Talk:Scouting/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

old comments

The early history is incorrect. The first overseas Scout troop was established in Gibraltar (1st Gibraltar Scout Troop), which has since amalgamated with the 4th troop, becoming the 1st/4th Gibraltar (Marquis of Milford Haven's Own)Scout Troop. Even the Malta Scouts website states that they applied for resistration in November 1908, which was granted a year later. During 1908 however the 1st Gibraltar Scout Troop was already up & running and recognised. I attempted an ammendment, but it reverted to it's original incorrect text.

Is it relevant to have a link to the Hitler Youth? --ALargeElk 17:35, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. If so, also need to link to the Soviet Russian youth org. Young Pioneers, I think? Should make clear that these organizations are not part of Scouting, but are perversions of scouting created by authoriatarian governments. crazyeddie 21:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a scout, but I'm not a native English-speaker, so I won't put my English into an encyclopedia.

Anyway, this article needs more information about the current global scouting (the history part is pretty good). WOSM and WAGGGS are linked, but they should definitely be mentioned in an article like this.

More stuff is also needed on what scouts do, and they should even have their own articles (since there are several different teaching methods like learning-by-doing, the patrol system, and even more of other stuff). This is a lot more work though, putting in more about WOSM and WAGGGS and their relation to the national organizations (one or many/country) should be the highest priority.

Otherwise, I checked this article to see if Wikipedia was right about something I already knew about, and this article was light, but I still found it pleasing. -Alexander

This article is a little light on as to what scouts actually do. I always thought that the goal was to earn the "World Domination Badge" but then again I may just have watched one too many episodes of The Goodies :-) Seriously, I know they go on hikes, earn badges for being good little boys and girls, and praise God, King, and Country, but what else? --Robert Merkel 05:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[1] This is the official definition.

Baloo rch 18:16, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was actually looking for something a little more concrete, reflecting the week-to-week activities of a typical scout group. --Robert Merkel 12:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, the troop I was in had a meeting once a week, went on some sort of camping trip about once a month, and a week long camp (along with other troops in the region) once a year. The meetings opened with a flag ceremony, then we handled whatever business needed to be done (a bit less formally then 4-H, no Robert's Rules of Order, and this was done while still standing at ease, following the flag ceremony), then we broke down into patrols for book learning side of merit badges and the ranks, as well as what practical lessons and tests as could be done indoors. Or the whole troop took part. Then we had some sort of physical activity for about a half hour. (Usually "ditch", which was a form of tag - fun, but didn't really teach much, so the adult leaders didn't like it much. We sure enjoyed it though. I was pretty good at hiding, not so good at actually chasing somebody else down. I hated being it.) Then back inside for about another half hour of serious stuff, and closed with another flag ceremony. Total time, about two hours.

At certain intervals, courts of honor were held (usually in place of the regular weekly meeting) to hand out new ranks and merit badges. When somebody earned Eagle Scout, a special court of honor was held for them. Hope that helps. crazyeddie 21:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The troop that I am a leader at meets every friday night for 2 and a half hours. We begin with a flag ceromony, and then we play a steam release game to calm the kids down. After the steam release game, we either work on badges, have a wide game, team building exercises, or an investiture (This depends on what day of the month it is). After this we normally have another game (That is usually educational) we also do STA's (This is a list of things that the patrol must complete by the end of the evening). After we are finished we have another Flag Ceremony, and close off.

At least once a month we have a Court of Honour after the normal Troop meeting. A Court of Honour in South Africa is a meeting of all the Patrol Leaders, Troop Leaders and the Troop Scouter, the Assistant Troop Scouters might join in if they are invited. The Court of Honour decides things like, which Scouts are in which Patrols, who is elligable for PLTU (Patrol Leaders Training Unit), who is elligable to become a Patrol Leader or Second, and they have a say in what happens at Scout meetings in terms of the program. Jediwannabe 06:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

levels

the article mentions venture scouts, eagle scouts, explorer scouts etc, but my impresion was that there exsited several "lower" levels as well... cubs and such like. Anybody know sufficent about the scouts to write about them? Iainscott 08:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • In the U.K., there are Beaver Scouts (six to eight years old), Cub Scouts (eight to ten), Scouts (10-14), Explorer Scouts (14-18) and the Scout Network (18-25). Ajsilver 17:39, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In the US, you have various ranks of cub scouts - IIRC, rank in the cub scouts was based on age, not achievement. Then you had the Webelos, an intermediate rank. Then you had the scouts themselves - Eagle scout is just the top rank within the Boy Scout hierarchy. There is a hierarchy of ranks within Boy Scouts that is based on achievement, but after you leave scouts, the Eagle Scout rank is pretty much the only one worth mentioning. (It really looks like we need a list of ranks within scouting and cub scouting.)
Venture and explorer scouts are basically scouting groups that are outside the Scout hierarchy. You might think of them as "young adult" scouts - I think the age range on those is something like 16-21, while regular scouting cuts off at 18. There aren't any ranks within Venture or Explorer scouts, but there is generally an overlapping membership with a local regular troop, unless the Venture/Explorer patrol is located in some godforsaken wilderness. crazyeddie 21:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Not in the UK. Explorers is up to 18, when you can take out a warrant or join the Scout Network, or both. Network allows you to complete the Scout programme up to the age of 25. Unless you leave the movement, at no time are you outside any 'heirarchy' - Explorers and Network are sections like anyother, except that they are orgainised on a district and county level respectively. It may be different in the US, but this adds to my case for having different pages on different organisations. Ajsilver 18:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SA works completely different. We have Cubs (8-10), Scouts (10-18) and then you can do your Warrant, or join a Rover crew (Or both). Rovers is from 18 to 30. Jediwannabe 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As it stands, the ranks section needs work. This should make a basic distinction between youth members, young adults (e.g. Rovers), adult leadership in the group, and adult leaders in the wider organisation. Youth members were originally broken down into ages 8-10 (Cubs) in Sixes, Scouts (11-17) in Patrols, and Rovers, but there are now younger pre-Cub age divisions in some countries, multiple different age divisions, the Patrol system is not always used, and there are too many national variations to describe them all on this page. Youth membership is voluntary. Adult leaders in the group are generally volunteers trained and uniformed, supported by others such as parents. In a Scout organisation, there is generally a district/area/council/national hierarchy, also mainly volunteers, and a small professional staff. Zaian
All. When we speak of levels in scouting, we are typically speaking of the program levels within scouting, not the ranks within that program. While each Scouting Organization may use different terms, the typical programs are: Cub (8-10), Scouts (10-14), Venturers (14-18), Rovers (18-25+). --Emb021 20:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that you may find a typical program scheme, but perhaps a "classic" or "traditional" one? In "Renewed Approach to Program" by the European Scout Office this is described with:
As mentioned above, the traditional system comprises three age sections:
  • Cub Scouts, from 7/8 to 11/12 years old.
  • Scouts, from 11/12 to 16/17 years old.
  • Rovers, from 16/17 to 21/22 years old.
They propose also some other schemes with Beavers, Venturers, Junior Scouts, Senior Scouts, ... --jergen 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

There have been some major controveries in the recent past involving the scouts. I remember seeing in the news about one atheist scout who was not giving his rank of Eagle scout after completing all of the rigurous requirements because he refused to declare a belief in some form of supernatural being. There was also a banning of gays from scouts (which has some merit even amongst gay supporters because you wouldn't have boys and girls living in tents together (for obvious reasons), so you probably wouldn't want two boys who are oriented towards eachother in the same situation). These incidents have made me look down on the scouts despite being a fervent supporter before, so I think its important that they be included.

These are all US-centric problems. In e.g. Europe there are mixed (boys and girls) associations and also homo sexuals and atheists in scouting. One even sleeps mixed in the same tents, not a big deal. LARS 13:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Scouts DO NOT sleep mixed sexes in the same tent or room in the UK. Also, technically Scouts cannot be atheists as they promise to do their duty to their god. Ajsilver 22:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the Netherlands, I've never heard of any such problem or controversy --DJiTH 20:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Boy Scouts of America discusses this topic, though doesn't mention that most other scouting programs allow atheists and gays. Perhaps something should be added here. Nereocystis 23:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that much about scouts anywhere outside of my native Ireland, but I know that here the Catholic Church has a great deal of influence in the movement, and anything "un-Catholic" (even not being very fervent in your belief in the Almighty) is frowned upon. >:( elvenscout742 16:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In Hong Kong, religion is not an issue. Many people are agnostic. Christian Groups accepts non-Christians to be Leaders . Catholic Groups accepts non-Catholics to be Leaders. Buddhist Groups accepts non-Buddhists to be Leaders. Taoist Groups accepts non-Taoists to be Leaders. Not to mention non-religious Groups. Respecting to others' believes makes things fine. HenryLi 16:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I am a Scout Leader in the UK. All members (a member counts as all ages, including adults) are allowed to be any religion they like, as long as they believe in some form of higher being. I was asked this in my interview. In practice 1) the kids are considered to be too young to have made up their minds, 2) providing you don't actively advocate atheism to your kids, you'll be fine. I have been involved as a formal leader for 9 months now, and there has never been any religious content in any of our activities.

In the US, you kinda have to not be an atheist, but AFAICT, they didn't really enforce it much. The requirement is kind of like the one in the Masonic Lodge. About the closest you can get, officially, is Deist. Any other religion is pretty much open though. (Hmm, a troop sponsered by the Church of Satan?) I became agnostic when I was 16 (immediately after - if not during - earning three religious awards!), and basically just played along. "Don't ask, don't tell", yada yada yada. I see the ban on homosexuals to be against the very values that Scouting stands for, and as an Eagle Scout, it disgusts me. I'm not involved with scouting right now, but I hope by the time I have kids, and they're old enough to go into scouting, either the BSA will have come to their senses, or a major breakaway organization will have started. crazyeddie 21:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time the religious issue becomes an issue in the BSA is when you have a boy who wants to insist they are atheist. There is no list of 'approved' religions, there is no requirement that you even belong to a church, only that you can accept the concept of doing your "duty to God" as YOU see it. Pretty much only the 'militant atheist' types make an issue of it. --Emb021 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In Austria, while the "default" promise mentions God, members are encouraged to come up with their own promise, and including God is not required. I know of several atheists in my group, and I have not heard of anyone complaining about that. The official law does include the line "The Scout searches the way to God", but this is generally interpreted as a mandate to explore the spiritual side of things in general (i.e. it does not force people to arrive at a certain answer).

I don't get why so many people say that BSA banning homosexuals is aginst Scouting's values. Look at the Oath. It ends "...physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." Also, the Scout Law. "...Brave, Clean, and Reverent." "Clean" refers to the Scout not just physically, but morally and spiritually. The values embraced by homosexuals clash directly with some of the core values of Boy Scouts of America. The leaders in my Troop teach us about moral and spiritual stuff, their value system, all the time. I can defanetly see why having a "gay" Scoutmaster would be A Bad Thing. I know I woulden't join a Troop like that. --James 02:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

It all depends on how you view homosexuality. For some, its an immoral activity, hence why they shouldn't be involved in scouting. Currently, most of your major religious groups in the Western World have an issue with it (most mainstream Christian denominations, Jewish, I think Muslim, I know the Dalai Lama spoke against it, etc). Because the BSA had heavy ties with religious groups (they charter most of the units), the BSA has such a policy. If, however, you think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, then you have an issue with the BSA's policy. But these people need to really focus their efforts on the source of this policy: the religious groups that still teach that homosexual behavior is wrong. --Emb021 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Read on the main page the "Outlander" promise. This was recognition by B-P himself that atheists should not be excluded from Scouting.

Uh, AFAIK, the "Outlander" promise was for those who had an issue with "duty to country" (ie swear allegiance to King/Country, etc.). It had nothing to do with "Duty to God". I've not read/heard anything from B-P regarding his feeling one way or another in particular with atheists. He is usually quoted as saying that 'no boy can become a scout without accepting some kind of duty to God' (paraphrased from memory). --Emb021 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Finland

I think it's a bit unfair to claim that Finnish Scouting is scewed towards Christianity. "God" is any higher power, be he the Christian God, Allah, Vishnu, or whoever else you may wish. The official line of WOSM is that Scouts should be encouraged to develop a spiritual aspect to their lives, and so asking for a promise to God is encompased in the whole movement (although it is worth noting that some European countries let the Scout decide if they wish to make a promise to God or to their leader, but the spiritual development part will still be encouraged.)

"God" in all European countries refers primarily to Jesus, and "God" with a capital "G" is only used in monotheistic religions. elvenscout742 16:22, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While that may be true (it is to a degree in the US), WOSM has specifically stated that all scouts/scouters are to interpret "duty to God" as doing YOUR religious duty, however YOU define it, to whatever YOUR higher power is. it is a mistake made by many in and outside the movement to interprete "duty to God" ONLY in the context of a Judeo-Christian God. --Emb021 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Promise?

The Scout Promise is:

On my honour, I promise that I will do my best,
to do my duty to God and to the Queen,
to help other people,
and to keep the Scout Law.

The promise given on this page is nothing like this. I won't delete it if it is a valid alternative version, but this needs clarifying. ajsilver 5th March 2005.

Looks like a British vs. American Scouting thing. Looks like it parallells the Amercian Scout's Oath. crazyeddie 21:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rather than have each new person who reads the article add their own country's Scout Oath/Law/Promise, can we please put the tag :For the Scout Oath/Law/Promise of other countries, please see the individual country's Scouting article ? Otherwise, this article will become too crowded. Three examples is a good relative sample. Thanks, Chris 18:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

U.K. Scouting

Would it not be a good idea to have a seperate article on Scouting in the U.K., as for British users most of the content on international Scouting is not really what they would be looking for I feel. Ajsilver 22:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such an article would be very substansive. How about a redir to Scouting#UK? Lan3y - Talk 22:29, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think that it would be a very useful article. In this general article there is a lot of conflicts between different countries, such as the organisation, sections, promises, uniforms, rules, etc. I just feel that this would resolve a lot of conflict on this page. Also, the Boy Scouts of America appear to have their own article. It should also be remembered that British Scouting has a longer history. Ajsilver 18:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right, I have just split off Scouting around the world, as per suggestions on WP:PR. Feel free to create the UK article. Lan3y - Talk 18:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I will start on that in the near future. Anyone else is welcome to help. Ajsilver 16:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Girl Scouts

I was very surprised to be redirected to a general scouting page that is mostly Boy Scouts in order. I would like to spend some time to put together a Girl Scout/Girl Guides Section, but feel that is should be a distinct topic from this page-- origins are similar of course, but the two organizations are pretty distinct in goals and procedures these days, in the US at least. I am new to wikipedia and would welcome any advice in this endeavor, but I am going to get started! thanks

I would strongly favour keeping boy and girl scouts together. It's still one movement. There are also many mixed associations arround. LARS 08:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also would urge you to create a section within this article. The principles are the same, this isn't the Boy Scouts page; it's entitled Scouting. Lan3y - Talk 22:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Girl Scouts

The two organizations are seperate organizations in all manners. They are run as seperate corporations, have different missions, and are no longer affiliated with each other in any way. Girl Scouting has a problem in it's being treated as the same organization in light of the judical issues related to Boy Scouts, that has hurt the organization's ability to fund raise and gain corporate support due to the continual short sighted actions of treating the two as one, as this site does. Please separate the two organizations in this document.

As far as I am aware, the USA is the only country in the world that seperates Boy and Girl Scouting. In South Africa all scout troops are given a choice to be either unisex (Boy or Girl), or to be coed. So Boy and Girl Scouting should be kept together, as they are not seperate organisations (Except in the US) -Jediwannabe 08:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is incorrect. While many countries have had their Boy Scout organizations go co-ed, there still exist separate Girl Scout/Girl Guide organizations. In fact, that is true in South Africa also! There is the Girl Guides Association of South Africa. You can check them out at www.girlguides.org.za. There is a separate world Girl Scout/Guide organization, WAGGGS. So Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are most definetly separate organizations, and the Girl Scout/Guide leaders are very adamat of that fact. --Emb021 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Polish Scouts

There seems to be an increasing emphasis on the role of Polish Scouts in WWII on this page. The infomation is covered adequately elsewhere and the edits are untidy and infringe copyright having been lifted more or less directly from the linked articles. CustardJack 12:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few additions

I added a section on "conceptual influences" (for want of a better term) and a line about the Young Pioneers / Hitler Youth in the "offshoots" section. Hope this meets with approval. Dawud 03:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No it doen't - I rewrote most of what was added because it was irrelevant and incorrect - you have obviously not been involved, or if so, didn't understand what Scouting is about. --Mikeh 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Gee, Mikeh, sounds like you have a NPOV problem. 198.6.95.95 20:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:

See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your point by posting this link here? Do you have a suggestion for this article? Johntex\talk 20:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Agree, this only shows her own biases.Rlevse 16:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Boy Scouts

Seems to be a good idea to me. Too much redundancy otherwise. LARS 11:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree Jediwannabe 08:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. We have an article on the Boy Scouts of America, why not one on the corresponding British organization? There should at least be a stub. --Smack (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
There _is_ an article, very good one, on the British Scouts, at The Scout Association as well as many individual national articles within List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members, all of Europe and many more nations are represented there. Chris 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. The former article title led me to believe that they called themselves "Boy Scouts". --Smack (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See also and External links sections

Both seriously need to be cleaned up. They are so long and unstructured nobody is ever going to read them. LARS 11:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest to add a link to the Scout History Association website: http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/ 82.59.32.18 13:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


About Sir Francis Vane

Some influential figures are missing in the early history of scouting.

For example, I can't find any reference to Sir Francis Vane: even if Baden Powell founded the scouting movement, the modern style of scouting was born from the struggle between the militaristic side (B-P himself) and the "pacifist side" (Vane), that led to various splits and reunifications in the scout movement itself. The modern view of scoutism as a "pacifist" movement (that prevailed in Europe, at least) is definitely closer to the ideas of Francis Vane than to the ones of Baden Powell.

Various references on http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/ (expecially http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/military.htm and http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/worldscouts/ital.htm) 82.59.32.18 13:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I hyperlinked Francis Vane in the article, but there is no article it links to, yet. But there is an Order of World Scouts article. Chris 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it should be noted that some sources said that the British Boy Scouts (Vane's organization) were actually more militaristic. To me, it seems that each side accused the other of militarism... :-( --Lou Crazy 04:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Related userbox templates

{{Mergeto|Template:User ScoutGuide|date=October 2006}}

vote to merge the first two boxes, as redundant. Personally, I favor the Scout/Guide one, because not all Scouts are members of WOSM or WAGGGS, and it uses a defunct and generic Scout fleur-de-lis so as to avoid any trouble with copyright, just like they did for the bald eagle rather than the badge for the Eagle Scout userbox. Chris 20:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Code Result
{{user Scout}}
This user is a member of the worldwide family of Scouts.
{{user ScoutGuide}}
This user is a member of one of the 500+ world Scouting/Guiding associations and contributes articles about their history.
{{user ScoutTrade}}
This user is a member of one of the 500+ world Scouting or Guiding associations and collects and trades Scout memorabilia.
{{user Wood Badger}}


External links filling up

If your website is not international or global in scope, please place it in the appropriate national or Regional Scouting article, it was getting too full here and could potentially have 220+ national websites linked. Thanks, Chris 21:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Role of Scouting at the United Nations

Jergen had a problem with this text.

  • The WOSM is the non-governmental organization (NGO), that represents the Scouting movement at the United Nations.

Discussion of the WOSM role at the United Nations is relevant and appropriate on this page. evrik 16:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

See notes left on the fact request. The ref you left makes no mention of the WOSM or Scouting. If you find such a ref saying WOSM represents Scouting at the UN, I'll agree with you, Evrik. Otherwise, I'll have to agree with Jergen. If you are interested in Scouting articles, you are welcome to join the project. Rlevse 16:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Scout Shop

This page has a header suggesting that the article be merged into this Scouting page with discussion directed here. What do people think? I'm inclined to agree. I have put the header on the Scouting page too. --Bduke 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree Both those should be merged. See answer to your Traditional Scouting question on my talk page too. Rlevse 11:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree' Yes, merge them both. --Naha|(talk) 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree Merge them both Jediwannabe 10:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Board of Review article

Is this term actually used anywhere outside of the BSA? --Bduke 06:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Board of Review (Boy Scouts of America) should be merged with Board of Review (Scouting). Ideally with the information, if this exists outside BSA at all. But again, this is different term from Scouting in general, and therefore should not be hidden in Scouting. If we describe each and every detail, scouting term etc. directly in the main article Scouting, it will get unreadable long. LARS 14:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to know if organizations other than the BSA user BORs, or something like them. We may be chasing a ghost here. Rlevse 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge if there's no significant usage outside BSA. Rlevse 00:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I've merged. I don't recognise this term outside the BSA and anyway I don't think it's important enough for its own article unless someone has a lot of interesting things to say. Zaian 23:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Scout Jamboree merge

  • Agree, but leave the World Scould Jamboree article alone. This general information and links is best in the broader article. --Bduke 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
agree with Bduke, just trying to get some of the stubs down or combined. man there are a lot of them. Chris 08:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but move all mentions of national Jamborees to the respective association's articles. --jergen 10:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Disagree. If somebody wants to look up, what the term "Jamboree" means in scouting, he will find Jamboree and via this Scout Jamboree. There should be an own article decribing this. One does not want to look through the big main Scouting article for "Jamboree". LARS
PS. If your are so keen on merging, one could think about merging the different scout jamboree articles with each other to one article Jamboree (Scouting), but definitely not with or into Scouting. LARS 14:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The individual articles are generally well developed, it is the stub that is out of place and would find a good home within the Scouting article. Chris 19:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Scout Jamboree could be redirected to the Scouting page, so if someone goes to Jamboree, they get there and find it in the contents. I still agree with Chris. --Bduke 21:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DAB and REDIRECT make Scout Jamboree a dab page with redirects to Scouting and World Scout Jamboree. Rlevse 00:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jamboree" by itself already has a disambig page. I still vote merge. Chris 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - Jamboree shouldn't direct straight to Scouting, nor should it redirect to World Scout Jamboree. The Scout Jamboree page is useful because it allows a collection of links to different types of Scout Jamborees, e.g. national Jamborees, and I don't think those should go on the Jamboree page. Zaian 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree - I like Lars' idea of having a Jamboree (Scouting) page, where all of the various Scout Jamborees have their own section. I believe this is the best action to take. Jamborees definitely should NOT redirect to Scouting. This article will become too large if we continue to merge areas that are large enough in their own right to warrant their own articles. --Naha|(talk) 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No agreement and the discussion has gone quiet. I've removed the 'merge' tag. Zaian 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Section (Scouting)

  • Again disagree. What a section is in scouting is important enough to have an own article, if somebody wants to look it up, but we don't this text merged into Scouting, for it is not inportant enough to describe Scouting in general. Simply keep the article. LARS 14:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge the concept is important in Scouting, the term itself is too generic and professional-based for people to seek out by itself. I have now worked with several associations, and never heard reference to the term outside the national Scout headquarters. Too general. Chris 00:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sections by age are common to ALL scout groups. Some countries also use the term to refer to regions divisions of their Scouting associations. This could be a Dab and Redirect, like the Jamboree topic. Rlevse 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge as it's not very interesting on its own. This should be included as part of a rewrite of the section called Hierarchy. Zaian 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to have gone quiet. I wish someone would do the merge or else remove those ugly 'merge' boxes at the top of the article! Zaian 11:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep and Expand - I think there is a lot more info out there to where the article could be expanded large enough to need its own article. --Naha|(talk) 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No agreement and the discussion has gone quiet. I've removed the 'merge' tag. Zaian 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"There is no Scouting in totalitarian countries"

Kintetsubuffalo: I think what you're trying to say is that there is generally no Scouting in Communist Bloc countries. This is true. During the Cold War, Scouting was generally kept out of Communist Bloc countries, which viewed it as an organization of enemy countries. But there were many allies of the United States (or non-aligned countries) that were (or are) also totalitarian, and a quick look at the WOSM member page shows that a lot of them did have scouting throughout the period. -- ran (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ran: Not at all, I am most familiar with what I said and say, and will keep reverting. The governments you speak of were repressive, certainly, but not totalitarian. That difference is what allows some to retain their Scouting, while others not. That is also why Myanmar, which is not Communist, is part of the 'not' list. Chris 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between your use of "repressive" and "totalitarian"? For example, South Korea was incredibly paranoid about anti-communist ideology, and was able to perpetrate atrocities like the Gwangju Massacre on its own citizens. It also had Scouting throughout the period. Or what about the Republic of China on Taiwan? Fixated upon the reconquest of the Mainland for decades, under martial law all the way up to 1987, yet the Scouts of China existed throughout this period.

Another country: Libya. Politics of Libya: "Libya's political system is theoretically based on the political philosophy in Moammar Al Qadhafi's Green Book, which combines socialist and Islamic theories and rejects parliamentary democracy and political parties. In reality, Qadhafi exercises near total control over the government." -- ran (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of degrees. Rather than belabor this further, I will direct you to Totalitarianism and Political repression, the terms and meanings are different, though I agree they are the same end of the spectrum. One example in modern day which proves the rule is Belarus, which is Communist, and most certainly repressive, but not totalitarian, and their Scouts are recognized. Chris 23:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already read those articles to prepare for this discussion, which is exactly the reason why I chose to specifically point out the ideological aspect of South Korean, ROC, and Libyan dictatorships. Those were/are not just "repressive" -- South Korea and the Republic of China were totalitarianism regimes devoted to ideologically inculcating their citizens, before democratization in the 80's. -- ran (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a read that you might be interested in: [2]

Basically, the idea is that there are many "grey areas" between "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism", that makes the boundary between them difficult to define. There are/were many regimes -- such as the Soviet Union after Stalin, China after Mao, Castro's Cuba, Tito's Yugoslavia, Taiwan under Chiang Kai-Shek, Indonesia under Suharto etc -- that did/do attempt to mobilize the population ideologically, but not to the level of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Are they "totalitarian" or "authoritarian"? This question is not easy to answer.

What you've done, Kintetsubuffalo, is to sidestep that question. Instead, you define this fine line between "totalitarianism" and "authoritarianism" so that it sits exactly where you want it to sit -- i.e. between Scouting and no-Scouting countries. This way, you can automatically label all of the non-Scouting countries "totalitarian", while any country with Scouting automatically isn't "totalitarian", even if it's Libya, or South Korea / Taiwan in 1980. That's pretty sketchy. -- ran (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am at work and will get to it when I get to it. You need not bait me on my talk page. And you are attributing motives to me that are not my own, coming dangerously close to being rude. See the first paragraph at Wikipedia:Civility And keep the discussion here, not on my talkpage. Chris 02:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said nor done anything confrontational against you, Chris. You need to calm down. -- ran (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact you have, baiting me on my own talk page and claiming motives for what I am doing. You don't know me, you've not participated in WikiProject Scouting to know what we're working at, and you have been frequently reverting back to your own POV what was a concisely and intentionally worded NPOV paragraph. You need to back off. Chris 02:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting does not own this page, nor does your POV represent WikiProject Scouting. Your "concisely and intentionally worded NPOV paragraph" is factually incorrect. And as a Wikipedian, I don't have any reason to back off from a paragraph that is factually incorrect.

I'm in WikiProject Chinese Provinces, and I have written up huge chunks of various Chinese provinces articles, but I have never rejected anyone simply because "I don't know them" or "they're not part of the project" or "they're new", nor have I ever thought of our WikiProject as a clique in which you must "participate in" to know what's going on. I don't own any of the articles I write, and I don't take for granted that everything I write is automatically NPOV. Often new people arrive with new information, and I may not agree with their POV -- but we've always been able to work something out in the end.

In short, Chris, you need to relax. I'm not here to attack you, or ruin this article. I'm here to discuss the intriguing question of why Myanmar today is totalitarian while Libya today isn't (at least according to this article). So can we talk? -- ran (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris and Ran: everyone just take a deep breath and come back to this tomorrow. Please keep the discussion on this talk page and not in the editing summaries; and please work changes out here before further editing. None of us want an edit war. My main concern is factual accuracy. My suggestion is to keep words like "totalitarian" and "repressive" out of article and merely say something like "During the ... era...country xyz did not have Scouting." Rlevse 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC), Scouting WikiProject Coordinator

I second Rlevse - everybody chill. Saying countries X,Y,Z,α, and β currently do not have scouting, and that G,L,and T had it but no longer do will be sufficient. If you can find a citation for any given WOSM policy and reasoning, fine, but until then Ran does have a minor point. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I second Thesquire.
If we look at the history of Scouting, mainly countries with totalitarian or repressive regimes had no Scouting movement at all or were excluded by both WOSM and WAGGGS:
  • The explanation for the first is simple: Totalitarian/repressive regimes banned Scouting because the organizationes tried to maintain the independence of the movement.
  • In the second case, member organizations were normally excluded not for being situated in a totalitarian/repressive country, but for loosing their political independece (see WOSM-constitution Art. 1.1 & 5.3 [3]).
If we follow this, even a Chinese mainland Scouting organization may become a member of WOSM, if it's non-political and independent from the government (even if this doesn't sound very likely). --jergen 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Very important in this respect is also WOSM's and WAGGGS's requirement, that the individual's membership in national associations must be voluntary. This would rule out state youth organisations, as e.g. the pioneering organisations in the Warsaw Pact and also the Polish scouts in the communist years there, since then young had to be member either in scouting or pioneering. LARS 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for mediating. With regards to the presence of Scouting in some authoritarian countries but not others: Could it be because of the religious element as well? That could be why Scouting is fine in Libya, but not mainland China. -- ran (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely that is a factor in some periods of some countries history. My suggestion is to leave the title of the subsection alone and only edit the text. The title will tell people the general focus of the section and a careful wording of the text will let them figure it out there own way. Rlevse 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can understand both sides and think here is an interesting point touched. AFAIK scouting was always banned in strict, very repressive dictatorships, like communist countries (with arguably the notable exception of Poland, where there was non-WOSM recognized, a bit too state close scouting) or fashist etc. On the other hand many countries, which have scouting presently (e.g. in Africa or the Arab world) or had scouting (e.g. South America), are respectively were definitely no democrazies. I think we should try to present both these sides, without trying to evaluate the degree of repressiveness of the different regimes, since this might be a too momentouos task for the scouting editors. LARS 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with LARS' last comment--we shouldn't venture too far into the political arena, which is why the Scouting WikiProject uses the Scout method as its criteria. Let's see if we can all live with the edit I just made. Note one of the links I made is to the Scout method article. Rlevse 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I spoke last night to friends in those countries and folks in the know. It seems the situation (as regards WOSM) is very complex with a lot of grey area, often very politically motivated and subjective, from two corners. I don't know where to begin to restructure this paragraph. Chris 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I was completely tied up yesterday and off WP so with that and the time difference, I was unable to comment. I want to just make three comments:-

  1. I agree with the changes Rlevse has made.
  2. With regard to the WOSM's and WAGGGS's requirement that the individual's membership in national associations must be voluntary, there can be a difference between what WOSM and WAGGS says and what goes on in a particular country. I understand that in Indonesia Scouting is tied to Schools and is pretty well not voluntary. Have a look at their numbers. They are massive.
  3. Maybe there should be a comment that Scouting is not banned in Andorra. I think it is the only country that does not have Scouting where it is not banned. They are just very small and have basically not got around to having it.--Bduke 22:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The National Scout Organization of Thailand is tied into the school system too. Andorra used to have Scouting, but it seems to have died off due to lack of leaders. Rlevse 22:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for Andorra issue being addressed so quickly. I fixed your Thailand link above and my last sig. --Bduke 23:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  1. I also agree with the changes Rlevse has made.
  2. I think it would be valuable to mention the religious and political aspects of dictatorships supporting, tolerating, or banning Scouting, provided that claims are backed up.
  3. I've been looking around on the Internet and found out two things about Scouting in China.
    • There is a "Boy Scouts Club" in Hainan province. Official Site. Information is scarce... they might be government-run, or corporate-run (for profit!), or neither... Needless to say they aren't part of WOSM, but they do seem to take a lot of ideas from Scouting in terms of uniforms, badges, outdoor activities, etc.
    • Voice of America reports that the government has shut down an attempt to start a Scouting organization in Wuhan, central China. The report is a bit dated: [4]. I'm translating loosely here: the organization was shut down because it had failed to register with the government (which it was required to do); the government thought that the organization was political in nature; the organization was also reportedly seeking help from lawyers. No idea what happened since (presumably the government has not changed its stance). The official site is still up: [5], and appears to be regularly maintained (latest news item is dated January 10, 2006), there's a BBS on site as well that's passably active (47 posts yesterday), but there's no organization to go with it, and in fact much of the content of that website is copied from the Scouts of Hong Kong.

-- ran (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we continue the sub-discussion on actual Scouting in China in Talk:Scouting in Mainland China? Your informations are very interesting and should go in this article. I will copy your contribution to this talk page.
I propose to focus here on the overall article. --jergen 10:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Vatican City, too, is too small to have a scout association :-) even though John Paul II was awarded an honorary woodbadge on August 9, 1986 (I was there!). I think I'd classify Belarus as a totalitarian state. Its scout association is no longer a WOSM member. The guides are still in WAGGGGS, though. --Lou Crazy 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Religious Organization category

What do you think of Scouting being placed in the "religious organizations" cathegory? Of course, the founder was very clear on Scouting as a way to discover your own spiritual life, with whatever religion you'd choose. Of course, many Scout associations are confessional in nature. Still, I wouldn't say that of the scout movement as a whole. What do you think? --Lou Crazy 03:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been debating this myself. I'm closing to taking it out of that cat. A non-project person put it in that cat. Rlevse 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that this is part of the USA-specific argument that BSA is a religious organisation and hence does not qualify for state funding. I'm removing the category. If someone wants to put it back, let's have a discussion about it first. Zaian

It's not just the US. See Scout Promise. "To do my duty to God" (WOSM), "To do my duty to my God"(Australia), "To serve God" (Austria), "To do all that I can to do my duty to God" (Chile), "I promise to do my best to serve God" (Norway) and so on. It's only in the Netherlands and the Czech Republic that God seems optional. All others use the reference. Sounds clearly religious to me. // Liftarn

Liftarn, just to clarify, can I ask whether your interest in putting the Scouting page into the religious organizations category is related to the Boy Scouts of America? (If it's not, please excuse my question. We've been side-tracked into political discussions about BSA on this international page before, and this issue is of particular relevance to BSA at the moment because of a court case.) Zaian 10:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no interest in the BSA (I guess you're refering to Boy Scouts of America). I'm not even on the right continent. And just is anyone is interested I has been active in both KFUK-KFUMs Scoutförbund (The Swedish YMCA-YWCA Guide and Scout Association) and Svenska Scoutförbundet (The Swedish Guide and Scout Association). I was member for a few years, then I got bored and got other interests. // Liftarn

Thanks, I'm also from another continent. Zaian 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Scouting only asks for a belief in a higher power, it does not require the actual practice of nor belief in a religion. Therefore, it is not a religious organization. Also an in so far as religion goes, members of any religion can join.Rlevse 10:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hang fire folks. We all know that discussions of religion can be difficult. That's why I'm trying to guage whether there's a BSA discussion-behind-the-discussion, before this gets carried away. Zaian 11:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Scouting asks for a belief in God, not "a god" or "a deity" or simmilar. That is quite specific so it certainly does not allow members of any religion to join. // Liftarn

It interprets "God" as a higher power. In this way people who belong to religions who do not believe in a "God" (necessarily), such as Buddhists in Thailand, can join and do so of course in that country in large numbers. On another point above, there may be a BSA discussion-behind-the-discussion, but it should not matter. We should have an international perspective and that to me suggests that we should not use the religious organization category. --Bduke 21:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Liftarn, not only can Buddhists join, but also Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. This is true in BSA, whether you choose to believe it or not. In my own troop here, part of BSA, we have Catholics, Protestants, Buddhhist, and a Jew. Rlevse 22:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, most Scout Associations are open to a wide range of religious beliefs. Scouting has three founding principles: duty to God (or to a higher power), duty to others, and duty to self. In practice, duty to God is often not a big part of the programme, which focuses on teamwork, leadership, social skills, outdoor activities, and so on. This discussion then boils down to what you mean by a "religious organisation". I would interpret that as meaning a "primarily religious organisation" which Scouting is not, whereas if you mean "an organisation including religious principles as part of its programme" then Scouting is that. Many Scout groups also teach cooking. Is Scouting a "cooking organisation"? Zaian 00:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Scout Promise is in most countries designe to explicitly exclude atheists, agnostics, polytheists et.c. It obviously states monotheism is the only acceptable choise and by using the capitalised form ("God" and not "god") it marks that is's the abrahamic god they are refering to. I'm saying that shouting is based on monotheistic religious principles so it's a religious organisation. // Liftarn

Wow, I didn't know the Buddhists, Shintos, followers of Native American religions, etc worshipped the abrahamic god. I guess I'll have to tell Native Americans I know who follow their tribe's traditional beliefs that they are not nature worshipers, but worshipers of an abrahamic god. And oh yes, I know several Buddhists who'd love to know this. I guess I'll have to tell the Thai and Japanese Scouts they follow abrahamic beliefs too. And yes, members of all these religions are in Scouting and more than welcome to stay. Rlevse 11:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Liftarn, I do not know your background, but what you say is not what Scouting has tried to do. Ever since B.P. found that non-Christians were taking up his great game, Scouting has tried to fit what it says to the maximum number of boys (or girls) who can be involved, while keeping to some kind of view about a "higher power". You say it excludes polytheists, yet is it is very popular in India, where Hinduism is polytheist and B.P. supported this. It is also popular in Buddhist countries such as Thailand, yet what most people think is the earliest form of Buddhism is not theist. It can be seen to be atheist or at least agnostic since it does not demand that you believe in a God or Gods, yet you can if you want. Wherever you come down on this, you can still be a Scout. A very recent World Jamboree was in Thailand. So, it is very clear that Scouting is not based on a monotheistic religious principle. It really does allow all religions. The real question is, that if it does this when the the range of all religions is so wide, why it does not allow no religion. I am not convinced by the arguments that WOSM and other Scouting organisations give, but it certainly does not exclude non-monotheists. It only excludes those who have no sense of what a higher power is. --Bduke 12:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that while there is a religious side of the scout movement (which can be more or less visible in different countries and associations) it is just a part of the scout program. For this reason I don't think the cathegory is appropriate. Of course, the page for that cathegory has no explainations on what items should belong to the cathegory. If it said "anything even remotely connected to religion", for example, it would be OK to list scouting in it. In that case, even the US Federal Reserve ought to be listed, because it prints billions of pieces of paper with "in God we trust" written on it. ;-) --Lou Crazy 04:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Coed or coeducational

"Coeducational" has just been changed to "coed". "coed" is very American, but I can not say I like either term. Back when I was involved in the UK in trying to bring young men and young women together in Scouting activities we called it "mixed activities", but this is not much better. I think I probably prefer "coeducational" because "coed" is an abbreviation for that, but the abbreviation is not much used outside the USA. What do others think? --Bduke 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Coeducational is better, coed is short for that. Rlevse 10:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)