Talk:SpiralScouts International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:WPN	This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	SpiralScouts International 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

Contents 1 Scouting 2 Move 3 Notability established. 4 Copyvio 4.1 New Version 5 Notability 6 Denial

[edit] Scouting

SSI is not a Scouting organization. --evrik 16:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

While not a WOSM or WAGGS member, I would have to say that SSI is a scouting organization. They were formed when the BSA declined to recognize the Wicca religious program, thus they are a direct alternative scouting program. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

They are specifically included in the project as a Non-aligned Scouting organization. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• See talk at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting 11:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

The official name is SpiralScouts, with no space. See their legal statememts page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't see it listed on the page. I support. --evrik 14:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• as that is what they call themselves, it only makes sense. Rlevse 11:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since this is a simple spelling issue, I'm going to speedy this move. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirects cleaned up. Leaving redirect page in place, as this appears to be a common misspelling. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability established.

I'm using the proposed guidelines for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations), which state: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source."

SpiralScouts are national in scope (check) and verified by third party sources (check), see BoingBoing, the Metro Times Detroit, the Eugene Register-Guard, and oh what fun, the Cybercast News Service.

So I'm removing evrik's bogus questionable-notability template. — Coelacan | talk 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Why don't you clean-up the article and add some references into the article? --evrik ^(talk) 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As noted in the lead, SpiralScouts are international. The article needs work by an informed editor, but I don't believe that the notability tag is appropriate here. If you are really unconvinced of notability, put it up for deletion and we can vote on it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

evrik, it doesn't matter if you're not convinced. The guidelines for notability have been objectively met, and I gave the citations in my comment above. It would be great if somebody cleaned up the article, but in the meantime, your notability tag is coming down. — Coelacan | talk 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• ummm ... two of the sources cited are duplicates.

From its grassroots beginnings, the organization has now spread to 20 states, Canada and Europe. Chapters exist as far away as Switzerland and also thrive, according to Callahan, “in places you wouldn’t expect, like Arkansas and Oklahoma.” To date, 127 different groups have been chartered, and Callahan estimates that around 60 are currently active, involving about 600 people ... [1]

Is that what passes for a national or international group? I am unconvinced about the notability of this group. The article has serious issues. I believe it has {{copyvio}}, is poorly written, is not sourced, and needs to be wikified. The ONLY reason i don't tag it for deletion is to give someone a chance to improve the article. --evrik ^(talk) 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• From the article:

As of 2006 units exist in 20 U.S. states, some Canadian provinces, and parts of Europe.

Is this the suspected copyvio? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• No. Check out this link. --evrik ^(talk) 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, copyvio and poor writing has nothing to do with notability. Here are our notability guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). If you can pick out some specific problem where this article fails to meet those guidelines, then you have a case. I have already shown that the article meets the specific guidelines, so you do not have a case, and you are adding the notability tag merely to be disruptive. Do not persist. — Coelacan | talk 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to give you a chance to improve the article. I just tagged the copyvio. --evrik ^(talk) 19:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that a copyvio tag means that you believe that 'every part of this article is in violation? Including the parts that you added? See the Instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.--Gadget850 ( Ed)

• Yeah, I do. The rest of the article was plagiarized as well (except what i added). This article has been problematic for a while, it was just a decision oif which way to tag it for deletion, since no one was interested in improving it. --evrik ^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

• I still do not see the alleged copyright violation. Please provide the text in the article vs. the perceived source. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• The entire Structure section was copied from another website. It hasn't been attibuted properly. The entire first portion was copied as well. --evrik ^(talk) 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Then simply delete it, mark the edit summary with "copyvio" and the URL of the site.

The copyvio tag is for an entire page and does not work for sections. When you use it, you are supposed to blank the entire page and replace it with only the copyvio tag. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done. --evrik ^(talk) 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the copyright notice on SpiralScouts page states

"The material on this site may not be published nor broadcast without obtaining prior permission, unless it is published or broadcast in total, without changes or editing of any kind. Because this offer is made, the "fair use" provisions of the International Copyright Convention and U. S. copyright laws do not apply, and permission MUST be obtained to abridge this material. Permission must be sought and obtained, or the material published in its entirety as noted above. Copyright violations are prosecuted vigorously. - SpiralScouts(TM) International, Inc.

I'm not sure of the legality of this when applied to fair use. --Erp 22:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they are full of it. I don't think that a copyright holder can declare that fair use does not apply to their works. — coelacan talk — 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I don't think copyright holders get to make that kind of decision. If they were using a copyleft, they'd actually probably have more control.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to bring this up as well. I think we need to remove this stuff until we get it figured out. Errr.... posting the statement above from their website would also be in in violation. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? I've rewritten so it is not in violation of a standard copyright (the only stuff verbatim is the wording of the oath/promise/pledge otherwise it is a listing of facts). We could if people feel that the oath/pledge/promise is in violation just direct people straight to their web page for that wording (but we don't do that for any other scouting promise). As for notability within scouting, it is not the size that is so important but their existence in reaction to BSA policy and also within the neo-pagan movement. Just as American Heritage Girls, another small group, is important as a reaction to GSUSA policy. Also copyleft is a subset of copyright; it cannot give more rights to a copyright holder than the law allows--Erp 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Version

Great!. Now we can start on the new version! Talk:SpiralScouts International/Temp --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's a good start ... but I still wonder about {{notability}} --evrik ^(talk) 02:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Put it up for AfD and let's vote on it! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I went ahead and fixed the page. I'm still concerend about notability. --evrik ^(talk) 17:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, whichever committee that works copyright issues is supposed to do that. Once the tag is applied, editors are not supposed to make changes. Tag it for deletion if you want and we will vote on it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I didn't know about the committee thing. I'm not going to mark it {{afd}} today. I am still reserving judgement. --evrik ^(talk) 18:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denial

According to Cybercast News Service, Boy Scouts dismiss rejection. This says that Wiccan groups are allowed to sponsor BSA groups and issue Wiccan symbols. Yet the article says "It was created in 1999 by the Aquarian Tabernacle Church after the Boy Scouts of America decided not to recognize the religious programs of the Wiccan faith as part of the BSA Religious Emblems Programs." It seems entirely appropriate to me that BSA refuses to issue religious symbols itself, leaving that duty up to the religious organization in question. Obviously, the mainstream BSA leadership doesn't have intimate knowledge of Wiccan practice - and I doubt Wiccans would approve a Wiccan Merit Badge that featured a green, warty witch. So is this BSA rep just lying when he says that Wiccan groups can sponsor Boy Scout or Cub Scout troops and issue Wiccan emblems? What gives? Applejuicefool 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From the article you referenced:

The BSA changed some policies in 1993. The religious organization must charter at least 25 BSA units before any of their religious emblems may be recognized. Since Wicca does not have a national organization to date, any religious program cannot be recognized. So: Yes a Wiccan coven can sponsor a unit. But that coven's religious emblem program would not be recognized.

The kneejerk reaction might be to believe that the BSA is discriminating against pagans. In my opinion, setting the requirement to sponsor 25 units is quite reasonable. For example, the sponsorship requirement would keep someone from trying to push a Flying Spaghetti Monster or some other frivolous emblem. The requirement of 25 units means that the group has some level of size to come to a consensus on a program. For example, if there are 1000 Wiccan covens in the US, there could be 1000 variants of any religious program. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Take a peek at [2]; there's a good bit of variety there - I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that scouting is anti-diversity when it comes to religion. Applejuicefool 21:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I should point out a few things (1) The BSA recognizes those religious emblems which are allowed to be worn on the uniform the religion creates and gives them, these are not merit badges, in other words emblems can be earned but unrecognized ones cannot be worn on the uniform, (2) the requirement on 25 units was not put forth until after the refusal to recognize the Hart and Crescent religious emblem and there are several previously recognized religious emblems whose national organization are unlikely to have 25 units (and some are multi-denominational so have no one national organization). (3) In addition in 2005, the BSA religious committee according to PRAY recognized a UU religious award that was not recognized by the UU national organization (instead the UU continues to recognize the awards it has always recognized which are not now recognized by the BSA) so it is not abiding by the 25 unit rule anyway. (4) Wiccan groups applying for charters have allegedly been turned down (though other neo-pagan groups apparently do have charters). Perhaps someone who is actually involved in the neo-pagan movement can give some more info.--Erp 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This was talked about on the usenet group rec.scouting.issues some time ago. I think that what you say above is essentially correct. The emblem was the Hart and Crescent and it was put forward by one Wiccan group - Covenant of the Goddess? The whole debate was about one organisation which does have a national organization I think. I recall too that efforts to charter Troops, after the 25 limit was introduced, were turned down. It was described as a "Catch 22" situation at the time. You might care to search the archives of that group for information, although I would not always say it is reliable information. --Bduke 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of rec.scouting.issues is a problem. I'm aware of it and of the play out of the controversy there. I was hoping for something a bit more definite (I may look and see if there were any clear references then). --Erp 03:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)