Talk:Scouting

wording about when Scouting started

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert c2227 (talk 03:21, 27 January 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interspersed comments on the above:

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

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

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

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

"With an international Membership of approximately 25 million, well over half a million in the UK alone, the Scout Movement is the world's largest voluntary organisation for boys and girls. Impressive figures - particularly when you consider that Scouting began with 20 boys and an experimental camp held during the first nine days of August 1907, at Brownsea Island, Dorset." [1]

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

Brownsea Island Camp

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

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

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

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

  PS: [2] mentions a number of local Scout camps in 1908, even before Humshaugh. Seems a little bit like Humshaugh was the first nationwide advertised camp. --jergen (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Improvement/rewrite or FAR needed

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

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

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

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

wording/sourcing for statistic on Muslim scouts

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)

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)

Sources

@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)

@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)

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)

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)