Talk:Scout (Scouting)

Template:Maintained

DAB war

The edit war over:

Some troops are co-educational, for those troops this article is about the girls too.

For girl troops and boy scouts in co-educational troops see: Girl Guide and Girl Scout.

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

I have two suggestions:

1. Combine the two articles into a single article called Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations, or perhaps, Members of Scouting organizations, although I think it is very much better to be quite clear here. The article could then deal with all the variations around the world in an NPOV fashion. The current titles could then be used for articles about the 11 - 15 or 11 to 18 or whatever, Scout or Guide section. That is if we decide to not remove all the international articles on sections, as Ed has suggested.
2. If people do not like this suggestion and insist on two articles, then the wording of the disambiguation has to be completely different and I am not sure that is possible. It needs to be along the lines of "This article is about the members of Scouting organizations affiliated to WOSM or following related programs independently. For members of Scouting or Guiding organizations affiliated to WAGGGS or following related programs independently, see Girl Guide and Girl Scout". In Girl Guide and Girl Scout it needs to be essentially the reverse. This would also allow the articles to avoid being "boy-" and "girl-centric" and deal with the coeducational situations fairly. However, the respective use of "boy" and "girl" in the two articles would still be a problem. --Bduke (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another symptom caused by the fact that the various national organizations are structured too differently to make this easy and to please every one. I'd like to know what Kingbird has to say about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We have Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding. It has a section on "generic" articles, then a very nice table for many national Scouting organizations. The table then breaks each NSO down into sections by age and links any articles thereof. From that list, the only NSOs to currently use "Boy Scout" are the Boy Scouts of Bahrain and the Boy Scouts of America.

The devil is in the details. Scouting does a good job of being universal without being overly specific or overly general. When we start trying to do this at the section level, I think it starts to break down. Compare Boy Scout to Scouting— both articles are covering the same ground and describing the same things. We have some history, age groups, activities, progression and uniforms in both. Boy Scout also tries to cover organization, but it appears very BSA-centric to me.

The better articles are those that show "Boy Scouting" or the equivalent within the structure of the NSO: Scouts (Australia), Scouting Ireland Scouts, Scout Section (UK) and Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America).

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well is anyone going to have the intestinal fortitude to flag the article for merge? Albatross2147 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

1. Do we want international articles on the various sections. If so, is this on the one on the Scout Section?
2. Do we want articles on "the boy", or "the girl" or "the member"? I am inclined to say we do not, but if we do I strongly maintain that Members of Scouting and Guiding organizations is the way to go. These days, any article on "the member" has to be gender neutral. What do others think about this specific point? --Bduke (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to merge any applicable bits of this article into Scouting. The unit affiliation material should be developed in NSO articles, as each is unique. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

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

I think everyone is aware that there are several inter-related discussions; each article should be discussed individually as well. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Only to a point, a grand scheme needs to be fleshed out rather than a piecemeal approach. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

1. this is the one on the Scout Section. Merged it with the Girl Guide/Girl Scout section article and make it unisex.

2. An (short or long) article is needed to connect the NSO specific core section articles and sections. An article that explains the different ways: horizontal or vertical patrols, one or two core sections , etc. so readers known what to look for in the the NSO specific core section articles or sections.

3. The article is not BSA-centric but somewhat unitair-centric. (unitair = one core section) I have tried the last month to make it less BSA-centric, but some of the wording is still from BSA sources.

--Egel _Reaction? 16:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding #2: The NSO sections are listed Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding by age. We can expand the first part of that article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why does this article on "Boy Scout" have a picture of both boy scouts and the female equivalent. Whereas the Girl Scout article just has Girls in it - either the Girl scout article has a generic picture (same as this) or the boy scout article gets an image of a boy scout, not both sexes.

Another thing - the "Girl Guides" article title is incorrect - because a Guide can either be a girl or a boy - so while we are talking about these gender related issues - the title of the "Girl Guides" page should just be titled "Guides" as it is supposed to be gender NPOV. --Gothgirlangel1981 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)