Talk:Scouting/Archive 3

I removed the folowing paragraph:

The cross potent (☩) is used by many, mostly Roman Catholic, Scouting and Guiding organisations in their logo's and insignia. It was first used in Belgium in 1916 when in the First World War Scouting was banded. In 1920 it was used by the Fédération nationale catholique des scouts de France to express their Catholic identity and because the fleur-de-lis was the symbol of the royalist political party. From there it spread around the world.^[1]

1. [1]

   "Croix potencée". fr.scoutwiki.org. Scoutwiki Network. Retrieved 2008-09-29.

Reason: The last edition of WOSM's poster with national emblems depicts only seven emblems using the cross potent (out of 189), so I do not think that its usage is common enough for an article with world-wide scope. --jergen (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, try the Catholic Scouting article(s). — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

After a quick search I found these organisations, but there are more and probably even more organisations use one in their Promise badge. The cross used by the Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe is most likely based on / inspired by the cross potent.

• Belgium:
  • Scouts en Gidsen Vlaanderen
  • Les Scouts: only Promise badge
• Canada:
  • Association des scouts du Canada
• Republic of the Congo
  • Association des Scouts et Guides du Congo
• France:
  • Scouts et guides de France
  • Scouts unitaires de France
  • Scouts de Doran
  • Scouts de Riaumont
  • Fédération ordre scout
  • Scouts Godefroy de Bouillon
  • Scouts de l'association de sauvegarde du patrimoine scout
  • and many other non-aligned organisations
• French Polynesia
  • Scouts et guides de Polynésie française
• Lebanon
  • Association des guides du Liban
  • Scouts du Liban
• Maroco:
  • Guides et scouts de Monaco
• Suriname:
  • Gidsen Suriname
• In the Netherlands there is still a official badge with a cross potent to show that you belong to a Catholic Scout Group.

--Egel _Reaction? 13:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly some more (eg Madagascar, Angola). But it is - even if the number runs up to fifty - only a small portion of worldwide Scouting and Guiding. I do not include the members of UIGSE in this number; they use a variant of the Maltese cross (see ). --jergen (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article feels a bit WAGGGS and WOSM heavy. I know that they would have the dominant position in the article as the largest Organisations, but when they are repeatedly referenced, even in the Nonaligned and Scout-like organizations sections, it looks more than a bit unbalanced. Surely this section ought to be referring to the Order of World Scouts, WFIS, FSE and other independent Organisations? DiverScout (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked a similar quest recently- wish I could remember where. "non-aligned" scouts shows only one hit besides one Wikipidea and mirrors: http://www.troop97.net/intscout2.htm. I am concerned we are using a concept term that is not in general use. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that this was a description used to describe anyone not part of WOSM or WAGGS, which has now become common use. Personally, I don't really like it - but can't think of any other easy title for such a "collective". While we're using it, though, wouldn't it make more sense to list the international organisations that this phrase covers? Unless anyone has any objections I'll amend that section of the article tomorrow. DiverScout (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on the non-aligned group (can't think of a better name either): Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations and Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do - and we have a stub section on the subject here on this page too - one which then goes on to promote WAGGS and WOSM. I am talking about amending this section to actually reflect the main Scout Organisations covered by the subtitle. DiverScout (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We define non-aligned as:

• Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations: "Scouting organisations that are not a member of WAGGGS or WOSM are non-aligned organisations"
• List of non-aligned Scouting organizations: "separate and often distinct from the mainstream Scout Movement served by the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS) and the World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM)"

I would really like to see a source for this term, as it totally excludes member organizations of WFIS, CES and the rest. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we invented it on our own back in the early days of the project because we couldn't think of anything better. No one has come up with a good alternative either. If someone does, I'm all ears. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Being honest, I'm more concerned about the content than the title. The first Scout Patrols were, after all, neither WOSM nor independent as we all know B-P never originally intended a formal Association. The Chums Scout Patrols were formed from Scouting for Boys, as originally intended by B-P, but then did not become part of the Boy Scout Association when it formed, but merged into the British Boy Scouts. The article seems too black and white - implying that WOSM is the original and that anything non-WOSM is "kinda weird". I also know that this was probably not the intention! DiverScout (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO the recent changes are somehow biased towards the non-mainstream organizations. And the numbers have to be checked, they cannot match. And why is the ISGF mentioned in a section dealing with non-mainstream Scouting? --jergen (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Really Jergen? It's biased to mention the non-WOSM organisations in a section about them? You're saying it was better to include more details on WOSM in that section, as it originally stood?

ISGF is there because it was on the main article - I don't agree that it should be there, but that is a separate issue and ought to be decided by the Project. All the facts and figures are those that were already there - and seemed to have been acceptable during the FA judgements. It is interesting that, as with Jamboree 2008, you seem to want to contest the right of non-WOSM content to be presented on Wikipedia.

If this is not your intention, perhaps the tone of your comments relating to translation issues of your comments from German, I will accept them as good faith - but I am dubious at the moment. DiverScout (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. In German, one is more straightforward than in English, something I forget once and again. My points again:

• The bias mentioned above is something I only feel; but I cannot explain why I feel so.
• The numbers do not fit. If we have a total of 520 organizations and WAGGGS and WOSM cover about 360 we cannot have 437 served by OWS, CES, UIGSE and WFIS. Using my maths, I deduct that they serve a maximum of 160; realisticly, it's something about 100 to 120 organizations.
• IGSF should go in a section of its own; something about Scouting related organizations. It certainly does not fit in the same section as non-WAGGGS/WOSM Scouting since it works very close with both. If we had that proposed section, we could also include organizations like SSAGO or the WSPU. --jergen (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that there has been an increase in coverage of many of the smaller national Scout organizations, but I don't see this as bias. The use of mainstream is probably not a good choice, as it implies that other organizations operate outside the tenants of Scouting. The ISGF is an association of individuals, not Scouting organizations, thus should not be classed with the other associations. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WFIS 53 "national" organisations, UIGSE 21, CES 7 (or 12 not counting the umbrella federations) OWS 18, let's say 100 "national" organisations who are member of an other world organisation. I don't think you can find a good total number of "national" organisations, for example, depending on the way you count there are around 30 or around 100 "national" organisations in Germany. So the number of non-WOSM/WAGGGS "national" organisations 520 isn't high it is just to exact. --Egel _Reaction? 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Organizations and individuals can be member of ISGF --Egel _Reaction? 14:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not at all obvious from the International Scout and Guide Fellowship article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And it is not every obvious from their website, but you can find it in the article and the website: --Egel _Reaction? 15:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Egel:

How did you deduct 520 non-WOSM/WAGGGS "national" organisations? This number included the members of WOSM and WAGGGS. I just included a total of 539 as well as the WOSM-WAGGGS portion. I feel, that this shold als be mentioned.

I'm sure that 539 is far to low, but we do not have a better source. http://www.troop97.net/intscout.htm gives only gives only 40 plus 55 German organizations, but there are about 150 organizations in Germany. Further, nearly all independent organizations in South America are missing (see User:Jergen/workshop/South American independent Scouting). --jergen (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

520 is a number found by DiverScout.

pfadfinder-treffpunkt.de is also a good source. It is also not complete but I expect it is at least more recent. --Egel _Reaction? 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember finding any figures - I've just used what was on Wikipedia...but I think that this section looks a lot better now. DiverScout (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There was widespread German practice of mass murdering scouting members during World War 2 in Poland as potential resistance to German occupation. I think such atrocity deserves a mention.--Molobo (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the pictures in this article are not placed on the page next to corresponding content. Furthermore, some of the captions need elaboration. I will work on this and invite others to help. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That pic you put on here is way too big (400 px). It would also be better in History of the Boy Scouts of America and this article covers the whole movement. So I rm'd it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that pic was best suited for BSA or something else, but you beat me to the removal :) The pic organization and captions still need work, though, in this article. --Eustress (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am copying in the following short, side discussion from a FAR here as this Talk page seems appropriate.

(coping in) Nice article. But I notice that the article does not develop the division/distinctions between Girl Guides vs. Girl Scouts which are discussed in some detail in Marti Gerdes, Robert W. Blythe, and Patty Henry (March 21, 2005), National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. See p. 20 especially. Link to the full PDF at Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. It is a reliable source providing great detail on Juliette Gordon Low who should be discussed in this Scouting article. Also it describes that Campfire Girls was pre-existing and did not choose to join the U.S. Girl Guide movement. There is, basically, a lot there which I think should be woven into this Scouting article. I am peer reviewing a related article on scouting in South Africa, by the way. doncram (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind this article is international in scope, it is not US specific. It should not delve too far into country/organization specifics. Low was almost exclusively an American Girl Scout leader. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but the source is eloquent on interesting stuff, like how Baden-Powell and others did not envision girls as "Scouts", consistent with wider views that women should be men's "helpmeets" instead, hence Guides not Scouts, while Low and others came to view that girls deserved more and/or there was interesting U.S. vs. British tension. Also the Campfire Girls organization is/was very large and i think it is not mentioned in the article. Anyhow, just read the source i suggest and i think you'll find it interestingly complementary to what's in the article, too. --Doncram

(end copying in) I think there's room to develop that there are some country-specific variations / differences / disagreements about the implementation of the Scouting movement. Not every such variation needs to be described, but the idea of variations and some gist of reasons for differences would add to the article, I think. I lump Campfire Girls in with the Scouting movement too. The source i refer to above addresses some of this, and it has an extensive bibliography with additional sources, too. doncram (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the way Scouting is done in the US is in many aspects not mainstream. I think you should first make more clear the division/distinctions between Girl Guides vs. (Boy) Scouts, which has a more international relevance, before attempting to make an article about the division/distinctions between Girl Guides vs. Girl Scouts, which has only relevance to Scouting in the US and a few other countries strongly influenced by the US. The Campfire Girls organization never had much influence outside the US.

This article has already a US POV: only 1/5 of the Scouts (and Guides) do Scouting the US-way, but the US-way is treated equal with the other ways in this article. This article completely lacks description of the Indonesian and Indian way of doing Scouting. --Egel _Reaction? 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There has been a deliberate attempt to present the article from a worldwide view, but the majority of the project members are from the BSA side, so I would not be surprised of a bit of bias. We do have an article on Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting that needs a lot of work. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If there really is content in this source stating "how Baden-Powell and others did not envision girls as "Scouts"" I am not at all sure about how accurate it is. Baden-Powell wanted girls involved in Scouting - and they were involved in, and even formed, some of the early Scout Patrols. It was only as the Movement grew that social pressure in Great Britain forced him to move towards boys only and the formation of the Girl Guides. This is a very well documented historical fact. DiverScout (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't characterize the source exactly, that was my very rough translation from memory. Whatever is the historical fact of the matter, the wikipedia article on Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting seems very slapdash about it: "In 1909 there was a Boy Scout Rally at Crystal Palace in London. Among all the thousands of Boy Scouts there was also a group of girls from Pinkneys Green, in Berkshire, who spoke to B-P and asked him to let girls be Scouts. B-P decided to take action. / In those days, for girls to camp and hike was not common, as this extract from the Scout newspaper shows: / If a girl is not allowed to run, or even hurry, to swim, ride a bike, or raise her arms above her head, how can she become a Scout? / (Ref: SCOUT HEADQUARTERS GAZETTE 1909) / B-P's career had been in the British Army. There was an Indian regiment called the Khyber Guides who served on the north-west frontier of India. B-P persuaded the girl ‘Scouts’ that Guides was a very special name of which they could be proud. So, in 1910 the first Girl Guides began." That sounds very interesting but, well, anecdotal, and not encyclopedic. Something like that would be okay as a quote from somewhere else, but is not the right tone for wikipedia editor narrative i think. And the source i point to seems rather more reliable on what it speaks to, though it is not covering the same ground. I just think the themes and facts here should be addressed carefully in the Scouting article, and be more developed in the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting article that Gadget850 points out needs developing. doncram (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing needs work, but it is at least accurate! Girls were full members of Scouts until pressure forced B-P to create a girl's section. There is plenty of evidence that Scouting was originally, at least in B-P's mind, co-ed. One of the early letters relates to a Scout Patrol formed by girls asking B-P if it was okay for them to let boys join. DiverScout (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need the infobox? It's a movement, not an organization. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I moved this addition "Apart from Baden powell, the worlds most noteable and respected scout was the late Kenyan freedom fighter and politician the Hon Dr. Jeremiah Nyagah E.G.H." from the article as it is not appropriate there. I see we have an article on him at Jeremiah J.M. Nyagah. Does he deserve a further mention anywhere? --Bduke (Discussion) 06:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

An NPOV name listing in the See also section of Scouting and Guiding in Kenya would seem the best choice. I'll add him now. DiverScout (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I'm sure very few have heard of this guy. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting history that deserves an external link somewhere - but perhaps not on the main page Scouting during the 1939-1945 War 88.108.158.216 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

While agreeing the proper name is better, I find it interesting that, following from anothers edits, I am accused of adding "colloquialisms to a featured article" by using the same title used on the Wikipedia's actual entry for the Nazis. If we're going to be that fussy, surely we should be using the actual German language title. Which standards are we following, people? DiverScout (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Jergen's objection is that "Nazi Party" is slang for the full name, albeit the defacto norm since no one goes around saying the full name except in official docs and such. The conundrum here is that the article is called "Nazi Party" for this reason. I see no reason to use the German name of this, leaving us with how to make the link. Most people wouldn't know what "National Socialist German Workers' Party" means but most everyone knows "Nazi Party" and since the article is "Nazi Party", I say we make it a direct link to Nazi Party without a pipe from the official English version of the name. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to attack anybody. If my wording was inappropriate, please excuse me.

I see two possible problems with "Nazi Party" - but they may be based on my perception as (a) a native German and (b) a contributor mainly to the German Wikipedia:

• "Nazi Party" is ambigous (see eg American Nazi Party or Nazi parties redirecting to Neo-Nazism). Even "German Nazi Party" is not clear enough for somebody with knowledge of current German politics, since there is (unfortunately) a number of neo-nazist parties called colloquially "Nazi Party", eg the National Democratic Party of Germany or the German People's Union.
• IMO, an encyclopedia has to be as exact as possible. This includes using the correct names of organizations (or established translations thereoff).

In the German Wikipedia, an article would not reach "featured article" status (or even "good article") using colloquialisms as "Nazi Party". When contributing to the English Wikipedia, I aim to keep these standards. - I'm quite clear, that this is en.wp with different standards, but this may explain my problems with "Nazi Party". --jergen (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not use "NSDAP" ? It is not ambiguous and not colloquial. --Egel _Reaction? 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Jergen, no offence taken or felt to have been implied. I know that the Nazi Party remains a huge issue in Germany. Personally I'd go for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Nazi Party)" as this is the actual name of the party, which was not named under English conventions, along with the readily understood common-use English abbreviation. I'd also push for the main article to be amended as well. DiverScout (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I can support Diver's suggestion. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the word "co-educational" a clumsy one. I am in Australia and it's a word that's rarely used here. When it is used, it is only ever for schools, and even then people tend to simply say a school "is an all girls school", or "has both boys and girls". It is never used for organisations like Scouting.

I appreciate that English differs around the world, and am interested in how it is used elsewhere. My impression is that "co-educational" is used more widely in the USA. Not sure about the UK and elsewhere. Please educate me.

I'm also concerned that what has become the norm in Scouting in most countries, males and females playing equal roles in the movement, is the case being described with a special and uncommon word, as if it's unusual. In a sense, in modern Scouting, it's those bodies which are single sex which should have a special descriptor.

HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a quite common word in Europe. It's also used by WOSM when describing different approaches on single-sex and mixed-sex programmes. --jergen (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's common-use for the UK (as with the rest of Europe). It is also the term commonly used in WFIS organisations. I don't think it is that uncommon a term outside of Australia. DiverScout (talk) 08:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. It's good to learn about life outside one's own cosy cocoon. Happy to stick with the current terminology. Thanks for the information. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also quite common in America in non school contexts. I'm coZy with it ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with "co-educational", but totally and utterly opposed to the American term "coed" to describe girls. It is totally sexist and I trust it is never used to describe female Scouts or Guides. I guess this is off-topic as nobody has suggested using "coed". --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Bduke ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This section seems incomplete without a mention of Scout Camp: The Movie ^[1] which represents a dramatic departure from the BSA policy of not showing official uniforms in independent films. 71.171.82.37 (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Did the movie get any reviews in the major newspapers or news channels? Is it notable at all? --jergen (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of the movie. Don't think it made it to Australia. Looked it up in IMDB. First review says "This movie not only holds the title of worst Mormon film in existence; it is also a candidate for worst movie ever made." The other two (there are only three) are not too good either. I doubt if I'll be hammering on the door of my video store. HiLo48 (talk) 08:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs down on the movie and including it here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just reverted multiple edits by an IP editor. These included many changes to British spelling, but I understand that this article was started with US spelling, so that should remain, in spite of the fact that Scouting started in UK. Am I right? There were also multiple removal of capitalization and the removal of a sourced paragraph. Others may like to check my blanket revert, as there may be something of value there. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love to see British spelling in this article, but if you're right that it was started with US spelling, c'est la vie. I would like to see the editor come here and discuss one or two of the other changes. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the worst, but this needs to be cleaned, maybe mostly moved off to the BSA-specific page, and other stuff added which reflects a more international nature, like http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_toujours... yamaplos 22:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

I am trying to figure out how to highlight and link within Wikipedia the many events in history were Scouting or Scouts had a major role, but appear, if at all, thinned as almost a footnote within the events themselves.

Scouting and an individual's participation in the Scout movement is seen by many of those who have partaken of it as a life-changing experience, as said in French, "Scout un jour, Scout toujours!". It probably wouldn't take much effort to gather quotes by "notables" to serve to establish and source the concept that it has been, and is, meaningful to many communities as part of their "way of life".

Critics of Scouting tend to see it as merely a youthful-indiscretion kind of thing. Right now Wikipedia seems to adhere, surely by fact rather than design, to the latter POV. Thus, for example, underground Scouting under WW2 Occupation and in countries taken over by dictatorships has, as far as I could gather, only one specific article (the Polish Szare Szeregi), while its presence in every country or within national diasporas is "notable" enough by Wikipedia standards. Of course language issues can be blamed, there are such articles, relevant to their own countries' history, in several other language WP, but all in all it is something that I feel is overdue to approach this in an NPOV way, by giving Scouts in History its due.

I would want to hear other opinions, and maybe start with a page that could anchor a Category. My own personal interest right now is about the activity of Scouts within the Resistance movements in Europe during WW2. yamaplos 18:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaplos (talk • contribs)

There are quite a few articles on resistence fighters who were Scouts and quite a few articles that mention how Scouting continued in German occupied Europe. However, I do not know how we could get a good list of them. --Bduke (Discussion) 18:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be maybe a matter of starting a page with links to that. I am a bit concerned about over-zealous editors that would want to kill it before it gets strong enough. One of the problems is that I do not know under what category to put something like that inside current pages. I guess I should simply try, hey, the whole point for me is to help preserve the memory of people who were not afraid of something like this... :-) yamaplos 22:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please sign with 4 tildas - ~~~~ on talk pages. You need to search the Category:Scouting tree of sub-categories. There is a whole lot of material. I just came across Junák for example. That has hisory of Scouting under both the German and Soviet occupation. Some of the people in Category:People associated with Scouting are notable for their role in the resistance in their country. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of the numbers of scouts in countries are way over what are reported in the sourced reference. I have corrected a couple to what is stated, but who entered the number as double what is stated in the scouts document! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.95.144 (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You should add the numbers in both given references. Scouting is not only WOSM, but also WAGGGS. --jergen (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This section contained a table that stated that it showed the original age groups created by Baden-Powell, then listed the modern UK ones. This is totally incorrect, and undermines the article a bit. Originally there were just Scouts. Beavers never even existed while B-P was alive. Cubs would have been Wolf Cubs, but were not a part of the original scheme. Explorers and Network are even more recent additions.

I have removed the table. DiverScout (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have re-added the correct table. The age groups as they were between 1920 and 1940 in most organizations. In subsequent years many organizations have changed the age groups to their own needs. But it is still what is perceived by most as the traditional age groups. --Egel _Reaction? 18:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Super job. I'd not want to make the claim about original, but this makes a lot more sense that the ones that had been added. DiverScout (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have two concerns. I would like to see the word "original" removed from that heading. It's slightly misleading, as already discussed. But they were endorsed by B-P, so that part's OK. The other is the Cub Scout starting age. Was it really 7? It was 8 when I joined in Australia in the 1950s. And back then we did just about everything the same way as the British. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree this still has issues. I too think the original Cub age was 8 not 7. I am not sure the original Brownie ages were the same as Cubs and I have a stronger suspicion that Rangers originally started younger than 18 and think they originally has an upper limit, while Rovers did not. We need sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

My copy of APR states that Cubs started at age 8 at that point in time. The title should also be corrected to B-P's one of Wolf Cub, as he never knew of the APR changes - which were only pushed through after he was dead. I have made that change, as it does not clash with the possible Brownie ages. The word original really ought to go. I have no information on Guiding to check. DiverScout (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've boldly removed Original, and changed Cubs to 8. This really is OR, but my sister was a Brownie, and I can't recall her starting at a different age from me, but I would be totally happy for someone with better information to alter it if required. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Not wishing to be contentious, but I was a Cub at age 7 in 1977, in the SAI in Ireland (As an aside - both my parents were leaders, as am I now - Scouts, Ventures & Rovers). Can't speak for the CBSI at the time, obviously. Gabhala (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the starting age for Cubs seemed to change from 8 to 7 or 7½ in a lot of places around the world around about the 1970s. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The overall starting age for Scouting changed in many countries in the 1970s and the early 1980s - with the introduction of Beavers, with an earlier start for Cubs or with both. My association switched from 9 to 7 following the merger with the girls in 1973. --jergen (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

According to the scouting museum in Rotterdam, the age of the cubs was initially from 9 till 11 years, later this was brought back to 7 till 11 years. The brownies was initially from 7 till 10 years. --Egel _Reaction? 08:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that the history is important we probably should mention that Australian Joey Scouts (Kia in NZ) was started about 10 Years ago for ages 6-8. This is an one hour introduction to scouting principles. The Joey motto is Help Other People (HOP) and instead of Bravo it is HOP HOP HOP, which is age appropriate. There are 4 badges in Joeys the big one is the Promise Challenge (equivalent to the grey wolf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waratah (talk • contribs) 00:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Joeys, in fact, began 21 years ago. 21st birthday celebrations are happening. HiLo48 (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Original" age groups in Guiding

The story bank of Girlguiding UK contains a vast amount of memories on Guiding in the 1910s to 1930s. As far as I could see, Brownies did start with 8 and Rangers with 16 or 17. --jergen (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading a memoir, We Were Pioneers (Friends University, 1971) by Alta Hoyt, an American Quaker missionary who lived in Kenya Colony for 34 years. In this memoir, she cites a letter from Baden-Powell "in which he states that they got many of the ideas of the Boy Scouts from the Bantu people in South Africa." (73) I didn't want to just go and add a reference to this in the article, because this is the first I've heard of it, but I've not studied the history of the Scouts at all. I wonder if anyone here knows more about this? I might do a quick journal search to see if anything comes up as well... Luna (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:The_Scout_Association#Inspiration_from_the_Bantu_People)

Scouting#Origins should be the right place to add it. --Egel _Reaction? 16:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Due to what Tim Jeal calls Scouting's strong anti-authoritarian stance[100] and reinforcing of individuality values, authoritarian regimes have either absorbed it into government-controlled organizations, and/or banned it.

This dual claim is supported only by a footnote. It should detail Tim Jeal's notion that Scouting is anti-authoritarian. Note that Girl Scouts are told to obey orders, and that Boy Scouts are told to be patriotic and loyal.

I'd like to read more about "Authoritarian" regimes taking over Scouting groups or banning them. Declaring it as a fact, and then giving an offline footnote is not enough. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take a more global look at that claim that "Boy Scouts are told to be patriotic and loyal". HiLo48 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am really surprised not to see a reference to recent controversy about sexual abuse in the Scouting movement. It has been a big issue in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.30.158.147 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe in Canada and the US - but not globally. And this article has a global scope. --jergen (talk) 13:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There is also a stand-alone article on such controversies, including one dedicated to sexual abuse within Scouting, so this article does not need to duplicate content. DiverScout (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The origins section says BP started wearing an American-style campaign hat (which then became part of the scout uniform) because of the influence of Burnham. A programme by Ian Hislop on the BBC last night about the origins of scouting says the scout hat was part of the local constable's uniform in Mafeking/in Africa. It strikes me that a lot of this article emphasizes - or over-emphasizes - the American roosts of scouting. If this was written by an American I can understand that. But where is the proof that the hat was American rather than, as seems much more likely, one that BP saw regularly as part of a uniform when he was in Africa? 86.134.49.128 (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not from the US and I have no view on this, but the Burnham date is a few years before B-P was in Mafeking. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SFB diretly compares the Scout uniform to that of the Constabulary. Whether they wore it because of American influence is outside of my area of knowledge. DiverScout (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• This article is supposed to be about scouting and the scout movement but much of it is about particular scout organizations and Baden-Powell. This information should be moved to articles on those organizations and Baden-Powell.
• This article fails to distinguish between the scout movement and particular scout organizations.
• The article includes numerous reference to the scout movement but does not link to the article on "movement".
• Most of the article is unreferenced. Most of the claims made have no direct supporting reference. References are listed generally and not by in-line reference attached to specific statements. The references cited are nearly all publications by particular organizations or officers or members of those organizations.
• As a result the article reads as propaganda.

Robert c2227 (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Scout movement is the collection of all the organisations. It is built on the ideas of B-P and it has always been the consensus here to include that material.
• How would you describe the distinction between "the scout movement and particular scout organizations"? If you can suggest a wording here, we might get consensus to include it.
• What article on "movement" are you referring to? Movement is a disambiguation page.
• I think you need to give specific examples about references. There are 103 references and they are all in-line references, not general references. Are there unreferenced statements that you challenge? Then add a "citation needed tag. Just type {{cn}} at the end of the sentence you challenge.
• Make some specific proposals and we may may get consensus. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised to see over 30 citation need entries in a featured article! This needs to be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.75.12.234 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I could add hundreds - but that would not mean that the citations were needed. The article had FA status before the tags, which hints to me that the tags may be ott. DiverScout (talk) 09:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then shouldn't they be removed? 1.75.12.234 (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that they should and will do so this evening unless someone comes up with a valid reason for tagging every single fact, most of which being covered in following references. DiverScout (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't over 31 million Scouts plus over 10 million Guides, over 41 million Scouts and Guides? What kind of support is needed? Do you expect the total be higher or lower? --Egel _Reaction? 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It is to me. It was, however, about the only request for a citation made by the other user that perhaps could be considered valid in that the Movement is, possibly, larger than WOSM/WAGGS? I don't know and am not interested in finding more. I've spent enough of my time tidying up already. DiverScout (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. WOSM and WAGGGS total 41 million. UIGSE has 65,000 and WFIS 200,000. There are no reliable numbers for the other NSOs. Thus, over 41 million. Simple math is not original research. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We maybe need a more recent number from WAGGGS, the 10 million is from 2006, and the total from List of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts members is just 8,231,457.

The total in the ref for the WOSM is 32,049,233

max 1 million non WAGGGS/WOSM scouts

Stil gives 41 million

--Egel _Reaction? 22:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Annual Review 2011 (PDF). World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. 2011. p. 1.

As I said, that is fine then and was not my challenge anyway. Thankyou for dealing with it? DiverScout (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They exist. They are multinational. The ought to be mentioned. The only mention is in a list, so hardly giving undue weight. DiverScout (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

They are one of the smallest scout-like organisations among a number of international bodies, most of them not mentioned in this article (eg SpiralScouts International, Hashomer Hatzair, Homenetmen, ...). And the groups claimed for the UK and Uganda seemingly don't even exist: The UK website announces the first group for early 2014 and for Uganda exists only a facebook entry without any hints of activities. --jergen (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this Navigators USA? I have yet to see any membership numbers. --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

April 2013: "up to 600 boys and girls" in 45 chapters across the US . --jergen (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be mentioned, as they are, in the article listing all non-aligned associations, but for now I do not think they should be listed in Scouting. Give them time to grow. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh bottoms! I was editing fast and read this as being that entry! My bad. DiverScout (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

While there is no doubt that B-P learned a lot from Burnham (whom he did not meet until June, 1896, when B-P was 39), even while at school, B-P had an interest in woodcraft in the broad sense.^[1] Later, as a military officer, B-P was stationed in British India and Africa in the 1880s and 1890s. Baden-Powell took an interest in military scouting^[2] and, as part of their training, he showed his men how to survive in the wilderness. He wrote four books on the subject:- "On Vedette" Gale & Polden, London, 1883; "Reconnaissance and Scouting" Wm. Clowes, London, 1884;^[3] "Cavalry Instruction" Harrison & Sons, London, 1885; "Aids to Scouting" Gale & Polden, London, 1899. Baden-Powell noticed that it helped the soldiers to develop independence rather than just blindly follow officers' orders.^[4].

Yes, there is a reference to a book that implies that B-P knew little about Scouting until he learned it all from Burnham, but that book is biased...

RobinClay (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that B-P was a great scout and that Burnham had great respect for B-P's scouting abilities, and vice-versa -- I can provide cites if anyone wants them. The parenthetical I deleted was from the following: Practised by frontiersmen of the American Old West and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, woodcraft was generally little known to the British Army (except those parts where Baden-Powell had exerted his influence) but well-known to the American scout Burnham.

I checked B-P's 'Varsity of Life", 1933 ed, page 14, and I see your how you might think of B-Ps boyhood outdoor experiences as woodcraft-like; however, but B-P never calls this experience woodcraft nor does he describe this experience as woodcraft in the North American sense. On page 13, B-P indeed states what he thinks scouting is, and that he learned it "through the whole of my career in the Army". I don't see anything in this WP article that contradicts any of these statements, parts of this 'Varsity of Life" have been used in this article, and more may be relevant.

I've been unable to find a reference for your statement: and, as part of their training, he showed his men how to survive in the wilderness.

I went to the another site your referenced, http://scoutguidehistoricalsociety.com/ , but I found no details about the origin of scouting on the home page. Is there a sub-page that provides these details?

B-P's "On Vedette" you referenced is a one page document (a folded card) on the military sentry who gives signal or warnings of danger to a main body of troops.

B-P's "Cavalry Instruction" you reference has nothing about scouting that I could find, unless you have specific pages?

B-P's "Reconnaissance and Scouting" certainly covers the military reconnaissance part of scouting and thus is relevant and included in the origins section.

B-P's "Aids to Scouting" is certainly relevant and included in the origins section.

B-P's "Scouting for Boys", latest ed 2004, p. xxiv (intro) states that: B-P's early mentor the professional scout Frederick Burnham, learned life-preserving tracking skills or woodcraft in North America [as did Seton], specifically the United States frontier, later transferring them to the 'last' colonial frontier of Rhodesia, where he taught Baden-Powell; p. liii (intro): B-P learns woodcraft from the American scout Frederick Burnham, and the 'Cape Boy' Jan Grottboom; p. 365: Burnham had gained military experience with the North American forces during the Apache Wars, and had learned from their Native American scouts. From Burnham B-P acquired the term woodcraft as signifying observation and survival in the wild.

-- Ctatkinson (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

This info was deleted, it is a (hidden?) part of Sir Robert Baden-Powell's way of thinking, please evaluate and add it if you want to explain some part of his thinking.
One of the organizations, the Skolta Esperanto-Ligo, uses the Esperanto neutral language according to Baden-Powell's recommendation. SOURCE http://www.faqs.org/faqs/scouting/worldwide/part2/section-4.html --Iosko (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I was wondering why there is no mention of the relationship between Baden Powell and esperanto. This language was a substantive part of the 1908 version of his book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skolta_Esperanto_Ligo --KsaveroEO (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is the height of idiocy that typing in Boy Scouts to the WIkipedia search box does not take one directly to this article.

When a visitor is taken here, they will learn that the modern name is just "Scouting". No problem with that.

I do have a serious problem with pseudo political correctness making it inconvenient for anyone trying to learn about the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, or the Girl Guides being taken on a wild goose chase to find what they are looking for.Daqu (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not going to easily influence people by describing it as "idiocy" or "pseudo political correctness". There are many complex issues here and it has never been easy to resolve them. There is first the issue of the name of the whole movement or that in a particular country. In some countries this is "Boy Scouting" or "Boy Scouts" and in others it is "Scouting" or "Scouts". Then there is the issue of distinguishing between "Boy Scouts" as opposed to "Cub Scouts", "Rover Scouts", "Explorer Scouts", "Beaver Scouts", "Venture Scouts" and many others. In the end, we decided that Boy Scout redirects to the section for 11 - 15 or 17 years, and Boy Scouts redirects to a disambiguation page that quickly will get you to Scouting. It is not simple. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

One additional click is a wild goose chase? Getting the correct information is inconvenient? Sorry, but I cannot see what point you are trying to make here. DiverScout (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, because in Norway where I live, there isn't any formal division anywhere as far as I know. I went to a national gathering in the early nineties, and didn't see sign of it there either, it's just not a topic. I know there used to be division at some point in the past, but I was wondering about it from an international perspective since I only hear about either boy or girl scouts (usually from american sources). Markopeter (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Scouting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115192441/http://www.inquiry.net/ideals/b-p/religion.htm to http://www.inquiry.net/ideals/b-p/religion.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509074048/http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp to http://www.bsalegal.org/duty-to-god-cases-224.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316202248/http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3899/34684/file/ScoutEducSyst_E.pdf to http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3899/34684/file/ScoutEducSyst_E.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316202248/http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3899/34684/file/ScoutEducSyst_E.pdf to http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3899/34684/file/ScoutEducSyst_E.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527102319/http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/media/factsheets/02-503.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022015708/http://meritbadge.com/info/aims.htm to http://www.meritbadge.com/info/aims.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525110938/http://www.scout.org/en/information_events/events/world_events/world_jamboree/jamborees_history to http://www.scout.org/en/information_events/events/world_events/world_jamboree/jamborees_history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202171158/http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/national_scout_organisations to http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/national_scout_organisations
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6AJxh3uLm?url=http://scout.org/en/content/download/22261/199900/file/Census.pdf to http://scout.org/en/content/download/22261/199900/file/Census.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

In the paramilitary article, scouting is included as an example. Is scouting a paramilitary movement? Kortoso (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Scouting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601023012/http://scout.org/en/information_events/library/institutional_documents/constitution_of_w_o_s_m_jan_2011/wosm_constitution_full_version_en_fr to http://www.scout.org/en/information_events/library/institutional_documents/constitution_of_w_o_s_m_jan_2011/wosm_constitution_full_version_en_fr
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090211113959/http://www.tidewaterbsa.com/pipsico/summercamp.html to http://www.tidewaterbsa.com/pipsico/summercamp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212195123/http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/mission_vision/the_vision to http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/mission_vision/the_vision
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516035701/http://www.scout.org/index.php/en/about_scouting/partners/marrakech/introduction to http://scout.org/index.php/en/about_scouting/partners/marrakech/introduction
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207120057/http://scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/baden_powell/b_p_gallery/scout_emblem to http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/baden_powell/b_p_gallery/scout_emblem
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225123035/http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3590/32850/file/EduObj.pdf to http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3590/32850/file/EduObj.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/3596/32878/file/The%20Green%20Island.pdf
• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090716105313/http://n2zgu.50megs.com/GER.htm to http://n2zgu.50megs.com/GER.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530142922/http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/milestones_of_world_scouting to http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/milestones_of_world_scouting

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scouting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818201813/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/history/ to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/history/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scouting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202131520/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2005/1_5.htm to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2005/1_5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414015042/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/6_3.htm to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/6_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090414020445/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/6_9.htm to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/6_9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scouting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090125110700/http://scouting.org/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/Boys/scouting.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/Boys/scouting.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why does the text of the promise of 1907 in this article refer to the Queen? Edward VII was king at the time. Does anyone know whether the original wording was "king/queen" as quoted in the article on the scout promise, or "king", which to me would have been more natural wording in 1907? - BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Corrected in both articles. It's the 1908 promise, and the wording is "to the king". --jergen (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what Wikipedia policies say. Using American spelling makes no sense for an article on a global movement that began in the UK. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but we have to follow Wikipedia policies! --Bduke (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia policy: MOS:RETAIN.
2. The majority of the international Scouting (and Guiding) bodies use American English: WOSM (founded in London), WAGGGS (based in London; with some inconsistencies), WFIS (with some inconsistencies), WOIS. British English is used by UISGE, CES and OWS. In membership numbers, the bodies using American English account for more than 95 % of all Scouts and Guides. American English can be seen as the standard spelling within Scouting and Guiding. --jergen (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a notable redaction/gloss. 174.215.20.19 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SL2017 Sculpture.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I corrected a mistake on this page not that long ago about Brownsea Island being called the first Scout Camp. It of course wasn’t the first Scout camp and was actually a Boys Brigade camp used to experiment with the idea of Scouting, because of this I see no reason why it should be featured as the first image that comes up on that tab this in many ways could add to the misconception about Brownsea Island. Pongo774532 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Brownsea Island Scout camp has an article. Strictly it was an experimental camp, but it was not restricted to members of the Boys Brigade. The article states "Eleven came from the well-to-do private boarding schools of Eton and Harrow, mostly sons of Baden-Powell's friends. Seven came from the Boys' Brigade at Bournemouth, and three came from the Brigade at Poole & Hamworthy. Baden-Powell's nine-year-old nephew Donald Baden-Powell also attended". The boys from the Boys' Brigade were not even a majority. Strictly it was not a Scout Camp, but it became one in hindsight as it were after the Scout Movement started and rapidly expanded. It was the trigger that started the Scout movement. --Bduke (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Just had a look in An Official History of the Scout Movement, published by the Scout Association in 2006, p. 30: "[...] on Brownsea Island for what was to be the first ever Scout camp" and is labelled as "experimental". The 1908 Camp in Humshaugh - as it was advertised and is actually called in Scouting history, even if the campsite was actually in Fourstones - is mentioned on p. 40 as the first "proper" Scout Camp following the publication of Scouting for boys, but is also described as a means to advertise The Scout magazine.

  Concerning the relevance: Without Brownsea Island in 1907 there would never have been Humshaugh in 1908. There wouldn't have been neither Scouting for Boys nor The Scout, any grassroots development of local groups, any Boy Scouts Association and any worldwide movement. --jergen (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS: mentions a number of local Scout camps in 1908, even before Humshaugh. Seems a little bit like Humshaugh was the first nationwide advertised camp. --jergen (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That’s a fair point, how about having images of both sites as mentioned in a article from the I believe Hexham 1st who I mentioned it’s a case of the Chicken or the egg. Pongo774532 (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It is stated in the 2nd para that "Scouting began in 1907 when Robert Baden-Powell, Lieutenant General in the British Army, held the first Scouting encampment at Brownsea Island in England." I think the wording should be revised to something like: "By tradition, Scouting is said to have begun in 1907. It was then that Robert Baden-Powell, ..."

I would be bold and just revise it that way, but I think the first sentence requires a footnote to a source about the date generally being ascribed to be 1907, and i don't have the appropriate source.

This wording would be more factual. It is hard to define the beginning point of Scouting. It could easily be defined, instead, to be the earlier date of the siege of Mafeking in which Baden-Powell organized and/or noticed boys engaging in military support and also engaging with his handbook on scouting for soldiers. Or, the date could be defined to be 1905, when i read that Daniel Carter Beard started the Sons of Daniel Boone organization (which was later folded into Boy Scouts in 1910). My point is that the date Scouting began is something that is arbitrary, albeit perhaps by a kind of consensus, and the wikipedia article should be clear about that, not just uncritically repeat what is said. doncram (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Do I understand you correct: Scholars like Tim Jeal or Mark K. Smith are erring on this date? Both are cited in the history section.

Is there substantial scientific controversy about the year Scouting started? Are there notable scientific publications which date Scouting back to 1899 (Mafeking) or 1905 (Seton)? You could help us improve this article with mentioning these. --jergen (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of controversy about it, although I don't know enough about this history to know if there is. Perhaps there are American claims to being first? It could at least be argued that it started in 1899 or 1905, I would think, yes, and I do not understand how one determines when a broad movement like this, which certainly has earlier-than-1907 roots, is said to convert from not-started to started status. And, in the article, I don't see that either of the two scholars mentioned state that Scouting started on a certain date. It is just stated--baldly it seems to me--that Scouting started in 1907. I think an explanation or semantic distancing in the form of "it is generally agreed that Scouting started in 1907" would be more appropriate, and i think the provision of a citation on the date would help, too. doncram (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BP's 1908 date is at least something most of us can somewhat agree on as it started the formal movement known as Scouting. Anything else opens a can of worms of claims and counter claims due to the many precursor movements. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Back in 1900 two boys wrote to tell B-P that they had formed the 'Baden-Powell Scouting Society'. As said above, these claims and counter-claims open many cans of worms. There are also several instances of national organisations re-writing the history to suit their own needs, which makes reliable sourcing challenging. DiverScout (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the 'Baden-Powell Scouting Society' being formed in 1900 is by E.E. Reynolds who didn't cite a source. Is there any other reference?

Robert c2227 (talk 03:21, 27 January 2013

So, who can put an exact date on when the Scout Movement started? For all the edits and re-edits by "experts" in the years since this comment was first posted, we still don't have a clear answer. The Scout Association's incorporating royal charter of 1912 ]] ^[1] gives a vague date of 1908, yet The Scout Association later claimed 1907. Surely the great observant scout and "genius", Baden-Powell, who petitioned for the royal charter in 1911 knew when he supposedly founded the scouts just a few years before. Too many lies are hidden by such vagaries. The Scout Movement developed but The Scout Association started on an exact date.

This article needs to distinguish the Scout Movement from The Scout Association

Robert c2227 (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, despite all the posturing by a recent editor, it seems to remain generally accepted^{[by whom?]} that Baden-Powell's camp of 1907 marked the start of the official^{[clarification needed]} Scout Movement, as that was when the concepts for the training manual for the game were tested prior to the publication of that manual. Robert, as you seem to be the loudest "expert", perhaps you would like to enlighten us poor mortals with some evidence of your research into the matter? DiverScout (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. Robert only posted here over a period of around a day and a half. He hasn't posted now for over two days. It wouldn't surprise me if we see no more of that incarnation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Good on you HiLo48!

DiverScout, "Generally accepted" does not make it a validated historical fact. In what way was the Brownsea Island Camp '"official"' as you state? As your comment above (of 21 January 2009) indicates there were boys forming scouting organizations such as the "Baden-Powell Scouting Society" in 1900. Why qualify the facts and try and attach some other meaning to them? Why not just stick to the facts and state that Baden-Powell held a camp on Brownsea Island in 1907 without trying to claim that it marked the beginning of something or was an 'official' start of something else. Stick to the facts. Robert c2227 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, I have again removed your edits from the lead. As you have been told, where points are discussed in the body of the text they do not need references in the lead. As to the next point, Scouting was started through the publication of the rule book for the game by Baden-Powell.^{[citation needed]} Those ideas were tested, prior to publication, at a camp in 1907. This has been taken^{[by whom?]} as the accepted^{[by whom?]} start of Scouting. If you personally do not agree with that idea, fine, but find a reliable, independent source that states that Scouting (not a NSA) started at a different time and we can talk. The BPSS is an example of proto-Scouting, just as there are examples of games like rugby played before rugby was invented, and I would like to one day find a decent refence to add it to the Origins section where the matter you are so concerned with is discussed through referenced sources.

Now, if you can research reliable references to back your claims that the internationally accepted^{[by whom?]} dates are wrong, add them properly to the main body of the text, I will probably back you all the way. Continue with your disruptive edits and I will become increasingly blunt in my dealings with you. DiverScout (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DiverScout, you resort to vague generalities e.g. "This has been taken...". By whom, when and where? As you challenge, "find a reliable, independent source". What was the "rule book" by Baden-Powell? Have you ever even seen Baden-Powell's book in its original edition? Then you dismiss the BPSS as "proto-scouting". The difference with your attempted Rugby analogy is that none of the other Rugby-like games were called Rugby. With the BPSS and others you dismiss as "proto-Scouting" we have Scouts doing scouting, calling themselves and being called Scouts and Boy Scouts doing scouting, calling themselves boy scouts and being called Boy Scouts. ... and then you resort to threats. Just a bully!

You cannot state something as fact in the lead, then reference it in a way somewhere in the body which, when critically examined, makes it apparent that the lead is misleading and deceptive. The aim of one organization is not the aim of the movement. Both "generally considered" and "This has been taken as the accepted" are attempts at fudging facts. Stick to the plain facts and stop trying to embellish them with a story to suit your own beliefs. Robert c2227 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, I'm afraid that I will have to reply to your points when I have finished laughing. It may take some time. Hopefully one of the other editors will be able to deal with you in the meantime. DiverScout (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The article begins with this: "This article is about the Scouting Movement." So what exactly IS a "Scout"? The great strength of the Scout and Guide Movements - the greatest movements for peace that the world has ever known - is that every member has made the same Promise, and keeps the same Laws - albeit in different forms and different languages. Therefore, the first Scout was the first to take that Promise to keep those Laws. Hence there cannot have been a Scout (in the sense that this article is about) until the Promise and the Laws had been published - which it was in "Scouting for Boys", so that gives the earliest possible date. Am I wrong? The boys on Brownsea were NOT Scouts. Similarly, the Bible (Acts 11:26) tells us that it was in Antioch that they first called themselves Christians. Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. I believe, too, (BICBW) that every enrolled British Scout's enrollment had to be registered by the Boy Scout Association. Also, a Scout is (by definition) part of a Patrol, and part of a Scout Troop - which itself has to be "registered". Whithout meeting these criteria, no boy is "officially" a Scout. Does the Scout Association have those records still? One would think so, and I find it extra-ordinary that this date is still in doubt ! RobinClay (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Interspersed comments on the above:

The article begins with this: "This article is about the Scouting Movement." So what exactly IS a "Scout"? [HERE HERE!] The great strength of the Scout and Guide Movements - the greatest movements for peace that the world has ever known^{[citation needed]} - is that every member has made the same Promise^{[citation needed]}, and keeps the same Laws{cn}} - albeit in different forms and different languages. [IS IT THE SAME OR DIFFERENT? CUBS DO NOT MAKE THE SCOUT PROMISE/OATH AND DO NOT PROMISE TO OBEY OR KEEP THE SCOUT LAW. HOW THEN CAN CUBS BE SCOUTS?]] Therefore, the first Scout was the first to take that Promise to keep those Laws.^{[citation needed]} Hence there cannot have been a Scout (in the sense that this article is about)^{[clarification needed]} [NOTE QUALIFICATION] until the Promise and the Laws had been published - which it was in "Scouting for Boys", so that gives the earliest possible date. Am I wrong? The boys on Brownsea were NOT Scouts. [BUT THEY DID SCOUTING IN A MANNER THAT WOULD MAKE THEM BOY SCOUTS AND THEY WERE REFERRED TO AS BOY SCOUTS] Similarly, the Bible (Acts 11:26) tells us that it was in Antioch that they first called themselves Christians. [NOTE QUALIFICATION "CALLED THEMSELVES"] Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian. I believe, too, (BICBW) that every enrolled British Scout's enrollment had to be registered by the Boy Scout Association.{{CN} [WRONG!] Also, a Scout is (by definition)^{[citation needed]} part of a Patrol, and part of a Scout Troop - which itself has to be "registered"^{[citation needed]}. [THE FIRST SCOUTS WERE NOT REGISTERED] Whithout meeting these criteria, no boy is "officially"^{[clarification needed]} ["OFFICIALLY" BY WHOSE SAY SO?] a Scout.^{[citation needed]} Does the Scout Association have those records still? [BOYS AND GIRLS STARTED SCOUTING, CALLING THEMSELVES AND BEING CALLED BOY SCOUTS AND GIRL SCOUTS AND FORMED PATROLS AND TROOPS BEFORE THE SCOUT ASSOCIATION WAS FORMED] One would think so, and I find it extra-ordinary that this date is still in doubt !

The problem for putting a date on when Scouting or the Scout Movement started or when there was the first Boy Scout is that editors define Scouting or what it is to be a Scout differently. These definitions are all arbitrary. Editors refer to well established events but then try to ascribe to those events something more by arbitrary definition. Using weasel words like "generally accepted" only make the falsity of the claims more obvious. The Scout Movement is a movement, not an organization with a constitution or foundation date. There were events in the Scout Movement's genesis and history but no single point of time of origin. Refer to the events without embellished interpretation.115.42.4.92 (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Disclaimer, I am a scout leader and scouting member since ~2004/5 when I joined Beavers, the youngest section at the time)

The 1907-8 date is the officially recognised date by the World Organisation of Scouting Movements as well as the commonly recognised date by UK Scouting

"With an international Membership of approximately 25 million, well over half a million in the UK alone, the Scout Movement is the world's largest voluntary organisation for boys and girls. Impressive figures - particularly when you consider that Scouting began with 20 boys and an experimental camp held during the first nine days of August 1907, at Brownsea Island, Dorset."

JC aka JtheKid15 ^{(Communications)} 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A decent part of this article is just plain unsourced. The rest of the sourcing leaves a great deal to be desired. Although there are high quality books and scholarly sources about Scouting, this article relies heavily on websites affiliated with the scouting movement. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you please specify your viewpoint as well as give us the titles of the "high quality books and scholarly sources about Scouting" you mentioned? Living outside the English speaking world, my access to those as well as literature on Scouting in my native language is limited. --jergen (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think in part this is because the websites are easily verifiable whereas books are less so. Official scouting websites don't seem to be a bad source imo but I understand the want to include material from sources such as Scouting for Boys or other more modern publications. JC aka JtheKid15 ^{(Communications)} 10:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured articles are expected to be well-researched and cite high-quality reliable sources, which is usually interpreted as foreclosing over reliance on sources that are closely affiliated with the article subject. Just searching "scouting movement" on Google Scholar shows there are an abundance of independent, high quality reliable sources about the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)