Talk:The Scout Association/Archive 3

Computing Skills

Although the programme for computing skills in scouts was reviewed with the 2003 changes, I definitely got IT badges before this period so I think it's wrong to say this is when they were introduced. Madeinsane (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the earlier introduction of IT badges? --Bduke (Discussion) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move

This move makes no sense— there is only one organization named The Scout Association. Branches of TSA operating in other countries are clearly titled as such. If this was such a problem, it should have been discussed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Several Scout Association pages exist, and all include the name of the country they relate to in the title. The move clarifies that this page relates to the UK, and not to an international or umbrella association. Obscurasky (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2009 (

By the nature of this move, you are stating that the formal title is "The Scout Association in the United Kingdom." IF it needs disambiguation, then it would be "The Scout Association (United Kingdom)", and there would then need to be a disambiguation page for The Scout Association since there is apparent confusion between the various associations.[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And please don't move this article again. If you were to move The Scout Association in the United Kingdom directly to The Scout Association (United Kingdom), then there will be a huge number of double redirects that will be bot repaired with the odd name. If the consensus is to move it, then it needs to get moved back to the original name, then moved to a new name. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Obscurasky is right in that there exist many "The Scout Association of XXX" and "The XXX Scout Association". I think it is not a bad idea to add a disambiguation line to this article pointing to The Scout Association (disambiguation). And in that article a list of all "The Scout Association of XXX" and "The XXX Scout Association". --Egel _Reaction? 16:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This should have been discussed first; you're right - and I was wrong. In the spirit of open debate then; after taking onboard Gadget850's comments, and for the reasons I've already given above, I suggest that The Scout Association (United Kingdom) be considered as a better name for this article. Obscurasky (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong views, but if it is going to me moved it should be to The Scout Association (United Kingdom). There will be a lotof redirects and other stuff to fix. I would help with this normally but I am on vacation the other side of the world to my home base. I will be back in October. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. The Scout Association is recognized around the world as the Brit one and it's the only one so named. Others have the country in the title. I don't see any real confusion here. This all comes down to how one determines "necessary" in the naming guide. Since it's been TSA on wiki for years with no problem and this not having come up before, I'm not seeing it as necessary. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Membership badge

Egel has added the statement that the membership badge was changed to the purple WOSM badge under APR. I'm pretty certain that this is wrong as the APR-era membership badge that I have on my camp blanket is a diamond-shaped one. APR also stated that the background colour would be different for each section (APR, Recommendation 259). I have therefore reverted his edit until this can be clarified. DiverScout (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it came in shortly after the APR, in the late 1960s, but that needs confirming. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that there was a WOSM directive that came out late 1969 which led to most countries adopting the "World Membership badge". I'm trying to find a difinitive link! DiverScout (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That the WOSM needed a "World Membership badge" was decided on the World Scout Committee meeting of 26-29 september 1962. The proposal was made by Jan Volkmaars. The adoption of a "World Membership badge" was done 1969 on the 22nd World Scout Conference in Finland. [2] [3] --Egel _Reaction? 15:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Not under APR, then! :) The World Membership badge was adopted by the UK Association in 1971. <url>http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/history/timeline.htm#1970</url> DiverScout (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Scoutlink

Does Scoutlink (The Scout Association) still exist? I have been all over http://www.scoutbase.org.uk and can't find anything. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Names of HQ Commissioners

In this article and many other UK Scouting articles, we have names of various commissioners without any source. This is unacceptable under our "living person" guidelines. I have flagged that list as "citation needed". If I or anyone else can not find a citation, I am going to delete the list. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

2 months and no sources have been added. I have removed the list. Such lists are not really encyclopedic and they are a potential "living person" problem. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Progressive Award Scheme

There has been a long discussion at Talk:Progressive Award Scheme#Rename regrading renaming this article as the title was not clear about its association with the Scout Association. It became clear that this article is not sourced to justify notability. Most of the material is already in the section articles of the Scout Association. The best solution is to merge part of this article to be a section in the Scout Association that covers some general history and points to the relevant sections in the Cub, Scout, Explorer, etc articles. Please discuss below:

• Support merge as above. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge also keeping in mind recent discussions about manpower.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge based on appearance of the page. Poindex (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• What do you mean by appearance? How does this address the concerns about notability that I raised in this nomination last December? It is time we decided this. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge as per nom. DiverScout (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge. For the "appearance" question, the added section need not necessarily be titled PAS as a proper noun. Perhaps "Award programmes" or the like. Go ahead, Bduke, you have consensus. Do the merge.--S. Rich (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed in Deember 2010, and now September 2011. Any decisions? DiverScout (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have been bold and merged the content into the article. Rafmarham (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wedding

http://scouts.org.uk/news/378/scouts-join-in-royal-wedding-celebrations

Progressive Award Scheme merge

I have been bold and merged the content from the progressive award scheme article into this article, as a section under the 'Sections' heading. I had to cut back on images though - no room otherwise. Rafmarham (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no details of the current award scheme. "Progressive" doesn't really fit the bill though. Alansplodge (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Inspiration from the Bantu People

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 to Talk:Scouting#Inspiration_from_the_Bantu_People, that is a better article for this. --Egel _Reaction? 16:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer leaders

Hi all. I think it would be worth mentioning somewhere in this article that all group scout leaders are volunteers. It might be obvious to those of us that are connected with the Scouts, but it isn't always obvious to others, such as parents or casual readers. I think one of the greatest triumphs of Scouting is that there are so many adults out there willing to give up their free time to make young people's lives better. This article should recognise that fact. Regards --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be, but in the interests of accuracy you'd not be able to say that all leaders are volunteers - as a few are paid staff (District Scouters). This could result in some complicated phrasing that dilutes the message somewhat. DiverScout (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know about the District folk. I don't think it'd be that hard to phrase it in an understandable way. The fact that most leaders are volunteers is a big aspect of the Scouting movement, and it would be more innaccurate to neglect this in the article. We don't have to make a big thing of it; a sentence or two would be fine. What about either: "All unit/group leaders work in a voluntary capacity", or (slightly clumsier I admit) "Apart from certain positions at District level, all leaders work as unpaid volunteers". The main trouble that I can forsee would be finding good citation. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The second one looks good to me. DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add it and tag it with . --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I put it under 'Organisation'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is very accurate. The Association employs some Regional Development Officers who sometimes work with volunteers to establish new sections. These are employed at a Regional or County level. Some Districts or more likely Counties employ an admin assistant (not a leader). Some activity centres employ a warden and seasonal activity staff. 2.100.14.73 (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not perfect, but it is better than saying that all leaders are volunteers when I could cite two groups local to me that are/were run by paid leadership. DiverScout (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know more. Could you name those groups please? 62.84.167.168 (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Aside from which groups they actually are, it's unlikely that anyone will be able to find suitable citation for this information. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Much more likely if we do know which groups they are. They should publish accounts, maybe job descriptions, etc. 62.84.167.168 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right in a sense, but I doubt if the majority of groups actually have their own website (or other form of publication). I know mine doesn't, even though it's easily the largest group in the area and some of our neighbouring districts don't even have a web prescence. However, if DiverScout can find evidence for his groups' paid leaders, then that would be brilliant. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I could name the groups and the leaders concerned, but won't as I know why paid staff are being employed and am not in the business of rocking boats for the sake of it. However, I am in the business of ensuring that Wikipedia does not contain incorrect data. Unless there is a substantiated third party statement backing the (incorrect) claim that all leaders are volunteers I will challenge any such edits under Wikipedia rules. If someone can find such a source, feel free to add it and I will happily ignore my knowledge on accuracy of the matter. DiverScout (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably it is easy to find at which organizational levels leaders are paid by the NSO. At least for people (all members?) who can read the financial report of the NSO . It's probably harder to find if there are leaders who are paid by something like a sponsoring organization. --Egel _Reaction? 09:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Diver Scout, do you think you could just name the district and county and then we may be able to establish through research where these leaders are. From the perpective of personal privacy, I understand absolutely that we should not be naming these individuals online, but the same cannot be said for the groups, because they are part of a publicly-registered charity. With regards to what Egel said, I'm not clear on just how involved the World Scout Organization are in the financial affairs of the Scout Association (my instinctive answer, not based on anything in particular, would be "not very", but then I could be wrong). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

For an instant example, I know of school-based groups where leadership is part of the contracted hours of members of staff. The other instances are/were within the SA, but I'm not naming names. As I said, find a reliable third-party reference to back the requested statement and I'll not worry about countering it even though it is not the full truth. DiverScout (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The SA are careful to ensure that the leadership appointments process does not constitute a contract of employment. (See the appointment process described in 'The Appointment Process' in POR - the SA rule book, it says they are volunteers). This is important because the SA want the right to dismiss leaders without having to go trough an industrial tribunal, and it avoids all other employment laws (see chapter 15 of POR). In that sense all SA leaders are legally defined as volunteers. It might be that an employer is willing to pay that person whilst they are acting as a Scout leader (like the staff at a private school). I believe there are some employers that allow their employees to spend a certain amount of paid time on charitable work, on that basis, many charities have paid 'volunteers' (unless the charity has an explicit rule which forbids this - which I think is unlikely).

We still haven't seen any evidence that the SA itself employs people specifically to act as leaders, I wouldn't have thought it cost effective (we know they do employ site wardens, seasonal activity staff, secretaries, admin assistants and development officers), but I guess that does not rule out the possibility. 62.84.167.168 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Only because I'm not posting it. More importantly we have yet to see a reliable third-party statement backing the requested statement, as required by Wikipedia policy. DiverScout (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely that can't be the only reason? Similarly, we don't have any reliable statement showing that leaders are employed at District level (or is that Group level, or National level - we don't really know without some information). I would suggest that the whole statement should be removed, pending more information. This link shows that the SA has around 100000 adult volunteers, which might be useful to add. Note that parents and other non-members who help with sections on an irregular basis are called 'Occasional Helpers'. I will leave it to a more experienced user to make these changes.

I am the same person as the anonymous poster above, but I thought it polite to create an account, so hello world! Sovykruji (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed Sovykruji, and welcome to Wikipedia. I love the name!

I think you raise an important point about the leaders at a District level which is why I originally tagged the sentence as needing citation, which is designed to encourage users to find a source, rather than just removing it willy-nilly. Although Wikipedia of course requires citation for pretty much anything (and rightly so, IMO), it is really common sense that most scout leaders be volunteers because the Association wouldn't be able to function as a charity otherwise. I would like to include the figures from the Telegraph article, as well as the content immediately afterwards that there are not enough leaders for the amount of interest in the movement among young people. What do other editors think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is obvious that most leaders are unpaid volunteers, I have known parents of Scouts who thought that either the leaders were getting a cut of the subscriptions, or that they were somehow paid by the government. If this concept of paid 'District Scouter' is going to be mentioned, then I would like to tie down what it means. To me it implies that the leader is paid by the District. (There is nothing to stop a District employing staff, if they have the funds, and it furthers the aims of the charity). DiverScout said that he knew of two groups with paid leaders, but it has transpired that in at least one of them, it was not the District, the Group or the SA employing them, so in that sense they were not 'District Scouters'. Sovykruji (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither are they unpaid volunteers, and in the other case the person is employed by the District. As I have said, though, my only concern is that if the falsehood that ALL leaders are volunteers is being added it must have a reliable third-party reference. DiverScout (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha haa! I've found it! Right under all our noses! The SA's own website says that "all our leaders are volunteers". Check it out. Also, this article says that there are 120,000 volunteers in the Association. I think I'll change the article straight away. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done it now, in the same place as before, under Organisation. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Erm, since when is that a third-party source? DiverScout (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you need a third party source for this. One from the Scout Association is fine. I newspaper article would be third-party but it could be completely wrong. TSA will not get it wrong, even if some leaders are funded in part. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bduke, Wikipedia does not normally insist on 3rd party sources for every little detail so why should this topic be an exception? The SA are the least likely organisation to get their figures wrong. Besides, we have a good reputable source to back up 'all leaders are volunteers', whereas we can only rely on DiverScout's word for his claim, since he has refused to provide any evidence. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can call my honour into question if you like. The SA markets itself well (including on Wikipedia), but the current wording seems better. Strange how the demand for third-party sources is repeatedly made for other articles, especially when a claim is contested, yet overlooked here. Still, as I said when I cancelled my edit, this is only Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's straighten two things out. Firstly, I am not calling your honour into question. In fact, I don't doubt for a minute that you're telling the truth about those groups, but the fact remains that you have been unwilling to back up your claim with any evidence. Secondly, I am not one of those editors who demands third-party sources. Any reputable source is good enough for me and I believe the Scout Association to be a reputable source. Maybe it's just because I'm a member of it, but I trust the Association to possess accurate information about their own ranks.

After spending fifteen minutes (which is admittedly not very long) trawling through Google for paid scout leaders this morning, I found no evidence of such people.

Please be assured that I bear you no ill will and if any reputable sources that support your position come to light, it will be my pleasure to change the information on this article. After all, we all want Wikipedia to be the great library of our time and part of that dream involves having the most accurate information we can get. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that I can find is that some groups have lower subscriptions if the family has helped at fundraising events or other activities agreed with the group Executive [4]. --Egel _Reaction? 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, but it only covers one group so probably isn't worth mentioning (unless you or someone else can find it going on in several other groups around the country). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this House of Commons select committee report admitedly written by the SA (see paragraph 8)? I don't doubt DiverScout's sincerity, but there must be an exceptional reason why a district would fund a leader in one of it's groups, because districts and groups are financially independent charities. I think there is more to it, and without the information it is proving impossible to check. Sovykruji (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well I think the two most relevant sentences in that document are "TSA is entirely volunteer-led with support from a small number of paid staff. As mentioned in paragraph 4 Scouting for young people relies entirely on unpaid volunteers in both front-line and support roles and is community-based." Perhaps our article should say that there are "a small number of unpaid staff" but we should stress that these people are not leaders as such. However, who exactly are these mysterious "staff" and what roles do they play? Thanks for finding this! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that for my nso (Scouting Nederland) that the paid staff mostly have administrative, financial or legal supporting roles . These people are employed by the national level but some have a workplace at a "lower level". In addition, sometimes people are hired, by the national level, for short-term projects because the work can not be divided on a group of volunteers, take more hours a week than you can ask of a volunteer, ask for specific knowledge and must be done within a limited time. These people are mostly part-time and paid less than market conform. Sometimes a paid employee is cheaper than a group of volunteers. Maybe the same with TSA? --Egel _Reaction? 11:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It may well be like that over here as well, but without any evidence, it's just pure speculation. I have remembered in the last few mins that some scouting outdoor centres employ people on a part-time basis to run the more complicated activities (like the climbing wall or a go-kart track). I can cite Ferny Crofts Scout Activity Centre in Hampshire as an example, even know someone who's done it as a paid job, but have not yet got any verifiable evidence in the form of a source. It should be remembered that these sorts of workers would not be considered 'scout leaders' as such. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people holding leadership warrants are paid to do so. I am thinking of the trainers at Gilwell, for example. Also there are, or perhaps used to be, Field Commissioners, who are paid. Some Scout Camps have paid Wardens. All of these people wear the Scout uniform and are in leadership positions. Nevertheless, we need a source to say that any leaders at Group level are paid. Otherwise we state that Group Scouters are not paid. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Including Kate Middleton in the article

Continuing in the vein of my last post (just above), it might be nice to have a brief sentence of the Duchess of Cambridge's intention to become a volunteer scout leader. Although it's hardly news anymore (I didn't hear about it at the time, though!), I think today of all days would be a good time to introduce the subject, only brought to my attention by the other discussion up there ^. I'll be bold and add it to the end of the history section. Hope everyone's enjoying the Jubileekend and the BBC's rather comical coverage of the flotilla pagenant.

I am not that bothered either way. Is it just a piece of trivia? Yes, I enjoyed the weekend, thanks.

Sovykruji (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's trivia! And if and when a Trivia section is introduced, I'll add it to that, but for now it's kind of relevant for the history of the movement. Apart fom anything, I hope that her decision to become a leader will inspire others to do so. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Scouts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Brownsea Island Camp boys

The Public School boys do not seem to have come entirely from Eton and Harrow. According to Colin Walker in his book "Brownsea: B-P's Acorn", 2 came from Eton, 2 from Harrow, 2 from Cheltenham and 1 from Wellington. Two others had not yet moved to a Public School and were presumably in Prep Schools. B-P's nephew also went to Eton later. The local boys appear to be all from Bournemouth and Poole. I do not know where Parkstone and Hamworthy come from. Where the boys come from is not referenced. Colin Walker is well researched but it is self-published. The article on the camp itself gives a better account of the background of the boys, but is still incomplete. -Bduke (Discussion) 21:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Parkstone and Hamworthy are both suburbs of Poole, so they might be the more specific locations of where the 'local boys' came from. Note the article also says some came from Bournemouth. Regarding Colin Walker's book, this can easily be a reference for the article, as long as you have its publication title and date, as well as its ISBN number. You may also wish to refer to the specific page(s) that the information is on. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Later I realised that Colin Walker's book is a reference for the article on the Brownsea Camp itself. Colin says the local lads came from Bournemouth and Poole. I'll add a reference tomorrow. -Bduke (Discussion) 09:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Scout Promise

I recent IP edit changes "Duty to God" to "Duty to my God". I have reverted it as this link - [5], does not support it. It is the promise in Australia, but if it has been changed in the UK, it needs a source. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed incorrect. "Duty to God" is right. A new alternative Promise for atheists has recently been announced but doesn't come into effect until January 2014. [6] Alansplodge (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead too long?

I wonder if the lead section of this article is overlong and too detailed? Would it be possible to have a single sentence about the Association's diversity and move the details in the last two paragraphs of the lead into the main body of the article, perhaps in a new "Diversity" section? Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. A lead's main purpose is to sum up the article and it should really cover all parts of the article so all parts of the movement are represented in the lead. The lead here is bout right, and to my mind is probably the length it should be for a developed article. As for the Diversity section, yes that seems like a good idea although if it was just going to be how they've opened up to all areas over time then it may clash with what is in the history section. Rafmarham (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks - I'll leave well alone. Comments noted about a Diversity section, I'll see if I can find enough relevant material. Alansplodge (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Membership

Oh dear, I think someone has got very confused about the nature of an association. Membership of the governing body and membership of an association are two different things. In this case the Executive and Council are the governing bodies, membership of these are defined in the governing document (the Royal Charter). Membership of the Association is defined by the rules of the Association which are published by the governing body (in this case the Policy, Organisation and Rules document [7]).

You do not necessarily have to be a member of the association to be a member of the governing body (and also the opposite case).

All youth members and leaders are members of the Scout Association, and are also members of the appropriate County, District and Group (which are distinct organisations and charities with their own governing bodies, etc), they all agree to abide by the rules laid out in POR (see above). I am sure many other organisations are similar.

I think I had better undo the mess.... Sovykruji (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sovykruji is the one who is very confused and should read the very royal charter upon which they attempt to base their argument and edit. The charter clearly states:

Lieutenant General Sir Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell [etc] and all other persons who are now or shall in accordance with the Rules of the Association hereby incorporated become members of the Council thereof shall be one body corporate and politic by the name of "The Boy Scouts Association"

Lets get that right, the "persons who are ... or ... become members of the Council shall be one body corporate by the name of "The Boy Scouts Association" ". Only the members of the Council are The Boy Scouts Association, now The Scout Association. The youths and leaders are not members of The Scout Association but are enrolled participants in a youth organization operated by the association. Children in a sports team, coaches and managers are not necessarily members of the club or association running the team. Pupils at a school or a school sports team are not members of the organization or government running the school.

The Scout Association's Policy, Organisation and Rules (POR) do not govern the Council/Association/corporation which operates under Bye Laws. POR merely sets out guidelines by which the association operates a youth organization. For decades editions of POR referred to membership of the "organization" or "Movement" and never the "Association". Scouts became members of the organization or Movement but not The Scout Association. Does Sovykruji seriously suggest Beavers at 6 years old, Cubs at 8 and even scouts at 10-11 "agree to abide by the rules laid out in POR". Wake up from the fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.162 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2014‎

This is nonsense. "According to this year’s census, which is carried out annually to identify trends and development areas in the Movement, UK Scout membership has grown by 100,000 in 10 years, increasing from 450,455 in 2004 to 550,457 in 2014."[8] See also POR Rule 3.54: "In order to meet the costs of Headquarters services to the Movement and the costs of organising and administering the Association, and to meet the Association's obligations to World Scouting, the Board of Trustees of the Association requires Members to pay a Headquarters Membership Subscription". So only those who are members of the Council have to pay a Membership Subscription? Obviously not. Please undo. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, "programmes" is the correct spelling, unless it's a computer program. Alansplodge (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The claim by the anonymous, IP-hopping, unsigning, editor that the membership is only a few hundred is frankly ludicrous. POR clearly includes youth members, leaders etc. as members of the Association, as do the census docs etc (I've filled enough of them out in my time). Frankly this looks to me to be nothing much more than vandalism. DuncanHill (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth Scout Associations

I don't think that adding Scout associations of Commonwealth nations (that were previously under the purview of the UK Scout Assn) to the "Relations with other organisations" section is a good idea. At present we have Canada and Hong Kong added by User:Fatpig73; if we were to take this to its logical conclusion, we would have entries for 53 separate associations without any real benefit. I suggest a "History" subsection added to the "The Scout Association overseas" section. Alansplodge (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I thought this the other day but was too busy to comment. It just needs a line that says that many Commonwealth Scout Associations were originally sections of the UK Scout Association. We do not need a section on each saying essentially the same thing. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now done, although I've added a little more detail and some references. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor, Special:Contributions/101.170.170.142, has added Citation needed tags to the history section, which I have removed. The passage that the user is querying is: "Upon the foundation of the World Scout Bureau in 1920, The Boy Scouts Association branches in the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, and South Africa were given the option to create their own national organizations , but chose instead to remain under IHQ control."

The reference given at the end of the following sentence applies to this statement, ie "Johnston p. 35", which can be read online by going to the previous reference to the same work and clicking on the link. The relevant text is; " Administratively, the Scouts took a big step in 1920, by holding its first ever International Scout Conference, with 33 countries represented. At this conference, the Boy Scouts International Bureau was established, with the role of regulating the national Scouting organizations. Interestingly, the Dominions were given the choice to create their own national organization under the World Bureau, or stay under IHQ control. 'In giving them this option,” B-P wrote, “we followed the precedent of the League of Nations on which the dominions are separately represented.'[55] The Dominions’ Scouts decided, however, to stay under the jurisdiction of IHQ.[56]"

Note 55 references the quote to a letter from B-P held in TSA Archive and Note 56 says: "Canadian Scouting remained under Imperial Headquarters until 1946, when it became its own independent national organization".[9]

I don't know I can reference this more directly. Should the user concerned have any other queries on this, perhaps they would leave a message on my talk page. Alansplodge (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Founding Date

The Royal Charter says "That the Boy Scouts are an unincorporated organization founded in the year 1908 by Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell K.C.B., K.C.V.O.". This source is an impeccable contemporary legal document. The organization became an association in 1910, and incorporated in 1912. This should be reflected in the article and title box.

Sovykruji (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Nobody had any alternative views, so I changed it. Sovykruji (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The royal charter is hardly an "impeccable" document. It contains a number of errors as do some of the supplemental and other royal charters. The charter was made in 1912 so it was not contemporary to 1908. Quite a lot of changes were made in various drafts by the Privy Council Office in 1910-11. Even by 1910, few of the petitioners or Baden-Powell's council, executive and headquarters staff had been involved at the beginning of scouting to have any knowledge of the founding. More specifically as to being "an impeccable legal document", the full sentence begins with "Whereas it has been represented ..." - hardly an assertion as to the factuality of the suggested founding date. Being merely a re-statement of what was represented by an interested party, the source has no more credibility than an unsupported claim made about the subject in an autobiography. The suggestion that "the Boy Scouts [were] an unincorporated organization" was wrong. The Boy Scouts were not a single organization but a Movement consisting of many organizations. The suggestion the Boy Scouts were founded in 1908 was also wrong and scouting now recognizes and celebrates 1907 as the founding. The suggestion that Baden-Powell's own scout organization was formed in 1908 was also wrong. If Baden-Powell formed an organization in 1908 what was it called and why was there no constitution, no officers and no commissioners? The royal charter is not an acceptable secondary source on the founding date for Wikipedia and is not supported by other researched sources.101.170.255.229 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a published document to support your assertions? Scouting (usually) recognises 1907 as the founding of the Scouting movement, but the Royal Charter states that 1908 was the founding of the unincorporated organization (which was being incorporated at that point), an unincorporated organization does not need a written constitution or officers or commissioners, you are confusing an organization with an association. I think you will find that Baden Powell himself was still very much involved from 1907 onwards. In any case, as you say, the Royal Charter was written by the Privy council. Are you saying they were all liars, or were more confused than you are about what an organization is, and more to the point, can you prove it? Which other researched sources are you referring to, please supply references? Sovykruji (talk) 12:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The royal charter does not state the founding date was 1908. The charter merely states "Whereas it has been represented to us - i. That the Boy Scouts are an unincorporated organization founded in the year 1908". A record of a mere representation is not a fact and much less an acceptable source by Wikipedia policies. The royal charter was not written by the Privy Council but the draft with the petition was heavily amended by it. How the errors in the petition and eventual royal charter came to be "represented" is unknown but Sovykruji goes much further to suggest anyone lied. Baden-Powell had lost much control as evidenced by his submitting to handing over to a committee and council. The committee and council very much wanted the Boy Scouts to be an organization within their control rather than a Movement. Sovykruji's attempts to distinguish an organization from an association are semantics. If the organization/association was founded in 1908 on what exact date and why didn't the charter state such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.162 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2014‎

Please supply sources to show that the Royal Charter contains errors. If no such reliable sources exist, then it's reliability stands. So until then, the founding date stands as 1908. Sovykruji (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Scout Association. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/hq/pri/sm-2001-02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Scout Association. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110925045738/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/CharitiesandPatronages/Search%20Charities%20and%20Patronages.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Search%20Charities%20and%20Patronages.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Scout Association. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20130512231646/http://www.ncvys.org.uk/index.php?page=392 to http://www.ncvys.org.uk/index.php?page=392

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

New graphic in infobox.

I'm not sure if the cartoon man in the infobox adds much to the article - scarves are never worn under the collar in the UK and he has his trousers tucked into his boots in a rather paramilitary style. If we ARE going to keep him, can somebody arrange for him to have navy blue trousers instead of white ones please? Alansplodge (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it was the first thing I noticed in the article. Not sure how representative it is to have the adult uniform depicted, surely the scout section uniform would be more representative? I have changed the trousers to a dark navy blue (hex code 000026) as an approximation of the uniform trouser colour, if someone can find a closer colour of knows if teh SA has an official uniform hex code colour please do change it - Dumelow (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I added a scout uniform image to the box also and switched the leader uniform to female for diversity. I got the scout uniform shirt colour from the brand guidelines but I may be wrong (I am colour blind!), please feel free to amend - Dumelow (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Well done Dumelow and thank you most kindly. Alansplodge (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Scouting and Communism

In January 2017, User:Slmills0 added a sentence to The Scout Association#1920 to 1967 as follows:

"In the early 1950s, a handful of Boy Scouts were dismissed or marginalized in their Scout Groups due to their involvement with the Young Communist League or related communist activities - the most high-profile case being that of Paul Garland from Bristol in 1954 which resulted in a media frenzy and debate in the House of Lords".

This is referenced to an article called Be Prepared: Communism and the Politics of Scouting in 1950s Britain which asserts in the viewable abstract that "An analysis of the politics of scouting in relation to Red Scouts questions not only the assertion that British McCarthyism was ‘silent’, but also brings young people firmly into focus as part of a more everyday politics of communism in British society". I can't read the whole article because it is behind a paywall, but it seems to me to fall foul of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Reading the Hansard transcript of the House of Lords debate (here, Lord Rowallan, the Chief Scout at that time, stated that Paul Garland, a Queen's Scout, was taken by the Young Communists to the World Federation of Democratic Youth Peace Rally in Berlin in 1952. On his return from the Peace Rally, having been taken on visits to a number of other Iron Curtain countries, this boy was appointed a member of the National Committee of the Young Communist League, and was appointed Secretary of the South-West of England Branch of the Young Communist League. "He had absented himself for over a year from all scout activities. Suddenly he appears again in uniform — for which he was no longer eligible, being over age for that particular branch of the movement — at a Group pantomime which, by a curious coincidence, was Little Red Riding Hood. He was followed, after a decent interval, by a number of journalists and a Press photographer" who recorded him being asked to leave. Unless Rowallan was perjuring himself before the House, this suggests to me that rather than "McCarthyism", this was just a publicity stunt.

I have added some balancing comments, but whether or not this minor incident is worthy of inclusion in such a brief overview of the Association's history, I don't know. Your comments are most welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting if there is more to it! Thanks for bringing this up!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've always wondered about Baden-Powell's communistic leanings, what with trying to eliminate class distinctions at that camp at Brownsea Island, etc. HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Logo-sacked-purple-jpg.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender

"From 1912 to 1967 the association's name was The Boy Scouts Association and until 1976 only boys were admitted to its programmes. In 1976, girls were allowed to join the Venture Scouts section for 16- to 20-year-olds.[12] This expanded to all the association's programme sections in 1991"

This is a tricky one. I know, because I was there, that this wasn't a 100% rule and girls were allowed to join before 1991. What I don't know is how widespread the practice was, and would like some references before updating the main article.

I believe the greatest number of girls in the Scout section came from having a male Scout Leader with daughters. When they were old enough, it would be very difficult to say no to them (or their friends), so this went on unofficially. I know of one situation where the CC was asked permission, and he said it was okay if the DC agreed. The DC said he'd be okay but you'd have to convince the CC. Done!

At the time the rules were scoured to see if girls were actually forbidden, and no such rule was found. The only reference was the Royal Charter, which said it was a youth organisation for boys. No one had made this an actual rule (deliberately or otherwise).

The rule changes in 1991 were simply an acceptance of reality, and adding provisions for safeguarding such as specifying that a section needed a female leader if was to admit girls. This safeguarding has been relaxed to an extent - the female support can be an adult helper.

Politically this whole business was difficult at the time, as the Girl Guides were not happy with their members defecting to the Scouts. This may be one reason why statistics to reference are hard to find, as it was kept unofficial for a long time. For all I know, this has been the case from the start although I've not found girls appearing in many old photographs. Where I have, they've been caption as the "Scoutmaster's Daughter". F J Leonhardt 13:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjleonhardt (talk • contribs)

I can't speak for England, but in the United States, there were "official unofficial [male] Boy Scouts" in areas that were poverty-stricken, particularly during the Great Depression. Since they didn't pay dues, they weren't "officially" eligible for ranks and in some cases entire troops didn't "officially exist" but otherwise they did the things Scouts did, to the best of their economic ability (e.g. they might not have been able to afford uniforms, etc.). I know this because sometime in my adult life a big-city newspaper I read at the time covered a historical case, because there was an effort to have the troop and its members recognized "officially" decades later. I don't remember if that effort went anywhere. Unfortunately, {{cn}} applies and I don't even remember which newspaper I saw it in.

I don't think girls were involved though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 17:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I never saw a girl wearing Scout uniform before the official moves towards co-educational Scouting. There were some pilot schemes before the official start date - a private school in Greater London North East threatened to close their Scout Group unless they were allowed to admit girls - but this was only a few months before the rule changes. I think that in a very brief overview such as we provide here, there isn't really space to include an unofficial bending of the rules. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Merge Squirrel Scouts article

The article on Squirrel Scouts should be merged into the Scout Association. The content repeats parts of the article on the Scout Association and is entirely related to the Scout Association. The subject is a part of the Scout Association and not a separate organization.115.42.13.142 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Squirrel Association, which was a trial for Squirrel Scouts should also be merged into the Scout Association, or if the above merge is not approved, it should be merged into Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association).--Bduke (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, the section has received a great deal of courage in various news media independent of the subject, some of the more technical aspect's of the organisation structure are covered by enternal sources but that's fairly normal and about giving a more complete understanding of the subject to the reader. That's before you consider that these kind of subsections of youth organisations generally receive their own articles.--Llewee (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC) (copied over from old discussion with some wording tweaks)

OK, I will go with keeping one article, as you say sections have their own articles, but I still think the trial, Northern Ireland Squirrel Association, should be merged into Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association). --Bduke (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - All Spin & Hype The program is only three months old yet this article, from the day of the program's launch, presented the program as if notable. The program has not existed less still proven itself over any significant time. All the figures on participation are unaudited claims from internal sources. The early article content was clearly all straight from publicity material advertising the program and some of the referenced media sources even refer to and quote such. Nearly all the external sources are media reports referring to the program launch press releases and dated the day of the publicity launch, 9 September 2021. The article was created and content entered by just a few editors, again on the day of the launch on 9 September 2021. What a joke. The program was only just being launched and it was supposedly already notable enough for an article. Just a few editors have determinedly tried to maintain the original content and reverted any changes. Statements from media reports (based on press releases and promotional material) quoting nameless nobody claimed Squirrel leaders supposedly making statements about what the program will be and what was ""reportedly" done is journalist speak but such is presented in this article as noteworthy fact. The same few editors repeatedly revert edits to restore such nonsense. Much of the detail wouldn't pass the "Who cares?" test of being of interest to anyone other than those already absorbed in the arcane club rituals that deter many. The Squirrels program plays on the name 'Scouts' for notoriety as it has no reputation of its own. The article title makes it very apparent that the program is obscure and not of notability. No one enters the complex title "Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association)" looking for the program. Entry of "Squirrel Scouts" leads to a disambiguation page of numerous linked articles with one link being to this article but the redirect could just as well and more logically link to the appropriate section on the Scout Association article. There is nothing noteworthy about this program sufficient to warrant a separate article to its operator, The Scout Association.115.42.13.142 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)115.42.13.142 (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Adding this to the taget artilce would simply clutter up the destination. Leave it as it is. Also, I am not sure who 115.42.4.155 is, but they just went and tagged four articles for a merge. I'm not clear on the motivation here. --evrik ^(talk) 23:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - there's enough coverage and content for a separate article. Criticism of the bluster of the launch can be included in the article itself, if such criticism has been documented by RS.Bogger (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - the Squirrels article is long and detailed enough to stand on its own. I grant you, it needs some cleaning up, but moving it is not going to fix anything. The biggest thing it will do is make the article on the scouts organization more complex and less organized, and the organization itself and the article on it are complex enough that it needs a bunch of subpages for adequate coverage anyway. Tyrekecorrea (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge Sea Scouts (The Scout Association) article

This articles is about a program of The Scout Association with little content that is not repeated either in the article on The Scout Association or the article on Sea Scouts and no reason to justify a separate article. Merging the content would make the other articles more interesting, especially that on The Scout Association which is almost devoid of anything interesting about actual programs for young people.

• Oppose - Adding this to the taget artilce would simply clutter up the destination. Leave it as it is. Also, I am not sure who 115.42.4.155 is, but they just went and tagged four articles for a merge. I'm not clear on the motivation here. --evrik ^(talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge Air Scouts (The Scout Association) article

This articles is about a program of The Scout Association with little content that is not repeated either in the article on The Scout Association or the article on Air Scouts and no reason to justify a separate article. Merging the content would make the other articles more interesting, especially that on The Scout Association which is almost devoid of anything interesting about actual programs for young people.

• Oppose - Adding this to the taget artilce would simply clutter up the destination. Leave it as it is. Also, I am not sure who 115.42.4.155 is, but they just went and tagged four articles for a merge. I'm not clear on the motivation here. --evrik ^(talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Closing all extant proposals, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

Young leaders?

esyls are an important part of scouting may be good to mention them 92.232.195.61 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned in the "Core sections" subsection, with a wikilink to the Young Leaders (The Scout Association) page. Not sure that we need much more than that. Alansplodge (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)