Talk:Scouting

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Former featured articleScouting is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 6, 2007.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 7, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
July 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
December 30, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
March 12, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
February 21, 2009Featured article reviewKept
May 27, 2023Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2004, July 29, 2005, and August 1, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article

wording/sourcing for statistic on Muslim scouts

[edit]

In reference to the final sentence of the History -> Influences section, which says "Worldwide, roughly one in three Scouts are Muslim." The source it gives for this says "it is said that worldwide, roughly one in three Scouts are Muslim", which does not seem to be intended as a factual claim; it does not reference any actual data. Since the scouting tradition is strongest in Anglophone countries with relatively low Muslim populations (e.g. Britain, North America, Australia), and were explicitly Christian historically, I think this is unlikely to be an accurate statistic. It might be better to revise this to say something like "A growing population of Scouts worldwide are Muslim" or "policies of scouting organizations have broadened to be more open to Muslim members" - these would preserve the intent of this sentence while being more factually accurate, and better reflecting what the article cited actually says.

The country in the world with the largest number of Scouts is Indonesia, a mostly Muslim country. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even close to the same claim as the one in the article though? 198.160.139.1 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

@Graywalls:, I reverted your edit. There are more than 100 sources. If you think some are bad, please tag those sources rather than slapping a template on the top of the page. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik:, why would you do a drive-by template removal when there are clearly a whole ton of unacceptable sources, such as http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/mafeking.htm to start with. The template serves the purpose of notifying others of such issues so others can help along in removal of unacceptable sources as well. By removing it, you removed the trouble flag. I see you have not corrected the issue either. Why? Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but a general tagging in a drive-by-shooting manner is not helpful and can't be adressed. Please explain in detail which sources are - in your eyes - unacceptable and why. The aforementioned website britishbattles.com has more than 100 usages in article namespace, so your point has to be more specific, since this website seems perfectly acceptable to some (I think numerous) editors. --jergen (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

Introduction should refer to Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and Scouts

[edit]

A gang of editors are insistently trying to expunge the terms Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The terms are still widely in use by many organizations and most readers would be familiar if not more familiar with the terms "Boy Scouts", "Girl Scouts" and the terms should therefore be prominent in the introduction of the article.

One editor asserted in their edit summary "Most Scouting organisations no longer differentiate between boy scouts and girl scouts. They are all just scouts." but this article is not those organization's private website to push their usages and views.

Another editor published misinformation in their edit summary claiming: "Not to mention that Girl Guides are also part of the Scouting movement also despite your attempts in the Girl Guides article discussion to claim otherwise" when it is very apparent from that discussion page, edits and mention and content on Girl Guides left untouched, including in this article, that Girl Guides are considered to be part of the Scout Movement. This gang of editors use every tactic, including misinformation, to push their POV.

Their aim appears to be to maintain a divide between Scout organizations (for boys and co-ed) and those girl-only Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, reflecting the established hegemony of the WOSM & WAGGGS divide and those organizations' positions.115.42.13.151 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of "those" editors. My aim is to reflect reality. "Co-ed" is an American term. Even in the US today it's just Scouting, not Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. The only divide is in the minds of those still resisting a change that has already happened. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above is very helpful. However, it does not seem to be clear to some people that the girls only section is called Girl Guides in some countries (e.g. UK) and Girl Scouts in other countries (e.g. USA). Bduke (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could be of value to mention where those girls only organisations fit in. Now that the US has changed, are there any boys only organisations left? HiLo48 (talk)`
In other countries? I think so though sometimes it is hidden because Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts have a national federation (e.g., Jordanian Association for Boy Scouts and Girl Guides) but the girls and boys are in single sex units. Also it seems Pakistan. Note I do have some difficulty getting current info. --Erp (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]



HiLo48, You claim "Even in the US today it's just Scouting, not Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts" but this ignores the Girl Scouts of the USA. I do not disagree that many scout organization have dropped reference to "boy" and don't distinguish as to "boy" scouts and "girl" scouts and use only the term scout but that is organizational policy, not common usage. You state your "aim is to reflect reality". The reality is that the terms boy scout and girl scout have not disappeared and remain not only in wide common use but in the names of many organizations.

Bduke, You claim that the "girls only section is called Girl Guides in some countries (e.g. UK)" but that is and always has been false, as:

  • there were Girl Scouts in the UK from at least 1908.
  • Girl Scouts are well recorded at the 1909 Crystal Palace Scout Rally (see Girlguiding and Girl Guides).
  • Girls Scouts continued in the British Girl Scouts, from at least 1910.
  • Not all Girl Scouts and local patrols and troops of Girl Scouts in the UK converted and joined Baden-Powell's Girl Guides Association, with some joining the British Girl Scouts and others continued independently.
  • Some BP Scout groups in the UK maintain separate patrols or troops of Girl Scouts.
  • Other scout organizations in the UK have separate girl-only scout sections, including some of the Scouts in Exile associations (see Scouting and Guiding in the United Kingdom).
  • There have been units of the Girl Scouts of the USA in the UK.

The Girl Guides Association in the UK is just one specific organization using scout training and the Scout Method while there are other organizations of Girl Scouts.

Bduke, Your time, many decades ago, in The Boy Scouts Association (UK) may have been a narrow, sheltered experience in which you were blithely ignorant of these other scout organizations in the UK or it may be that you're determinedly in denial and pushing a POV. Please stop. Linden would condemn you for holding to and pushing a belief rather than seeking knowledge.

115.42.13.151 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing specific in the OP and their subsequent posts. Just a bunch of confusing vague accusations against editors. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One note on terminology in the USA

  • The official term "Boy Scouts" (note capitalization) no longer exists in the USA. It previously had two different specific meanings:
  • The official name of the organization "Boy Scouts of America". This changed to "Scouting America" February 2025 and that prior organization name is now gone.
  • The official name for a (previously boys-only) flagship program of the (then-named) Boy Scouts of America (for roughly 11-16 year olds) This changed to "Scouts BSA" a few years ago when girls were allowed into that program. Some programs (including this one) are organized by single-sex units.
  • The official term "Girl Scouts" (note capitalization) does exist in the USA and is a girls' organization.
  • The descriptive phrases "girl scouts" and "boy scouts" (note lower case) are just descriptive phrases.
  • Scouts BSA specifically avoids using the term "girl scouts" to refer to any of it's members, presumably because doing so would get the Girl Scouts angry.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 suggests because one organization changed its formal or proper name (proper noun), that a term somehow "no longer exists" and is "gone" in the USA. A very organization-centric notion of the world! Good luck convincing the people of the land of the free that they can't choose their own usage of the terms and are to follow the dictates of one organization. The term "boy scout" remains very much in widespread common use in the USA, as elsewhere. The suggested capitalizations seem vague and are not consistent with widespread usage in dictionaries and encyclopaedias. What can be taken from North8000's contribution is that the term girl scout is very much in use in the USA (contrary to HiLo48's claim above), which suggests the term boy scout will also remain in common use.

@North8000, if you are going to make disparaging remarks such as "I see nothing specific in the OP and their subsequent posts. Just a bunch of confusing vague accusations against editors.", have the sense to not make specific responses, which make your claim quite apparently disingenuous.

115.42.13.151 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't (and still don't) know what your specific point or specific proposal is. My post was providing information in an area that is confusing to many and relevant to this discussion. There is nothing "disingenuous" about doing that. I'm sure that many people will continue to write the lower case descriptive term "boy scouts" in the USA. And any reference to the organization prior to Feb 2025 could also rightly be written as Boy Scouts (upper case). An some will erroneously write "Boy Scouts" to refer to the name of the current organization. Finally, to clarify explicitly what I thought was implicit, I meant that the them "Boy Scouts" (upper case) longer exists as the name of a current organization. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, Your claim that you don't know what my point or proposal is seems disingenuous when you specifically responded by addressing my point. My point and proposal is, as the discussion heading clearly indicated, as Erp had already identified below and your edits address, that the terms boy scout, girl scout and scout, should be in the lead paragraph.115.42.13.151 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my sloppy writing. Of course Girl Scouts exist in the USA. But Boy Scouts don't. On another tangent, can you please have a read of Wikipedia:Indentation and follow its advice. Indenting makes these conversations much easier to follow. HiLo48 (talk) HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The intro sentence before the IP's change was "Scouting or the Scout Movement, is a youth movement using the Scout method, which became popularly established in the first decade of the twentieth century." They wanted to change it to "Scouting or the Scout Movement, consisting of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or Scouts, is a youth movement using the Scout method, which became popularly established in the first decade of the twentieth century." Underlined is what was added) The issue is that if you add the terms "Boy Scouts" "Girl Scouts", or "Scouts" than you should also add "Girl Guides" even if you just want to cover the terms used among English speakers (and not counting, Cub Scouts, Brownies, Rangers, etc).
BTW it would really help the IP and the rest of us if the IP would create a proper account and use it. The IP could acquire privileges because of an established editing record; we wouldn't have to depend on guessing continuity when the IP changes. Erp (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Guides are already mentioned in the lead paragraph!

As Girl Guides are specific organizations and a subtype of girl scouts but with a distinct name, the mention of Girl Guides is, appropriately, separate and in a statement adding more detail than the leading sentences.115.42.13.151 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are Girl Guides a subgroup of Girl Scouts? Certainly not in my country. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Guides can be classified as a subtype of girl scout organization. They provide girls with scout training using the Scout Method. In this and other articles on scouts, Girl Guides are mentioned and in this and other articles on scouts and Girl Guides, Girl Guides are identified as scout organizations. The histories in those articles all indicate that Girl Guides developed out of the existence of girl scouts, making them a subtype. In the Talk Page discussions on Girl Guides, other editors, including some in this discussion, argue that Girl Guides are synonymous with Girl Scouts. If so, they are a subtype by name.

Bizarrely, the article on the Scout Movement currently mentions "Girl Guides" in the introduction lead paragraph but does not mention "boy scouts", "girl scouts" and "scouts"!115.42.13.151 (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Guides may have developed out of the existence of girl scouts in some places, but not in Australia. Where are you? HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another adamant Wikipedia editor who doesn't know their subject. @HiLo48, What of the Girl Peace Scouts in Australia that existed years before The Girl Guides Association established branches in Australia? Some patrols and troops of Girl Scouts in Australia subsequently registered as Girl Guides but some of the last recorded troops were in Rosalie in Brisbane, Queensland in the 1920s and Lindisfarne in east Hobart, Tasmania in 1935. See Scouting and Guiding in Australia#History, Scouting and Guiding in New South Wales, Scouting and Guiding in Victoria, Scouting and Guiding in Queensland and Scouting and Guiding in Tasmania, which refer, not only to (1) the existence of Girl Scouts in Australia years before The Girl Guides Association established branches in Australia but to (2) the existence of those Girl Scouts in Australia before the Girls Guides even existed anywhere in the world and to (3) some Girl Guide Association branches in Australia having grown out of the Girl Scouts! BOOM! Time for HiLo48 to leave the discussion!

And it's time for you to learn some manners and stop talking about other editors!!! That's not how we work here at Wikipedia. If you know so much about Girl Peace Scouts, how about improving that minuscule article which says none of the things you just claimed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"we ... here at Wikipedia" - So inclusive and nice of you to define it to include yourself but not others! Basic manners might include checking claims before posting them. Obviously, you did not read all the articles on Scouting and Guiding in Australia and its states. E.g. "Most of the remainders of the Girl Peace Scouts joined the Girl Guides in the 1920s", "Girl Peace Scouts ... were later joined by ... The Girl Guides Association", "In ... Australia, today's Girl Guides had their origins as Girl Peace Scouts", "Miss Marjorie Frances Grimes (1895–1956), of 'Tarragindi', south Brisbane, was instrumental in the formation of today's Girl Guides organisation. She became the honorary secretary on 15 November 1919 of the committee to establish the Girl Guide Movement in Brisbane.[17] Grimes was the leader of the Tarragindi Girl Scouts (formed circa 1915), which became one of the first registered companies to the new state organisation in 1920." BOOM! 115.42.13.151 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the article!!! Get a username and learn to indent!!!

The Girl Guides Association and Girl Guides articles clearly state that the founding of the first Girl Guides in the world was a response to the existence of Girl Scouts, therefore 'all Girl Guides developed from Girl Scouts. the founding of the first Girl Guides in the world was a response to the existence of Girl Scouts (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above is incorrect. The first Girl Guides were in the UK after some girls tried to join Scout Troops. As a result, B-P's wife started the Girl Guides. The term Girl Scouts has not been used in the UK. Bduke (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what have the British Girl Scouts been? What of the Girl Scouts in the UK mentioned in:

  • 1909 Crystal Palace Scout Rally - "Several hundred Girl Scouts also attended, including one group under their Patrol Leader Marguerite de Beaumont. They dressed in the Girl Scout uniform as given in the Scout handbook, called themselves Girl Scouts, were referred to as Girl Scouts by the media and others and several hundred girls were registered as Boy Scouts.[1] Girls had been part of the Scout Movement almost as soon as it began."
  • Girlguiding#History - " In 1909, a number of Girl Scouts attended the Boy Scout Rally in Crystal Palace Park[23]" and
  • Girl Guides - " girls joined with Boy Scouts or formed themselves into patrols of "Girl Scouts".[1] Many Girl Scouts registered with the Boy Scout headquarters. In 1909, there was a Boy Scout rally at Crystal Palace in London. Among the thousands of Scouts at the rally were several hundred Girl Scouts".

Brian, we've been over this same debate and material several times over many years, including above and just recently on the Girl Guides Talk page. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this - "The Girl Guides movement was founded in 1910. It was established by Robert Baden-Powell and his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, in response to girls wanting to participate in the Scouting movement, according to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts." Bduke (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Girl Guides ... was founded in 1910." - I agree.
  • "It was established by Robert Baden-Powell and his sister Agnes Baden-Powell" - I agree.
  • "It was established ... in response to girls wanting to participate in the Scouting movement" - 'I agree but you've chosen a specious interpretation when the statement is ambiguous as to whether "wanting to participate in the Scouting movement" meant they did or didn't participate and become scouts and silent as to whether or not some girls became Girl Scouts. So, this quote doesn't establish anything for this discussion. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User 115.42.13.151 should have said "that the founding of the first Girl Guides in the world was a response to the existence of Boy Scouts, not Girl Scouts. Bduke (talk)

No Brian, read the above. The Girl Guides were founded in response to the existence of "Girl Scouts". Baden-Powell's 1909 edition of Scouting for Boys includes details on "Girl Scouts" and a description and depiction of uniform for "Girl Scouts". There were Girl Scouts in Britain / the UK before Girl Guides existed. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are only partly right. The Girl Scouts you are mentioning were girls who tried to join Scout Troops and in some case they sort of succeeded, but it was never B-P's intention to have girls in Scout Troops. That is why he asked his wife to start what became Girl Guides. See: "The Girl Guides movement was founded in 1910. It was established by Robert Baden-Powell and his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, in response to girls wanting to participate in the Scouting movement according to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts." - Our history - World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. Bduke (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Brian, You're arguing against reality. Please read the above listed articles. What do you say of the British Girl Scouts? More denial?

If Robert Baden-Powell didn't want Girl Scouts, how come:

  1. his 1909 edition of Scouting for Boys includes details on "Girl Scouts" and a description and depiction of uniform for "Girl Scouts", and
  2. there are numerous mentions of "Girl Scouts" in 1908 and 1909 editions of The Scout magazine?

B-P's writing supported Girl Scouts but he changed his mind following conservative criticisms. However, there were already Girl Scouts.

As stated in the above listed articles, like the boys, early Girl Scouts formed their own patrols and troops, found their own leaders and some even registered with The Scout headquarters. They were every bit as much scouts as the Boy Scouts who did the same.

Brian, even more embarrassingly, you then claim Baden-Powell "asked his wife to start what became Girl Guides". Well, even you acknowledge that the Girl Guides were founded in 1910 but Baden-Powell didn't marry and have a wife until 1912! You're old and confused. Please think about why you're no longer employed as an academic and why you're in an aged care home. Please stop editing. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this - "The Girl Guides movement was founded in 1910. It was established by Robert Baden-Powell and his sister Agnes Baden-Powell, in response to girls wanting to participate in the Scouting movement according to the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts." The comments below are now not needed. Bduke (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC):-[reply]

Yes, I'm certain that's what's really being discussed here. Girls "joining" Scout troops when girls could not officially do so. They were Scouts in the eyes of most, but were girls, so Girl Scouts. HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groupthink? Confirmation bias?

Thank goodness HiLo48 is "certain". That is so reassuring, after their failed claims that there had not been Girl Scouts in Australia and denial that some of The Girl Guides Association branches in Australia derived from Girl Scouts (see discussion and links above). Even Tim Jeal's 1989 biography Baden-Powell and Henry Collis, Fred Hurll and Rex Hazlewood's 1961 B.-P'.s Scouts - an official history refer to Girl Scouts and them being registered. HiLo48 resorts to the qualification "officially" but, if The Boy Scouts Association was not formed until 1910, how were any scouts before then officially scouts in its, HiLo48's or BSduke's opinions? What made or still makes someone officially a scout?

@HiLo48, What do you say of the British Girl Scouts? More denial? 115.42.13.151 (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until you behave correctly as an editor, following WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and take other advice from more experienced editor over matters such as indenting and acquiring a Username, I see no point in further participation here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

A more experienced editor? How would HiLo48 know when they also criticize me for not having a username and being an IP? Yet another baseless assertion like HiLo48's failed claims about there not having been Girl Scouts in Australia and The Girl Guides Association branches in Australia not being derived from Girl Scouts (see discussion and links above). Given HiLo48's claim that there weren't Girl Scouts in the UK and weren't Girl Scouts in the UK before Girl Guides were founded, it seems like they want to evade responding to the direct question about the British Girl Scouts. They also seem to want to evade explaining their notion of what makes someone an official'" scout. I've gone to lengths to try to narrow debate by clearly acknowledging points on which I agree but other editors just serial argue in denial, never acknowledge when their assertions are shown to be wrong and resort to criticisms about indenting, not using a username, etc.115.42.13.151 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is going all over the place. Please state a specific proposed edit. North8000 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very instructive thread for interested yet-passive editors. Augmented Seventh🎱 18:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is and always has been clear, so clear you specifically responded to it (as previously discussed above). 115.42.13.151 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's clear to you what your specific proposal is, it be pretty easy to state it. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think their proposal is to have this article be about "Scouts" but not "Girl Guides" (except as an offshoot or alternative name) while the Girl Guides article should be about "Girl Guides" and not "Girl Scouts". See for instance the dispute template message they added on the latter article "The dispute is about the suggestion that Girl Scouts are Girl Guides and inclusion of content on Girl Scouts". Erp (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erp, You seem to deliberately misrepresent what I propose, after you had no difficulty properly identifying what I propose in your edit of 15 June 2025 (above), where you stated:

"The [IP] ... wanted to change [the intro sentence] to "Scouting or the Scout Movement, consisting of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts or Scouts, is a youth movement ..., which became popularly established in the first decade of the twentieth century."

That is all that is proposed, as you previously properly identified. But now, in your most recent edit (of 19 June 2025, immediately above), you make the very different and false claim that I propose that this article should not include Girl Guides. Read the discussion above and it is abundantly clear that I consider that Girl Guides are a type of scout, doing scout training and using the Scout Method and, being girls, they are a type of girl Scout but with a distinct name, and therefore Girl Guides belong in this article. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People might agree with you if you make a clear proposal rather than complaints. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is very simple and has been abundantly clear. Include the well-known terms Boy Scout, Girl Scout and Scout in the article lead sentence. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why not include the at least as well known term of "Guide"? I note also all the other terms used in other languages. Your proposal clutters the lead sentence unnecessarily. I'm also very aware of your proposal in the Girl Guides article which draws an artificial division between "Girl Guides" and "Girl Scouts" (note for instance 'Padvindsters' used by some organizations which has been translated as both Girl Guides and Girl Scouts). An explanation later in the article about names individuals are called could describe Scout, Guide, or similar names in other languages sometimes prefixed by girl, boy, cub, sea,.... Erp (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erp, this is an English language Wikipedia article, so "the other terms used in other languages" are not relevant. I accept your comment about the term Girl Guide but I again note that there is already a whole sentence about Girl Guides in the lead paragraph. You indicate that my proposal "clutters the lead sentence" but I previously put the edit in a subsequent sentence and even that was reverted. So, summing-up your comments, (1) include "Girl Guides" in what I propose and (2) don't add the terms in the lead sentence. Agreed.

The distinction between Girl Guides and Girl Scouts is very apparent. Girl Guides chose to be distinct by name, at least. Girl Guides are a type of female or girl Scout but not all Girl Scouts are Girl Guides or follow the program distinctions and/or use the same emblems as Girl Guides. Therefore, Girl Scouts can't all be grouped with Girl Guides as editors have done with the Girl Guides article. Trying to group them but distinguish or qualify the grouping only makes the nonsense more apparent and leads to more misinformation. Relate them under the Scout Movement and other Scout articles by referring to Girl Scouts and then referring to those called Girl Guides. Simple and logical.

As to Padvindsters, yet again, it quite obviously translates as Pathfinders, not 'scouts' or 'Guides'. More specifically, Padvindsters is the feminine form which translates as Girl Pathfinders. Just refer to pathfinders or boy or girl pathfinders without trying to contrive and extrapolate to other terms and acknowledge that "Pathfinder" organizations are part of the Scout Movement. Simple and logical.115.42.13.151 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

115, you've gone so deep and blatantly into edit warring that if anybody reports you you will certainly get blocked. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for listing some of the major types of scouts (including the ones you listed) in the lead. But for many reasons not in the lead sentence. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried something, What does everyone think? North8000 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, you state you're "all for" listing major scout terms "including the ones [I] listed" "in the lead ... but not in the lead sentence. Agreed.

The problem here is that similar terms are used in different ways in different countries. Initially in UK, the Scout movement was for boys only and the Guide movement was for girls only. Later, the Scout movement in UK admitted girls, but the Guide movement continued to be girls only, so there were Girls Scouts and Girl Guides. The USA called the movement for boys, Boy Scouts, as other countries did but called the movement for girls, Girl Scouts, not Girl Guides. This is just looking at two countries! Bduke (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Brian, you're getting it all fuddled again! You're confusing the Scout Movement and The Scout Association. The Scout Movement, in its early years was a hugely popular movement (not an organization) and was in the public domain for existing youth organizations and anyone to take-up, including girls who became Girl Scouts. Baden-Powell even made amendments to his 1909 edition of Scouting for boys to refer to girl scouts and set out a suggested uniform for them and wrote articles in The Scout magazine referring to Girl Scouts. It was only when Baden-Powell formed The Boy Scouts Association in 1910, (a distinct organization of the Scout Movement, that he excluded girls and he then set up The Girl Guides Association for girls. However, Girl Scouts already existed and other UK Scout organizations continued with Girl Scouts, e.g. British Girl Scouts and other Girl Scouts patrols and troops continued independently. You're also wrong about the USA, where Juliette Low's organization was initially called the Girl Guides of America but soon merged with earlier and numerically larger Girl Scouts organizations and changed its name. 115.42.13.151 (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to include common examples on names. I think that 115's change after my edit made it problematic by being too narrow / specific, but I didn't find it severe enough to outright revert. North8000 (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did as they were cluttering the lead again. I did some other editing to emphasize the early existence of Cubs and Rovers and added the also early (and female aimed) Brownies and Rangers plus Sea Scouts (very early). Emphasizing early explains why we use these examples and leads into the expansion later in the article. We might want to double check whether I have the right names. Erp (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erp, You change your argument, endlessly. Above, you only complained that adding the terms "clutters the lead sentence". Now you complain of the terms in the lead at all. Yet, you don't complain about inclusion of just the term "Girl Guides" and the whole sentence about the Girl Guides in the lead paragraph. Your dates for the starts of Brownies and Rangers were just vague. Rovers was only ever offered by relatively few organizations and now even fewer, indicating it was an add-on, not an essential. The (then named) Boy Scouts of America eschewed Cubs or similar programs for decades as did and still do other organizations, indicating Cubs are an add-on, not an essential. The terms Rovers, Brownies, Rangers and similar are not widely known. Brownies and Rangers are still Girl Guides and included in and covered by the term Girl Guides. Of the terms Sea Scouts, Air Scouts, cyclist Scouts, equestrian Scouts, etc Sea Scouts are the most numerous and, consequently, only the term Sea Scouts has any wider recognition (other than by obvious descriptive suggestions). They are just Scouts with a particular activity emphasis and covered by the terms Scouts, and the body of the article goes on to mention them, some with links to other articles. Who would write an article about the Scout Movement and not mention the terms Scouts, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in the lead paragraph?

North8000, your edit completely reneged on what you stated above, that you were "all for" listing major scout terms "including the ones [I] listed in the lead ... but not in the lead sentence." So much for a Scout being honest and that a Scout's word can be trusted!

The rule for Wikipedia edits should be whether they are factual and can be supported by reliable sources and are appropriately qualified (e.g. "one source claims ...", "it has been claimed ...", "disputed claims suggest ..."). Where an edit is factual (as is that I propose), is widely supported by sources (as is my proposal, which is merely to bring into the lead paragraph the three best known terms associated with the Scout Movement, which are used extensively in the body of the article and others and well referenced there) and do not need any qualification, the edit should not be opposed, just because it is not what you want for some other reason. Just because North8000's renamed "Scouting America" no longer uses the term "Boy Scout" doesn't mean the term Boy Scouts has disappeared from common use. Just because Erp's Girl Scouts organization and Wiki group hold to the particular view of WAGGGS that Girl Scouts and Girl Guides are necessarily grouped, doesn't mean you can ignore all other Girl Scouts. You make-up excuses, such as it cluttering the lead sentence, then shift to opposing it in the lead paragraph but give no real valid reasons for opposing it. Take a few steps back and look at the reality of your own edits.115.42.8.109 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

115....has done more general discussion and criticizing other editors than specific proposals. They did make a specific proposal in their 10:38, 19 June 2025 post which was "Include the well-known terms Boy Scout, Girl Scout and Scout in the article lead sentence.". This is actually two proposals, I think a description in context is:
  1. Include the well-known terms Boy Scout, Girl Scout and Scout in a prominent place in the lead. This has now been done and it seems to be stably staying in.
  2. Do so in the first sentence of the lead. There has been no support for this other than the proposer, and also opposition to it.
115....has also put in some more strongly worded ideas into the lead which were reverted.
If there is a still open dispute about the accuracy of something, it now needs to be clearly stated. Otherwise the tag that says that should be removed. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more specious argument. The dispute has always been about the validity of the article without a lead paragraph clearly stating that the Scout Movement is composed of Scouts, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. What is your opposition to including the three best known terms related to the Scout Movement and from which it derives its name, in the lead paragraph? Who would write an article about the Scout Movement and not include the terms Scout, Boy Scout and Girl Scout prominently in the lead paragraph? 115.42.8.109 (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the IP is unhappy still. I reworded their latest edit and made some other changes. Didn't change the template wording even though it is mischaracterizing what other editors think. Erp (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erp, You boast about your edit but it is vague and mostly unintelligible. You refer to "the main program" but how does a movement (not an organization) have a program? You refer to "those who are older" but older than what? What does your sentence, "The actual names or even existence depend on organization and time period." even mean and what is its relevance when the subject of the article is the movement, not some organizations?

  • Even your edit indicates that Cubs or other programs for young children only "sometimes exist" "within an organization" and the "existence depend on organization". Doesn't that mean that Cubs or other programs for younger children are just an optional add-on and not essential?
  • Even your edit indicates that Rovers or other programs for those too old to be Scouts "can also exist" and the "existence depend on organization". Doesn't that mean that Rovers and other programs for young adults are just an optional add-on and not essential?

Your edit fudged around these very apparent and inescapable facts. To offer-up edits, you need to use critical reasoning and logic to analyse issues, not just push vague notions (POV) with which you've been inculcated, indoctrinated and imbued. 115.42.8.109 (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should comment on this doozy of a sentence as well. Erp wrote this: "In many countries, girl only organizations, whose members are often called Guides instead of Scouts, use a trefoil insignia instead of the fleur-de-lis." There is so much wrong with the expression. The subject of the sentence is 'girl only organizations' when it should have been Girl Guides. Nothing in the sentence limits 'girl-only organizations' to Scouts and Guides. The core of the sentence states "girl only organizations ... use a trefoil insignia instead of the fleur-de-lis" but that is not true as only some Girl Guides and Girl Scouts organizations use a trefoil insignia. Even with the qualification, "In many countries" the statement is still not accurate. The side clause suggests "members are often called Guides instead of Scouts" but, again, that is inaccurate and poorly expressed as it suggests people often, but not always, call them Guides when they are actually Scouts, when what is actually meant is that some of the girl-only organizations are Girl Guides organizations. A long-standing sentence (not mine) was corrupted into this rubbish. Try short, simple, direct statements, e.g. 'Girl Guides and some Girl Scouts organizations use a trefoil insignia.' 115.42.8.109 (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove dispute tag?

[edit]

There is no specific legitimate dispute expressed. 115 is saying that the dispute is that they can't have what they want in the first sentence of the article, a position that is not supported by anybody but them, and generally opposed by everybody but them. IMO their behavior here has been egregious and disruptive and the only reason why they have not already been blocked is that nobody has yet reported them. We already put the terms that they want into the lead, in the proper context and they removed them. They have egregiously edit warred to improperly put their side of of their argument and complaints about other editors and edits into the text of the template. Including reverting changes which changed the template towards more neutral working. I'm going to try again to change the template to that more neutral state. But let's decide overall.....should the template be removed? My position is yes. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, You and Erp have avoided responding to comments and even direct questions in the discussion on this Talk page. You have no answers but determinedly push your own positions. Some of the claims and edits, especially those denying the existence of Girl Scouts before the Girl Guides Association, are contrary to statements in the article and other articles on Scouts. I note your notions that you and Erp represent "we" and "everybody" and that, in the space of a few hours and sometimes only minutes, edits are "generally opposed". There is an on-going discussion on this Talk page but you talk of reporting and blocking while you, Erp and HiLo48 avoid responding directly to questions put to you. HiLo48 left the discussion after their claims were repeatedly shown to be wrong, having refused to respond to questions and the evidence. You and Erp refuse to engage with and discuss the issues in the face of evidence. Your edits indicate your high-handed opinion that you can add your own dispute template and state what that dispute is about but others cannot. I suggest that the dispute template I added clearly and accurately identifies that dispute. You suggested making the 'about' statement in the dispute template more neutral and I altered the wording, including to refer to "edits" rather than "editors". The quote in the 'about' statement in the dispute template is precisely quoted and encapsulates the point of view (POV) of some editor(s) and clearly reveals the organizational position they push. Readers deserve to be informed of such positions. That is the purpose of the dispute about template. Repeatedly removing the template and/or the statement of what the dispute is about is in breach of Wikipedia guidelines and seeks to mislead and misinform readers. 115.42.8.109 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than responding to the questions above and engaging on this Talk page, Erp again removed a dispute template (in violation of Wikipedia guidelines) and posted this edit summary:
"We don't need two dispute templates for the same dispute; chose the more neutrally worded one."
The second dispute template was placed by North8000 who also removed the first dispute template (also in violation of Wikipedia guidelines). Erp assumed and claimed they were "two templates for the same dispute", yet they identify different issues, are worded entirely differently and were placed by different editors. If Erp had a problem with two dispute templates, why didn't they approach the editor who placed the second template and ask them to remove it, rather than presuming to "chose" one to remove? It is quite apparent these two editors act in close accord and manipulate circumstances and even provoke to try and entrap to report and complain about other editors.

115.42.8.109 (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the link in the part of the Disputed template that states "See the relevant discussion on the talk page" is suppose to go to the section of the talk page that is for that dispute. The section title is assumed to be the same as the description of the dispute unless an optional parameter is put in (this is one reason that description should be short and neutral). None of the disputed templates put in since the first have had a working link. I've now added the optional parameter to the more neutrally worded dispute to point to the section the IP created at the start. Erp (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

115, your posts are impossible to respond to because they are an incoherent mess with nothing specific in them, as is all of the disruptive stuff that you have done to the article. IMO it looks like eternal arguing for the sake of arguing and disrupting for the sake of disrupting. In the template you are complaining about something somebody said which is not even in the article. The termplate alleges that there is a factual inaccuracy in the article, not there something that you don't like on the talk page or in the article. If you allege that there is a factual inaccuracy in the article, please say specifically what it allegedly is. Not just vague criticism of editors. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other tags in the lead

[edit]

The lead is to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. The details and specifics are to be in the body of the article. The tags asking for expansions and specifics in the lead are not appropriate. North8000 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are not asking for expansion and specifics but challenge the validity, wording and appalling expression of the edits. Much of the tagged recent edit is based on assumptions and presume prior knowledge. Read the comments of 23 June 2025, above and respond directly to the questions and comments therein. 115.42.8.109 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]