Talk:Boy Scout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Boy Scout has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Scouting Wiki Project Boy Scout is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Rlevse (Talk)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
Archive
Archives
*July 2006 – September 2007


[edit] DAB war

The edit war over:

Some troops are co-educational, for those troops this article is about the girls too.
For girl troops and boy scouts in co-educational troops see: Girl Guide and Girl Scout.

is going to continue, because these two disambiguation statements are a mess and offend people. I note that the latest IP editor involved is from a UK IP. In the UK, the name has been Scout, not Boy Scout for decades and equal participation of girls and young women is accepted as standard. This article, in spite of many well-intended editors trying hard to change it, is still written from a USA POV. The very title grates with Scouting readers from the UK and other places such as Australia. The second disambiguation statement says boys in UK troops are covered by Girl Guide and Girl Scout, but the first says the girls are covered here in Boy Scout. No change of wording is going to make this satisfactory. Girl Guide and Girl Scout, of course, has similar problems. Note too that many WAGGGS organizations do not have troops, but companies.

I have two suggestions:

  1. Combine the two articles into a single article called Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations, or perhaps, Members of Scouting organizations, although I think it is very much better to be quite clear here. The article could then deal with all the variations around the world in an NPOV fashion. The current titles could then be used for articles about the 11 - 15 or 11 to 18 or whatever, Scout or Guide section. That is if we decide to not remove all the international articles on sections, as Ed has suggested.
  2. If people do not like this suggestion and insist on two articles, then the wording of the disambiguation has to be completely different and I am not sure that is possible. It needs to be along the lines of "This article is about the members of Scouting organizations affiliated to WOSM or following related programs independently. For members of Scouting or Guiding organizations affiliated to WAGGGS or following related programs independently, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout". In Girl Guide and Girl Scout it needs to be essentially the reverse. This would also allow the articles to avoid being "boy-" and "girl-centric" and deal with the coeducational situations fairly. However, the respective use of "boy" and "girl" in the two articles would still be a problem. --Bduke (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Another symptom caused by the fact that the various national organizations are structured too differently to make this easy and to please every one. I'd like to know what Kingbird has to say about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
We have Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding. It has a section on "generic" articles, then a very nice table for many national Scouting organizations. The table then breaks each NSO down into sections by age and links any articles thereof. From that list, the only NSOs to currently use "Boy Scout" are the Boy Scouts of Bahrain and the Boy Scouts of America.
The devil is in the details. Scouting does a good job of being universal without being overly specific or overly general. When we start trying to do this at the section level, I think it starts to break down. Compare Boy Scout to Scouting— both articles are covering the same ground and describing the same things. We have some history, age groups, activities, progression and uniforms in both. Boy Scout also tries to cover organization, but it appears very BSA-centric to me.
The better articles are those that show "Boy Scouting" or the equivalent within the structure of the NSO: Scouts (Australia), Scouting Ireland Scouts, Scout Section (UK) and Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America).
--— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Well is anyone going to have the intestinal fortitude to flag the article for merge? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Before anyone does that, the whole scheme of restructuring the Boy/Girl articles should be worked out. Otherwise, we'll just have another huge mess. Keep in mind, this set of articles will never make everyone happy and will always be unstable. As long as the grand scheme makes sense and is logical, I have no particular preference. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this largely redundant article is only here still because of rearguard actions fought by some. The article could be usefully written as a short historical overview of what a "boy scout" was with links to the two(?) gender specific organisations to cover the current position. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But there are no gender specific organisations at the international level as you well know from Australia. The historic stuff is done elsewhere. Let us try to get it right, by moving carefully and slowly. There are several different issues here (see also the discussion on the Project talk page):

  1. Do we want international articles on the various sections. If so, is this on the one on the Scout Section?
  2. Do we want articles on "the boy", or "the girl" or "the member"? I am inclined to say we do not, but if we do I strongly maintain that Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations is the way to go. These days, any article on "the member" has to be gender neutral. What do others think about this specific point? --Bduke (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
My recommendation is to merge any applicable bits of this article into Scouting. The unit affiliation material should be developed in NSO articles, as each is unique. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This debate is on going on in 3 places, at least two. It needs to be consolidated. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is aware that there are several inter-related discussions; each article should be discussed individually as well. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Only to a point, a grand scheme needs to be fleshed out rather than a piecemeal approach. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1. this is the one on the Scout Section. Merged it with the Girl Guide/Girl Scout section article and make it unisex.
2. An (short or long) article is needed to connect the NSO specific core section articles and sections. An article that explains the different ways: horizontal or vertical patrols, one or two core sections , etc. so readers known what to look for in the the NSO specific core section articles or sections.
3. The article is not BSA-centric but somewhat unitair-centric. (unitair = one core section) I have tried the last month to make it less BSA-centric, but some of the wording is still from BSA sources.
--Egel Reaction? 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding #2: The NSO sections are listed Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding by age. We can expand the first part of that article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, why does this article on "Boy Scout" have a picture of both boy scouts and the female equivalent. Whereas the Girl Scout article just has Girls in it - either the Girl scout article has a generic picture (same as this) or the boy scout article gets an image of a boy scout, not both sexes.
Another thing - the "Girl Guides" article title is incorrect - because a Guide can either be a girl or a boy - so while we are talking about these gender related issues - the title of the "Girl Guides" page should just be titled "Guides" as it is supposed to be gender NPOV. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
When we get to that level, what is the difference between a Guide and a Scout? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It is all in tradition and history, which is why I suggested that the explanation should lie with words such as "This article is about the members of Scouting organizations affiliated to WOSM or following related programs independently. For members of Scouting or Guiding organizations affiliated to WAGGGS or following related programs independently, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout". Anything else is going to be wrong in some sense to some people. I single article on "the member" would get around a lot of difficulties. --Bduke (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to Bduke's question 2 above, I think that it has become very difficult on wikipedia to say anything general about Guiding and Girl Scouting because someone will always point out that some Guides are boys. This is a fair point, but I think it has become overdone. If you take a look at the WAGGGS website, it's all about girls. Not girls and a few boys. They say of themselves "The World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts is a worldwide Movement providing non-formal education where girls and young women develop leadership and life skills through self-development, challenge and adventure." Their catchphrase starts "Girls worldwide say..." WAGGGS has not felt it necessary to change its name. This is not because they don't realise some WAGGGS member organisations take boys, it's because taking boys is an anomaly, not the norm. It's an anomaly we shouldn't ignore, but nor should we get too wrapped up in it. Kingbird (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but the same (replacing "girl" by "boy") can not be said about Boy Scout. Why can we not have a general article about the member? That is if we want any such articles. I think we can talk about the organisation and structure the members are in and hence what they do, but it is doubtful we can talk about "the girl" or "the boy" as our guidelines suggest we do. I would like an attempt at one general article about the member to see if it can work, and then a new look at worldwide articles on sections, including the key historical first sections for Scouts or Guides, which currently we do not really have, while having reasonable ones on Cubs, Beavers, Rovers and I think Brownies and Rangers. --Bduke (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Have I got this right? Are we collectively proposing three types of articles? Type 1 - articles about the movement - most importantly Scouting and Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting (or acceptable variant name) Type 2 - articles about different age sections/branches in individual organisations, for example, Cub Scouts (The Scout Assocation), with an umbrella page called Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding. Type 3 - article(s) on an archetypal Scout/Girl Guide/Guide/Girl Scout/Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations. Kingbird (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, I think. There is a concern that Ed has introduced that the articles on sections at an international level should not exist. I'm not sure. There is, to me, to take an example close to my heart, a case for a general article on Rover Scouts to cover the concept across the world and then articles on Rovers in UK or Australia (I forget the actual titles) or where ever. I am sure there are Guide equivalents. That argument seems to be one part of what this discussion is all about. Another part is the view that Scouting covers everything, so Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting is below that. I'm not sure that you really accept that, and I'm not sure that I do, and I'm not clear that the BSA guys understand the issues, although they are acting in absolute good faith and we just may be not understanding each other..--Bduke (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have centered here, so let's keep it here as much as possible. I am seeing signs it will eventually yield a result that we can all agree upon. The way I see it, Scouting is one movement with different facets, including but not limited to Rovers, Explorers, Girls, Cubbing, Sea Scouts, etc. They are all offshoots (spawned from) of the same initial movement, found by B-P in 1907. Girl involvement first started by girls showing up at the "boy only" meetings, which surprised B-P and also impressed him and it led to the founding of the Girl facet of the movement. Each of these facets deserves its own article, with Scouting being the parent, just as they all can be traced directly back to Brownsea Island in 1907. These facet articles I view not subordinate to but in conjunction with Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you change the article so "Boy Scout" doesn't exist - then you have to change the article that says "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting" to just "Guides" and merge the Girl Scout article with this one - we cannot have a general "Scout" article, (removing the boy scout name) and keep a girl scout article - thats just blatant sexist and I do not agree with that. We either keep "Boy Scout" and "Girl Scout" articles as they are or we have a general "Scout" article and a generic "Guides" article. Also remember that in some countries still, girls still "have" to join the Guides and boys still "have" to join the scouts - they are still single sex, so creating a universal article may not relect the true structure of the movement everywhere.--Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
That's why hashing this out is so difficult, things are quite different in various countries, but they do all have one common source, Brownsea Island, 1907. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Guides (including Girl Scouts) are 99% Girls, that is not sexist, that is reality. Part of being a Guide is being proud to be female. The Guide movement has besides their roots in the Scout tradition, strong roots in (First-wave) feminism. It is impossible to make a gender-neutral/non sexist article about a partly feminist movement.
Gender not as important for a (Boy) Scout as it is for a (Girl) Guide (or Girl Scout), and at least 15% of Scouts are female. So it is possible to make a gender-neutral/non sexist article about Scouts. I even think the article about Scouts needs to be gender-neutral.
There are more countries where girls can choose and boys can't, than there are counties where boys can choose and girls can't. In the countries where girls can choose, there are often more girls member of the girls-only organization than of the co-ed organization.
--Egel Reaction? 16:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, by saying that its Girl Guiding, when boys are in it is not correct. It should be "Guides" not girl guides. In the UK a Guide can be a girl or a boy and in some parts of the USA too. You're basically saying that we have to make scouting gender neutral but, guiding not, that stance is sexist in itself. 15% of scouts are girls, that is an extremely small percentage the same as Boys that are guides. Also, boys do have a choice in most countries. One of my friends' son's is a guide, I should know this sort of stuff. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should not have universal articles (better than generic), but we can't think of them as international. Scouting does a good job of being universal without saying that every NSO does things a certain way. I still believe that we cannot write about a member without writing about the program and vice versa— you can't have a Scout without Scouting. We need to examine each of the existing universal articles carefully and individually and ensure that they are not trying to state that every NSO uses the same programs and methods. We also need to ensure that a universal article does not degenerate into generalities.

Let's look at Boy Scout specifically:

  • Only 15 of 156 WOSM NSOs still use the "Boy Scout" in their name; see List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members; all others use "Scouts."
  • As noted, most of those with Scout sections are now co-ed.
  • The age is listed as 11–17, but Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding shows that Scout section ages vary— most are 10–14 with another group such as Venture Scouts or Explorer Scouts for ages 14–17.
  • Compare Boy Scout to Scouting—these articles cover much the same ground. What information in Boy Scout is unique as compared to Scouting? The only unique section I see here is Unit Affiliation— this appears to be presented as universal, but I am rather doubtful.
  • The article uses a lot of general terms: most, many, may, some, usually and the like. This is a symptom of attempting to describe a Scouting section that is used in different ways in different NSOs.

Trying to maintain universal articles on Scouting sections is going to be problematic on several levels. A better solution would be to work on expanding Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding and tying in articles on age groups and not names. For example, Beavers (Scouting) and Cub Scouts could become Scouting for junior youth, Boy Scout and Venture Scout could become Scouting for middle youth and Rover Scout would become Scouting for senior youth. This gets around the preconceptions associated with the wild variety of section names and ages. We could have Scouting for specialty groups to include Lone Scouts, Air Scouts, Sea Scout and Extension Scouting.

This also applies to Girl Guides and Girls Scouts. The question here is to have Girl Guiding and Girl Guiding for xxx youth or to combine age levels in Scouting and Guiding for xxx youth. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Note the WOSM even lists Boy Scouts of America, which obviously has "Boy" in the title, as COED as it admits girls to Venturing and other older Scout programs though it does not admit them to Troops and Packs. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some merit in Ed's suggestions about age groups, but I do not agree with his last sentence. I think Lone Scouts, Air Scouts, Sea Scout and Extension Scouting should remain but the first three renamed to Lone Scouting, Air Scouting and Sea Scouting to concentrate on the organisation. Note two of them are redirects now. They certainly should have similar names and similar redirects. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I was ambivalent on the specialty idea. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bduke's comments on changing the names of the Lone Scout etc articles. I'm not sure about Scouting for xxx youth as titles. It's an ingenious solution, but I'm not sold on it yet. Kingbird (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Scouting and Guiding are international movements. Sections are not international movements, just the manner in which the NSOs package and present the program. There is no international Beaver or Rainbow movement as these are levels within a program. There is a bit of confusion in naming, since Boy Scouting was the seminal movement that has now expanded into Scouting. I know a lot of NSOs use the term sections; the BSA makes a distinction here by referring to Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing as membership divisions of a unified Scouting program. We can certainly compare similar sections, but trying to write about them as if the sections were the movement is misleading. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

copied from Talk:Girl Guides: For what it is worth, my daughter is a Guide in Queensland, Australia, and while there are non-co-ed guiding organisations like that in Australia, I think there should be a separate article with links to other scouting articles. Folding the Guides under Scouts would be a bit like folding USA under England. An article like this allows other scouting movement articles to be linked to in a way that clarifies Guidings relationship with the rest of the movement, rather than implying that Guiding is a sort of appendix to Scouting. Alexlaw65 (talk) 10:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stale.

After seven weeks with no further discussion, I presume we are leaving the article as is. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I suggest mergeing These four articals: Scouting, Boy Scout, Girl Guide and Girl Scout Girl Guides. and adding information for this artical: YES Scouts. --85.250.215.89 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • STRONG OPPOSE — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)