the necessary steps to prevent further incidents.
Im convinced that there are/were cases of child abuse, but I'm not convinced of including the few known details in this article. The number of known cases (8 in the cited book) is very small when compared with number of adult volunteers in the BSA (1,146,130 in 2005 [21]). --jergen 17:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
British SA maybe reacted on the problems the BP-scouts had around 1995 with some paedophiles (at district-level ?). (when I remember right, please edit my comment when wrong) [22] [23] [24] --Egel Reaction? 17:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The CE in the UK is older than the 90s - I'm not sure how old. I also have to apologise because it seems I've given the impression that there is now no problem with child abuse in the Scout Association - we still unfortunately have cases, mainly because the CE has the same flaw that any screening has, in that it can only flag a person if there is a previous history - where the CE is stronger than the CRB is that the CRB (until recently) only applied to a specific area, and only shows convictions... Horus Kol Talk 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should work from the idea (already stated) that this article covers a huge number of different organisations in different cultures. These have differing ideas about what constitutes lawful or unlawful, acceptable or unacceptable relationships, and their different responses to these. What in some places is rape, in another is child abuse and in another is young people being a bit silly. We mustn't forget all mixtures of age and gender. In other words, it's a big subject. I don't think we should try and pretend it can be covered in one or two paragraphs in a general article. I suggest that if people are interested in writing about these problems, and the sometimes conflicting ideas and research that surrounds them, then there are two things that could be done. Either write an separate article on it that links in to the existing network of Scouting articles, or, if people want to write just about what's happened in one country or culture, write in the appropriate Scouting in... article. Kingbird 23:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • There are only two legitimate courses of action: 1) a separate article as Kingbird suggest for those very reasons and 2) not mentioning it at all as pretending the EXTREMELY FEW documented cases amongst tens of millions of youth and adult leaders represents a core piece of the movement is really stretching it. The Catholic Church has far, far more cases (well over 1000 in last 20 years) than Scouting (only a few dozen mentioned in the thread so far, so comparing the two is not valid. Also the book ref mentioned is a BSA-specific ref.Rlevse 02:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about people who are killed and seriously injured (through drowning and falls for example) during Scouting activities? A kid in the US was just found after becoming lost on a camping trip for four days. Are these problems more prevalent? --Jagz 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Was this an incident inherent to the Scout method - or was it just a bad trained Scout leader? Most (if not all) of the grave accidents I know about could have happened in nearly every youth organization going outdoors. --jergen 08:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
It's here.[25] Here's one about a Scout getting stabbed by another Scout.[26] --Jagz 08:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Such incidents, child abuse, injuries, etc happen anywhere there are youth, such as sports teams, schools, etc. That doesn't mean it's condoned by the organization. In the case in North Carolina of the lost Scout, the kid simply wandered off without permission and without telling anyone.Rlevse 09:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
There is only one case I am aware of in the UK where a Scout was killed whilst Scouting in recent times was a caving incident a couple of years ago. However, this was the fault of the parent (this been a parent-Scout activity weekend) who disregarded the experienced judgment of the caving leader - so this was not a failing of the Scout method or the leader.
I've personally seen any number of minor burns, cuts, grazes and bruises - nothing beyond the need of wash and a plaster. However, I am aware of more severe incidents where hospital treatment was required - although these are quite rare when you consider the number of Scouting activities being undertaken each weekend and evening across the country.
In terms of actually writing about child abuse and/or other incidents - I think it is prudent to include something, as it does happen. However, this affords the opportunity to highlight how rare these incidents are and what steps are taken to protect the young people in Scouting (Scout leader training, activity authorisation, the UK Confidential Enquiry and CRB - and whatever equivalent other NSOs and NGOs may have) -- Horus Kol Talk 10:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's something from a WOSM Risk and Safety Management Workshop.[27] --Jagz 10:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Just discovered I have been insulted for raising this question. Have posted a defence at [[28]] - Testbed

[edit] Child abuse and scouting in the British press

Somewhat annoyed by claims that this issue is of no importance (as well as my being insulted for raising it in the first place) I did a quick skim of British national newspapers for the last two years – here are just a few extracts:

Daily Mail October 10, 2006: A senior Scout leader set up a fake camp so he could lure two boys to his home and sexually abuse them. Alan X, 42, printed bogus consent forms and conned parents into allowing their sons to go away overnight.

The Sun September 9, 2006: Vile scout leader David Y abused more than 100 vulnerable kids at his £ 250,000 House of Horrors.

Daily Mail June 30, 2006: A former deputy head teacher and scout leader was jailed for eight years yesterday for abusing boys over two decades. Paul Z preyed on children as young as eight at his flat, in a church hall and on camping trips he organised

Sunday Mirror December 4, 2005: A former scout master who has admitted to more than 55 counts of abusing young boys has been paid thousands in benefits while serving a 12 month sentence for abusing an altar boy. Serial child abuser Martin X, 41, was sentenced in July of this year for abusing his young victim in the late 90s.

The Sun April 19, 2005: This shocking map pinpoints just some of the Scout leaders who have been convicted of paedophile offences in recent years. The Sun has built up the map by researching 32 cases spanning the past five years. Others are waiting to be dealt with by the courts. Despite improved vetting procedures perverts are still slipping through the net. Greater Manchester Police recently uncovered a string of perverts occupying high-ranking roles in the Scout movement. Testbed 04:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Testbed

What these reports don't show is that if there is a higher incidence of abusers within the Scouting leadership as compared with the general population - which I believe is your first claim... no-one has said these things don't happen, and I don't think I see that anyone has claimed the issue of child abuse to be unimportant. I think the only thing anyone has an issue with is your opening statement:
"the problems suffered by the scouting movement in relation to it being targeted by paedophiles"

-- Horus Kol Talk 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How many total sex offender cases re children have there been in Britain in the last two years?Rlevse 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Horus Kol and Rlevse that the number of cases should be seen in relation to the total number of cases in the UK (and perhaps also in relation to other youth organizations).
  • The number of cases and its relation to the number of active Scouts/Guides seems to differ widely between the different countries. Unfortunately, the quotation above (The Sun, April 19, 2005) does not say if the cases counted occured in the Scout Association, in non-aligned organizations or in girlguiding UK, so it is not easy to compare.
    If this case number applies to all British organizations (including Guides; about 1 million members) it is about twice as high as in Germany (8 cases in the last 10 years; about 250,000 members), if it refers only to Scouting (about 500,00 members) the UK has four times more incidents than Germany.
  • Conclusion 1: We need more and better sources.
  • Conclusion 2: The numbers suggest that Britsh Scouting/Guiding (or perhaps one of its organizations) may have a problem, but to state this we need further input on the overall number of cases.
  • Conclusion 3: Because of the differences in the case/membership ratio it could be a better way to mention these problems in the respective organization's article. --jergen 08:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/c/o/Talk%7EScouting_ccf0.html"