Talk:Boy Scouts

Suggestion

Since no one has disputed my suggestion that the redirect of Boy Scouts should be changed to a disambiguation, I've gone ahead and done it. But the talk page, for some reason, still points to the "Boy Scout" talk page. I don't know why this is happening; I've tried reloading. Sorry if I've messed anything up. In any case, I've settled for just two links -- to this page, and to World Organization of the Scout Movement, since I can't find a list of specific Scouting organizations. Someone knowledgeable should probably expand it. GMcGath 12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to expand it and fixed the talk page. --Egel _Reaction? 16:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My confusion probably resulted from the distinct pages for "Boy scouts" and "Boy Scouts". I've redirected the former to point to this. GMcGath 23:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunting down links

This is not a particularly useful disambiguation page - there are a whole load of WOSM and non-WOSM organisations with articles that could be listed. Plus, there are a plenty of other "Boy" Scout sections which could also be listed... Age groups in Scouting and Guiding is probably a good starting point to find these -- Horus Kol Talk 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Individual associations

I can not see that just linking to USA and UK articles here is acceptable. I propose removing them and just leaving links to the international articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed DiverScout (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See how I did this at Scout#Youth movement. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A version of that ought to do the job very well. DiverScout (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tweak as needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to list the BSA, then we must go through all the associations and list any organizations with "Boy Scout" in their name. Then we must go through and list any with Boy Scouting sections. Then we must do the same for Scout, Girl Scouts and Guide (disambiguation). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It was discussed before. But I have tweaked it a bit: sorted the world organisations by size, gives less undue weight to the small organisations whose names start with a letter early in the alphabet and added a link to Age groups in Scouting and Guiding for the Boy Scout sections. --Egel _Reaction? 17:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not all boy scouts belong to an organization

Not all boy scouts belong to an organization? Please provide an example. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

These days all Scouts belong to a scouting organisation. You can not "join" the Scout movement, You join a Scouting association either through a Troop, Crew, Pack, ets or directly as lone scouts do. In most countries, and certainly in the US, you can not use the term "Scout" unless you belong to the BSA or the GSUSA. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Athough several edits by this user have been disruptive in my view, he has a point here. In the UK there was no NSO until 1909, so all Scouts would be technically have been independent members of the Movement - assuming that we accept that Scouting started in 1907. In the UK I know of several independent Scout Groups that are not part of any NSO, and the 1908 SfB was written to allow for independent patrols. Other than in countries where Scouting has been treated as a corporation, rather than a Movement, and trademarked, there is no reason why someone could not be an independent Scout through following the instructions given by B-P in SfB, although I'd question why they would considering that support is available for Lone Scouts through many NSOs. This would be a challenge to make notable for an article, but probably ought to be something mentioned at a very basic level (as in the currect version of the text), I guess. DiverScout (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that Egel has chosen to delete the text while discussions are talking place. It is ironic that this action was taken after the new editor was condemned by doing just that.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is there to serve the truth not the majority interest. DiverScout (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. You note "independent Scout Groups", but they are organizations, although obviously not NSOs. Again, examples please. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

We have to stay within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines including WP:WEIGHT: we have to draw a line between "significant minority viewpoints" (which we can include) and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority viewpoints" (which we aren't allowed to include). Is there a reliable source for the number of "Scouts who don't belong to an organization"? So we can tell if it is below or above the threshold. --Egel _Reaction? 11:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

These guidelines have, lets face it, been created by users as guidance to aid good practice. Where they are used to prevent facts from being included they are either being abused, or are wrong and can lead to the type of issue that sees Wikipedia held in contempt so often. This user has stated a fact - that Scouts are allowed to operate independently of associations under Scouting For Boys. There are independent Groups and Patrols (and, no, not part of an association - other than being a part of the wider Movement).

Now, this user has put people's backs up, but that should not prevent us from looking at issues he is raising fairly - unless we are exactly as he has described us.

I would not support an article on these Scouts as there is not enough evidence to back that and almost certainly never can be, but mentioning them in this basic disambiguation seems sensible enough. Let's look at what is being said. A Scout is a part of the Scout Movement. Clearly true, and more truthful than saying that they have to be a part of a NSO when they clearly do not. That part seems to be an improvement on what we had.

The last entry, about 'independent Scouts following scouting independently' is more challenging and, whilst certainly true historically, true for some independent Groups and Patrols that I've encountered (one in Norfolk and one in Suffolk, UK) by chance without going looking, and Scouting also allows for possible Lone Scouts, but I'd like to see the OP give some evidence and reasoning too before deciding if that second statement really needs to be added.

Trying to claim that a Scout is simply someone who is a paid up member of one of our organisations is, looking at it with fresh eyes, blatently untrue and I'm surpirsed that that statement has lasted on here as long as it has without one of us noticing. DiverScout (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't "non-aligned organizations" include independent Groups and Patrols? Only problem with "the Scout Movement" is, that it is very vague. --Egel _Reaction? 15:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to say that that covered the independent Groups, so it really depends if the OP is wanting to push for solo independent Scouts needing to be tagged on at the end. I don't think so, as the change to the opening sentence seems to cover them. It seems at first to be a bit of a non-statement, in many ways, but it is more accurate than what we had and the main article article then descibes in detail what it means to be a Scout.

I've had a tickle and come up with the following. I've added the word 'along' to show that these non-aligned Scouts are not part of the six international associations, which could be read into the existing text. Any thoughts?

"A Boy Scout is a male youth member of the Scout Movement. There are thousands of national Scouting organizations or federations, mostly grouped into six international Scouting associations, along with some non-aligned organizations and Groups. Many of these use Boy Scouts in their name, including:" DiverScout (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we are forgetting that this is a disambiguation page that is needed because the term "Boy Scout" is a well known term. It does not have a precise meaning in common usage. It does not just refer to the Scout section. People will say that a Cub is in the Boy Scouts, often when there are also girls in his pack. Being a disambiguation page also means that we do not have to get it exactly right. That is for articles. We just have to point the reader along in the right direction. It seems right to me that we point them to Scouting, which Scout Movement redirects to, and to the list of links as it stands. I would prefer to have something like "The term Boy Scout is commonly used to refer to a member of a Scouting organization or group, although many of these organisation also have female members", followed by DiverScout's second sentence. The third sentence is wrong as the Guide organisations do not include Boy Scouts in their name. I think better would be "More information on these organizations and groups can be found in:". we should also consider that we have much the same wording in the another disambiguation page, Scout. We could even consider redirecting this page to there, but that might confuse the reader with all the other uses of "Scout". The similar wording of the "Youth movement" section first dot point indicates that we think the term "Boy Scout" is very similar indeed to the term "Scout", in our context of Scouting. Finally, if they are people who claim to be "Boy Scouts" or "Scouts" and do not belong to any Scouting organisation or group, then I think they can be mentioned elsewhere. It has no place in this disambiguation page. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the above amendments, although I disagree that there is any place on Wikipedia for incorrect information. Our goal should always be to try to get it right.

So: "The term Boy Scout is commonly used to refer to a member of a Scouting organization or group, although many of these organisation also have female members. There are thousands of national Scouting organizations or federations, mostly grouped into six international Scouting associations, along with some non-aligned organizations and Groups. More information on these organizations and groups can be found in:" DiverScout (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Two points

1. we should add World Organization of Independent Scouts to the lists of International Scouting organizations, it seems that they are here to stay.
2. some international Scouting associations have in some countries single groups as members without a (real) national Scouting organization or federation. I think, it is not necessary to explicitly mention this, because the text does not exclude the possibility, (and it is a real small number)

--Egel _Reaction? 12:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Boy Scouts (disambiguation)

It has been proposed that Boy Scouts (disambiguation) be merged into Boy Scouts by User:Egel. Egel, could you please start the discussion off by giving your reasons? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment as recent editor of Boy Scouts (disambiguation). As it is currently written, Boy Scouts is not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are search aids designed to direct readers to articles that could be referred to by the same name; they are not content articles. "Boy Scouts" does not contain a link to any page called "Boy Scout" or "Boy Scouts". It is therefore like an index or a broad topic article, but it is not a disambiguation page. (I happened upon the page because the article Sex segregation linked to it, and links to disambiguation pages are almost always unintended.) I would have no objection to putting the DAB page at Boy Scouts, but if there is to be an article on the use of the term "Boy Scouts" to describe Scouting, the disambiguation page needs to exist separately. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks, for your work. There is deliberately not a page called "Boy Scout" or "Boy Scouts" because a Boy Scout is primary a boy that is a Scout. A problem is "There are thousands of national Scouting organizations or federations". Many of those Scouting organizations have now or have ever had "Boy Scouts" in their name or have predecessors with "Boy Scouts" in their name, whether or not in translation. But fortunately they are ", mostly grouped into seven international Scouting associations, along with some non-aligned organizations and Groups."--Egel _Reaction? 14:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For argument's sake let's say that there is no such thing as a "Boy Scout" independent of Scouting, and that Scouting prefers not to use the term. The fact remains that Boy Scouts, Boy Scout, Boy-scouts, and numerous other variants do exist (mainly as redirects to pages on Scouting) as names on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia readers are likely to search for "boy scout" or "boy scouts" and should be provided navigation aids to help them find what they are looking for, whether that is Scouting or Boy Scout Lane in Wisconsin. It's not a question of accurate content; it's a question of helpful navigation. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether Scouting prefers to use the term "Boy Scout" depends on the country and the organisation. It depends among other things on how the girls in Scouting are called. If the girls are called Girl Scouts, like in the U.S. and some other countries influenced by the U.S., the boys are called Boy Scouts. If the girls are called (Girl) Guides, the boys are often called Scouts and the term "Boy Scout" is experienced as a pleonasm. If the girls are also, like the boys, called Scouts then the term "Boy Scouts" is often experienced as politically incorrect or outdated. The last two are together the majority in Scouting. There is no real difference between Scout and Boy Scout, except gender. (There are some differences between (Girl) Guide and (Boy) Scout, apart from gender) A (large) part of the use of "Boy Scout" on Wikipedia is caused by a US focus or outdated information.

(Boy) Scout, (Boy) Scouts, (Boy) Scouting are largely synonymous and are used for the following uses:

1. The movement
2. The (national) organisation
3. The section (the age group 11 to 18, but often the first or the last half of the range)
   1. The section in a (national) organisation
   2. The greatest common denominator of the sections the (national) organisations
4. The member(s)
   1. The member(s) of the movement or the organisation
   2. The member(s) of the section
5. Other uses

Which term where is used depends on the country and the organisation. The BSA uses (Boy) Scouts for the (national) organisation and (Boy) Scouting for the section, elsewhere it is often reversed.

A complete disambiguation page would include:

1. -> Scouting
2. -> a large part of List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members + International_Union_of_Guides_and_Scouts_of_Europe#Member_organizations + Order_of_World_Scouts#List_of_members +World_Federation_of_Independent_Scouts#List_of_members + World_Organization_of_Independent_Scouts#Members + Confederation_of_European_Scouts#Member_organizations + many former names of those organisations.
3. 1. -> a large part of Age_groups_in_Scouting_and_Guiding
   2. -> Scout (Scouting)
4. 1. see 1 and 2
   2. see 3.1 and 3.2
5. the lane and the ship

--Egel _Reaction? 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support A real article "Boy Scouts" would duplicate and/or overlap large parts of Scouting, Scout (Scouting) and some other articles on part of Scouting and would give no extra information. Or would be very short.--Egel _Reaction? 15:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Can't be done. One is an article, one is a non-article disambiguation page, and we don't merge articles and non-articles. Use WP:PROD or WP:AFD to delete the article if it's non-encyclopedic. If the article is deleted, then move the disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see any benefit to having two pages covering such closely related topics. As a broad concept article, there would be much unnecessary overlap as Egel observes. To JHJ's comments, yes of course it can be done. Look at the edit histories. Boy Scouts (disambiguation) was only created on 15 May 2013. Prior to that point, the disambiguation page was at Boy Scouts. As it is, this "merge" would only be repairing a badly formatted disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  Then it's not a merge, it's a reversion of bad edits, which is fine. I still believe we cannot merge articles and disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I would say that the disambiguation page is WP:DABCONCEPT except for the road and the ship. However, this exception is important, because even if we got rid of all the kinds of boy scout organizations listed on the disambiguation page, we would still need to disambiguate Boy Scouts from the road and the ship, and the page would still need to exist. bd2412 T 12:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried a rewrite staying as close as possible to a disambiguation page at User:Egel/Boy_Scouts --Egel _Reaction? 14:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Or if Boy Scouts can't be rewritten to a disambiguation page, rename Boy Scouts (disambiguation) to Boy Scout (disambiguation) ( both other uses are singular) and strip it down to something like User:Egel/Boy Scout (disambiguation) --Egel _Reaction? 09:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Two comments: First, this edit and the page move that preceded it seem premature given the editor's participation in this thread. Should this be taken as an attempt to close this discussion? Second, it appears from the #Individual associations discussion above and this edit and subsequent ones that the aim is to provide neutral point of view and unbiased world-view. That is entirely appropriate for an article. But while repairing unintended DAB links several days ago, I saw that at least one editor intended Boy Scouts of America when linking to Boy Scouts. So, for the DAB page, at least those scouting groups with "Boy Scout(s)" in their names should be included. Cnilep (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sometimes I am too bold and do what seems obvious. The next time I will properly first propose to close the discussion before I will do anything. I thought the discussion had come to its end after a week of silence. What I did was not that what I first thought what should be done, but something else much as possible using the ideas of others. The problem with a list of Scouting organisations with "Boy Scout(s)" in their name is where to stop. There are about 20 articles on Scouting organizations with "Boy Scout" in the name but almost all present scouting organizations have some form of "young male scout" in their name and/or have predecessors with some form of "young male scout" in their name. Besides that, almost all Scouting organizations have a "young male scout" section or at least (including their predecessors) have had such section. The way it is now done, the BSA, Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) and almost all "Boy scouts" organizations and sections are just two clicks away. --Egel _Reaction? 15:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

i

Tt2 Patio85500 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)