Talk:Baden-Powell Scouts' Association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Many thanks to the president and the members of the organisation for helping with this article

Cubs[edit]

Is that actually Wold cubs as shown in the article? Or should it be World cubs? 80.225.41.253 22:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is a Canadian Apologist who apears to be editing the US content. Each time a new entry is made, it appears the person does not understand the WIFS constitution which specially states WIFS does endorse any single national scouting body nor does it issue national charters as this would be taking the role of WOSM where only one form of scouting is recognised as the offical.

I think this is meant to say 'Wolf Cubs'. mspice2215 82.34.55.108 20:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

person[edit]

The new edits really need to be written as they instead of we. --Chris 04:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I left a message earlier for him on his talk page. I see you have done some of them. --Bduke 05:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia[edit]

Was the introduction of baseball hats in Australia or the UK. That para had quite a bit that was UK not Australia and I have removed it. Is the movement in the UK affiliated to WFIS? In which case the movement in Australia is affiliated via the UK Branch. I've added a call for citations on both points. --Bduke 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit asked for by BPSA[edit]

Just recieved an answer fom BPSA and they asked me to make some changes. I'll include part of their statement, but I was asked not to give out the name, (e-mail) address and/or telephone numbers.

I hope you will look after the BPSA sites on Wikipedia for us. I have enclosed some information on Ireland and some information on BPSA UK (a message from the President of the Baden Powell Scouts). For the Baden Powell Scouts UK site – can you please remove details to the overseas branches – (United States, Canada and Austrailia) as a lot of this information is inaccurate and I have our international Commissioner working on writing up some information for you on this section. Currently two new websites are being made under my guidance to be unveiled in September. There has been a lot of work placed into them – the two sites will be www.traditionalscouting.ie for Ireland www.traditionalscouting.co.uk for UK Here is some information on BPSA Ireland & BPSA UK which I hope you will find answers all the questions, but if you have any further queries do contact me. Ireland History and details The Baden Powell Scouts Association of Ireland is Ireland's only Traditional Scout Association. We are not connected to any political or military organisation. We are an independent Scout Association, and are proud members of the World Federation of Independent Scouts. This is a World body that recognises Independent Scouts Associations in countries across the globe that teach Traditional Baden Powell Scouting values. Scouting is a system of education. According to our founder, The aim of Scouting is to improve the standard of our future citizens with the object of using that effiency for service for their fellow men. Traditional Scouting refers to the original principles set down in 'Scouting for Boys' written by Lord Robert Baden Powell, Chief Scout of the World. 'Tradition' is defined as 'knowledge transmitted from generation to generation' - In Scouting, once a Scout is invested Baden Powell believed they would continue to live to the 10 Scout Laws. These laws are kept by Scouts from the age of 10 to Adult Leaders who must renew their promise on regular occassions. The Baden Powell Scouts Association of Ireland hold the ideals of Scouting that were created by our founder. The history of our association dates back to the foundations of Scouting in the UK in 1908. Our Association used the same badge system, ranks and uniform that were worn by Scouts nearly 100 years ago. We follow a charter set down in our Policy Association Rules. We have no paid Executive Staff or Leaders. Troops in our Association believe that the original Scouting programme practised in BPSA Ireland is more exciting, fun, challenging and personally demanding. The traditonal programme also develops a sense of duty, personal discipline and honour. Some dont see these matters as important but we do! Our Scouts enjoy the traditional Scouting skills, lighting fire by friction, navigating by means other than a compass and backwoods cooking, like shown above. The World Organisation of Scout Movement only accept one member association per country and as such we are affiliated to the world wide family known as The World Federation of Independent Scouts. We are affiliated with many other Traditional Scout Association's around the world and proud members of the WFIS. BP Scouts of Ireland is not in competition with any other Scouting Association. We do not make claims to be superior, and we do not seek to influence the policies of any of the other Scout Associations. We have a policy of goodwill and co-operation with any Scouting organisation of like minded intent. (4th Scout Law). We are proud as an Association to be upholding Lord Baden-Powell's ideals, and his original programs, proving that his planning and foresight still holds true into the future. The Baden Powell Scouts of Ireland still hold to many of the early traditions of Scouting. The boys also still have great pride in their traditional uniform. We believe in Scouting as our founder envisaged, and it was from these ideals that a group of leaders, and Scouts came to form the BP Scouts of Ireland, having previously been known as the Independent Scout Organisation called The Christian Boy Scouts of Ireland. We invite all to discover the exciting programmes for youth recorded by our founder. While our association has tried to keep the values of 'Scouting for Boys' - our association has followed laws with regards to child protection. We have a chartered child protection policy for all our association and a child protection officer. BADEN POWELL SCOUTS UNITED KINGDOM – MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT Hello and welcome to the official website of the Baden Powell Scouts. The Baden Powell Scouts Association is an independent Scout Association with membership in the World Federation of Independent Scouts. The history of the Baden Powell Scouts Association dates back to the foundations of Scouting in 1907. In 2007 we will celebrate 100 years of Traditional Scouting. Over 60 years ago my army pal was so daft on scouting he roped me into the Cubs. I had no idea what I was letting myself in for and had no ideas of Cubs or Scouts. I have been involved in the Baden Powell Scouts since 1970. Without admitting my age I could be classed as the oldest active member in the association but as Baden Powell said “Scouting is a game with a purpose”. I have no decision to give up the game I love. I may be greying but I haven’t lost my hair or the love in teaching youth the values of Scouting. My fondest days of being involved in BP Scouting have been my 50th year when I took my Scout Troop the 1st Yorkshire BP Scouts to Canada for a month. The Patrol Leader's of the troop were so good the following year I took them on a Tour of the USA and later to South Africa. On the 27th May 2007 I shall have completed 60 years as a Warranted Scouter having started by forming a Cub and Scout Group in 1947 in Wuppertal Germany with all German boys! I have yet to decide what I shall do for the 60th year as a Scouter! But I know it will be something to remember as will 2007 the 100th year of Traditional Scouting. We have kept to our values in educating the youth of the values of Scouting that our founder Baden Powell envisaged. Traditional is not old fashioned, Traditional Scouting is quality Scouting. Though I’m still an active Scout I know the future of Scouting and Baden Powell Scouting is in the Leaders of today and the Scouts who we teach who I hope will become the Leaders of tomorrow. Thanks for visiting the site. If you are considering joining Scouts I hope this is your first step into the wonderful game, and I hope to hear from you soon. Lawrie Dring, President of the Baden Powell Scouts Association I am the IT officer for the Baden Powell Scouts. Could you explain to me - hopefully more broken down about Wikipedia. I understand its an online encyclopedia that visitors can edit? I notice for both BPSA - UK and Baden Powell Scouts of Ireland, the details are very sketchy and I don't know who gave Wikipedia permission for the Baden Powell Scouts Association. I would like to take control of the Baden Powell Scouts of Ireland and maintain that it is accurate. By agreeing to a contract are we in control of the information?

Jorgenpfhartogs 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


another edit[edit]

Just added some more edits that will not offend any of the organisations. the BPSA and BPSA Ireland are both members of WFIS – In fact Lawrie Dring the president of BPSA is one of the founding fathers of the WFIS in Laubach Germany.As for the overseas branches I will get information to you hopefully by the end of the week.Just a couple of things on the BPSA site on Wikipedia:The organisation shares the heritage of the youth Scouting Movement, but was formed in the United Kingdom in 1970 when it was felt that the "modernisation" of the Scout Movement was abandoning the traditions and intentions established by Lord Baden-Powell in 1907. The Baden-Powell Scouts retain the belief that essence of the movement should be based on outdoor activities related to the skills of explorers, backwoodsmen and frontiersmen.Yes all this paragraph is true – but can we change this and just leave it as The organisation shares the heritage of the youth Scouting Movement, in the UK and next year will cellebrate 100 years of Scouting.We just think time and time again this remark of what is now deemed as history of 1970 brings up politics in Scouting in the present.I understand the sites must be neutral but I think those adjustments are fair comment. At times Jorgen we have been described as a “splinter group of SA” or in Ireland we are a “splinter group of SI” – which is clearly not the case. Were simply an independent traditional scouting movement that is moving forward and looking forward to what to do for the next 100 years!Despite the name, BPSA was never sanctioned by Baden-Powell himself. In fact, while he was alive, he always objected to national associations using his name in their denomination (he only allowed one exception to this rule), and strongly opposed any similar association not linked to his own (see his relationship with Sir Francis Vane).Yes it was never sanctioned by BP himself as he wasn’t alive =P but the association did get permission to use his name from a familly member who strongly supported the Baden Powell Scouts. I shall get yoou further information on this also (I have the details I just want to make sure they are correct!) But in the 70’s the name was approved by a family member.

Jorgenpfhartogs 08:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

message from the BPSA president[edit]

BADEN POWELL SCOUTS UNITED KINGDOM – MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT

Hello and welcome to the official website of the Baden Powell Scouts. The Baden Powell Scouts Association is an independent Scout Association with membership in the World Federation of Independent Scouts.

The history of the Baden Powell Scouts Association dates back to the foundations of Scouting in 1907. In 2007 we will celebrate 100 years of Traditional Scouting.

Over 60 years ago my army pal was so daft on scouting he roped me into the Cubs. I had no idea what I was letting myself in for and had no ideas of Cubs or Scouts.

I have been involved in the Baden Powell Scouts since 1970. Without admitting my age I could be classed as the oldest active member in the association but as Baden Powell said “Scouting is a game with a purpose”. I have no decision to give up the game I love. I may be greying but I haven’t lost my hair or the love in teaching youth the values of Scouting.

My fondest days of being involved in BP Scouting have been my 50th year when I took my Scout Troop the 1st Yorkshire BP Scouts to Canada for a month. The Patrol Leader's of the troop were so good the following year I took them on a Tour of the USA and later to South Africa.

On the 27th May 2007 I shall have completed 60 years as a Warranted Scouter having started by forming a Cub and Scout Group in 1947 in Wuppertal Germany with all German boys!

I have yet to decide what I shall do for the 60th year as a Scouter! But I know it will be something to remember as will 2007 the 100th year of Traditional Scouting.

We have kept to our values in educating the youth of the values of Scouting that our founder Baden Powell envisaged. Traditional is not old fashioned, Traditional Scouting is quality Scouting.

Though I’m still an active Scout I know the future of Scouting and Baden Powell Scouting is in the Leaders of today and the Scouts who we teach who I hope will become the Leaders of tomorrow.

Thanks for visiting the site. If you are considering joining Scouts I hope this is your first step into the wonderful game, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Lawrie Dring,

President of the Baden Powell Scouts Association

Jorgenpfhartogs 08:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question by BPSA[edit]

I've also been asked by the BPSA to forward further questions to them. I can give out the e-mail address for the IT-officer which is rachel@badenpowellscoutsireland.com. He (not a she) is IT officer and main point for communication for BPSA UK and Ireland. Jorgenpfhartogs 08:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an advertising forum for outside organizations. While I think an outside organization providing input is okay to a point and I think some of these changes actually made are fine, I think others are too POV and look like advertising. I'd also suggest stop forwarding questions to them unless there is a real need for clarification. It sounds to me like they're trying to control wikipedia's content.Rlevse 11:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of Ireland[edit]

Unless the Ireland article can be made into high-end B-class article or above and have a good share of content different from the BPS article, I'd merge these.Rlevse 12:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree now. It seems like BPSA is almost exclusively actie in UK, Ireland, US, Canada and Australia with BPSA UK and Ireland more or less being the same I suggest one article for BPSA with subsections for UK, Ireland, US, Canada and Australia.

Jorgenpfhartogs 12:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal[edit]

You have the portal tag in two places, it should only be in one. Per the portal template policy, it should be in see also, but if you really want it at the top, I personally don't care. Rlevse 20:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it and will leave it in See also. I'll add Canada and US later. The article on BPSA Ireland can be deleted since all info is alreay here. Can you tell me how to mark it for deletion?

Jorgenpfhartogs 20:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

put this at the top of the main article page (but use no spaces except in the reason as if I do that here, it'll mark this page for deletion): { db | reason for deletion }
or, use #REDIRECT [[Baden-Powell Scouts]], as I did there. Chris 21:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chris and Rlevse, thank you both for your help. I hope the article is up to standard now.

Please let me know if you want something edited. Canada, Argentina and US will added soon. Jorgenpfhartogs 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[2]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[3]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [4]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Rlevse 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Rlevse 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)ran this in hopes it helps out, Rlevse 12:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote
  4. ^ See footnote

Sanction[edit]

Which independent sources do we have to support the claim that at least one family member of B.-P. encouraged them to use their family name? --Lou Crazy 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd also like to know a name/date. Banaticus 06:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll remove that claim if there is no source support for it, then --Lou Crazy 02:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me. Rlevse 09:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the statement reappeared... --Lou Crazy (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Membership[edit]

i see that BPSA seem very keen to push themselves and help, have they been forthcoming with membership figures? I haven't seen any in the article... Stevecull 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activity in Australia[edit]

The Australia BPSA web page has the national organiser down as the contact for Western Australia, Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. It does not therefore look as if they are active in all those States and Territories so the statement in the article that they are needs a proper source. Also the contact for the ACT is the same as that for New South Wales, so activity in the ACT and NSW needs sourcing also. --Bduke 23:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

This article has the category Scouting in the United States, however, the United States is not mentioned in the article. --Jagz 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly stuff to add. See the mention of "1st Tarrant Group, Fort Worth" in Scout Promise. However, I think someone in Fort Worth needs to check it is is still active. --Bduke 22:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

No mention is made of past controversy involving the BPSA which nearly brought about it's demise during the 1990's and certainly ruined the reputation of the organisation when a number of leaders were jailed for paeodpohile activities, what made this more extraordinary was the number of leaders versus the number of BPSA Scout groups at the time which made it seem as if the whole organisation was riddled with this type of individual. I looked at this organisation very closely as an alternative to my current membership of the 'official' Scout Association as an Assistant Cub Scout Leader and stumbled across this information by accident when my search engine threw up a past newpaper report, I withdrew any interest in the organisation because of it. Perhaps mention should be made with reassurances that the issue has been dealt with properly?

Mspice2215 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because we don't know the facts of the issue. If you do, and can source it, please add it.Rlevse 21:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The broad problem is mentioned here and I think the main problem is covered here. I believe that the Group was the 22nd Waltham Forest B-P Scout Group. --Bduke 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Bduke may have provided the answer and reference sources required, I certainly recognise the first of the two articles, as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia I wouldn't know how to update the main article, perhaps someone with more experience would oblige? Mspice2215 82.34.55.108 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)82.34.55.108 19:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we do not have a reference that talks about the impact of these events on the BP Scouts in the UK. I do recall something along those lines, but I searched hard and could not find it. I think we need such a source before anything is added to the article. It is the "nearly brought about it's demise during the 1990's and certainly ruined the reputation of the organisation" that needs sourcing. --Bduke 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I have found on the the Internet archive: www.badenpowellscouts.org.uk/about/faq.htm#safe www.webpages.free-online.co.uk/abuse/bpsa.htm .--Egel Reaction? 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have a comment from a current member of this organisation on this very serious point. Mspice2215

82.34.55.108 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the gains within this World organisation [World Federation of Independat Scouts (WFIS)], a series of scandals involving sexual offences against young people tarnished the reputation of the Baden-Powell Scouts Association in England with the jailing of a number of leaders in 1987, and 1999 for paedophile offences. This caused a severe decline in Troop numbers to circa 40 Troops in 2001. Although such as the main Association in England, has not entirely been free from such events, the very scale of those involved in comparison to the small UK membership is a cause of concern."

Above uplifted from the Scout History Association website (www.netpages.freeonline.co.uk/sha/isa.htm). This may back up my earlier comments about ruining the reputation of the organisation etc. mspice2215 82.34.55.108 (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of adding a short paragraph to the main article concerning the above, if anyone feels that it should not be there then please feel free to remove it.

Also it may be nice to have some idea of how many BPSA groups are active in the UK. Mspice2215 (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an issue to do with a small number of individuals in the UK placed at the top of the article and not in the section relating to the UK? Also, accepting the fact that this bit of history might be of interest, why is there not a similar section noting criminals who have previously infiltrated The Scout Association, schools and other youth organisations? I'd hate to imagine that the spirit of Wikipedia is being abused by people with an agenda, but am starting to wonder... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.18.124 (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that this incident of a small number of individuals had an large impact on what is a very small organisation. It is near the top because of its impact on the BPSA generally as it was founded in the UK. I think it is written in a careful enough way and well sourced. If you do not agree, discuss improvements here. To be NPOV we can not just delete controversy that makes the organisation look bad. --Bduke (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for a deletion, just a bit of impartiality in the editing of the content. This issue took place in the UK, and, as this page now caters for all international sections of the B-PSA, it should be in the UK section. My edit, not a deletion, placed it in the appropriate section, under a sub-heading which, if anything, helped it stand out. My only deletion was the comment comparing the B-PSA child protection policy to the "Yellow Card" which is, in my opinion, a pointless comparison. I'm sure it's like many other organisation's child protection policies, so why is this comment required? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.18.124 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. I wish there were other editors prepared to comment. It is my impression, but I do not have a source for it, that these incidents in the UK, were noted here in Australia and perhaps elsewhere, and as a result influenced membership here. I think the comment should say it was UK leaders, so I'll add that. Please sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Also why not register for an account here? --Bduke (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's better - but I still think that this should be in the section on the UK. Although carefully written now, and pointing out in passing that other organisations have had problems equal to, or worse than, this, I cannot see that this belongs in the opening section on the Association any more than The Scout Association's opening section ought to record that the suspected-paedophile and mass-murderer Thomas Watt Hamilton was one of the criminals to have infiltrated their leadership in the past. Using the justification used by several people in this thread, unless there is evidence that this did cause international membership issues, the fact that it may have done should not be used to justify it being where it is! ;P 87.82.18.124 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Hamilton to the Scout Association would be giving undue weight to it. but the incidents we are talking about were highly significant in the BPSA in the country where it was founded. I still think it is is best where it is, but if you want to shift it, go ahead. That might at least bring in another editor to think about it. --Bduke (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have done so and will wait to see what happens. I would use the same argument that you mention about undue emphasis relating to having that paragraph about a 10 year old incident in the opening section of this article, especially now that it is for the whole global B-PSA rather than just the UK section and, as you say, the event was "significant in the BPSA in the country where it was founded". 87.82.18.124 (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of this particular thread I should perhaps explain that my intention was to draw attention to this issue which 'yes' happened well over 10 years ago but stood out in view of the fact that although the numbers of leaders involved at the time was no greater than the numbers in the 'offical' Scout Association in the UK, when you take into consideration the number of active groups at the time versus the number of leaders involved, it seemed that the organisation had been well and truly infiltrated by this type of individual. This also severely reduced the number of BPSA groups in the UK and sadly it doesn't seem that they have ever recovered from this. Therefore I felt that it's significance is of huge importance to the BPSA and I don't feel it should be ignored or glossed over.

I am a member of the Scout Association in the UK and through disillusionment with what I have seen as a fall in standards, a general 'dumbing' down of the movement and erosion of traditions I began to explore alternatives and looked at the BPSA very closely, I only stumbled upon this information by accident and at the time I withdrew my interest. I agree with previous comments about where it should feature in the article and have no problems with this.

I'm not anti the BPSA in any way and retain an open mind, I feel sure that they have got on top of the problem and ensure that new and current leaders are thoroughly vetted. We have no comment from a representative of the BPSA, it would be good to see something from them which could be added to the article.

Keep on smilin' mspice2215 82.34.55.108 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, mspice2215. I'm a former TSA leader, now with the B-PSA having made the jump for many of the reasons you have stated, plus other issues relating to TSA child protection. I will not list the issues on here, though, in the spirit of the 4th Law! :)

I'm happy that you are not anti-B-PSA, and agree that mention of the issue should be retained as it was pretty key at the time. I'm sure that the majority of people on here are the same as you, but sadly a few other TSA / WOSM contributors appear to be, shall I say, a bit more partisan in their attitudes?

Obviously I cannot speak for the whole B-PSA any more than a TSA Scouter can talk for the whole TSA, but I'm happy to do research and add detail where needed as a Wikipedian. I can certainly assure you that the problems experienced by the B-PSA seem to have been dealt with as effectively as possible. Sadly nobody can ever be certain that those types of people won't find some way in - as TSA, B-PSA, schools and most youth organisations have discovered.

Yours In Scouting, DiverScout 21:30, 19 May 2008


You're quite right, these people will always find a way in some how but the main thing is that the correct steps are taken to try and discourage them, I'm not saying that current measures are fool proof but they go along way toward alleviating the problem. mspice221582.34.55.108 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Now it is a lot easier, of course, but it still happens even with the protection and support now available. The issues in the B-PSA happened before CRB checks were available - in fact they partly led to the launch the of CRB under the 1997 Police Act. Back then it was almost impossible for small organisations to check against people's records in the UK, and TSA had refused to share the child protection information that they had.

As you say, hopefully things have moved on since then... DiverScout 22:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit[edit]

I have made a small edit to the main article to say that the BPSA is not a historical re-creation society, I feel that it is important to make that distinction.

Also the bit at the beginning where it says that the association was formed with the apporval of the Baden-Powell family I feel should state which members (I don't know myself). B.-P. himself never agreed that the Scout Movement (in whatever form it appears) should make use of his name in the title.

Finally - sorry to be picky - but I've re-worded the paragraph a little concerning the jailing of leaders in the 1990's, I didn't feel it quite got the message I intended across correctly in that because of the ratios of leaders vs the smaller number of groups the impression was that the whole organisation was riddled with that type of individual, I felt that the paragraph was saying that the organisation was riddled, I feel that should be made clear so as not to offend those decent leaders out there who were and still are doing a wonderful job.

Small points I know but I think this should be made clear.

Again if anyone disagrees or has better information than me please feel free to edit. Mspice2215 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted some of these changes before I read this. We are not about not offending people or giving impressions. All of these are against our neutral point of view policy. Even the current wording is iffy. We should just state the fact suppoorted by sources. I have just gone back and removed another sentence that is really POV also. The first sentence of that paragraph needs a source. --Bduke (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine - just state the facts and leave it at that - I don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia, I'll leave it to those who know better, I've also added a ref source for the first line but I don't know how to turn it into a link, as I said before if people aren't happy with what I've added then I've no issues with it being removed. Mspice2215 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)P[reply]

I have linked them as references, but the first one goes nowhere. Have I got it wrong? --Bduke (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried it myself with the same result - it should go to the Scout History Association where I lifted my quote detailed above in the 'controversy' section. If it doesn't work then remove it by all means. Mspice2215 (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I'm not a member of the BPSA before anyone gets the wrong impression of me :-) Mspice2215 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Another minor edit[edit]

I note that source number 5, used in the "Controversy" section, appears to be highly bias against Independent Scouting. It was last updated in 2002 and expires in January 2009. I suggest that this article is removed from the References section. External referencing is already provided through the Scout History Association page.

I also question whether the short paragraph stating "The Scouting movement has had many schisms since its inception and B-P was careful to state that he did not want to see lots of different organisations at the expense of Scouting in general." should be in the introductory paragraph for the Association. This comment would, I feel, be better on the Traditional Scouting page as it is a general comment and does not refer directly to the B-PSA. -- DiverScout (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source verify the content? If not, then find a new source. The dates are not an issue, the site may get renewed; if not, it is archived.[1] I do think you are right on the B-P paragraph- I don't see the context here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I will move the out-of-context B-P paragraph into Traditional Scouting. The web site is one of two sites being used to source the Controversy article, and it is the questionable nature of using a personal POV web page which worries me a bit, rather than the age of the page. The SHA page provides enough information, in an NPOV manner, to verify the content. -- DiverScout (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- I followed the wrong reference- no wonder I was confused. I agree- this is a blog-like page where it looks like the author is attempting to show various Scout groups in a certain light. As usual with these types of articles, there is no context with other groups. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Proper article name should be "Baden-Powell Scouts' Association" --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but this was the title I inherited! If anyone want to move it over it would be appreciated. -- DiverScout (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional Scout sections[edit]

"The Baden-Powell Movement in the UK retains the traditional Scout sections, to which Beavers were added in the 1990s."

Is "the traditional Scout sections" not without a separate senior-scout section? The traditional Scout sections are: Cubs, Scouts, Rovers. See Scouts unitaires de France. The Baden-Powell Movement in the UK don't retain the traditional Scout sections! --Egel Reaction? 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article section goes on to describe Senior Scouts and Rovers. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Senior Scouts existed since March 1917, before the name was changed to Rover Scouts in November 1919, and were then re-introduced as the link between Scouts and Rovers some time later. As both Senior and Rover Scouts are listed in the article, what is the basis of your comment? -- DiverScout (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In continental Europe mainstream Scouting was still in the transition from one core section (11 to 18 years) to two core sections (11-14 and 15-18) when the split in Scouting occurred. Traditional Scouting often chose the old way: Cubs, one core section (11 to 18 years) and Rovers. And in most continental Europe mainstream Scouting some kind of Rover Scouting survived much longer or still exists. So when the article says "the traditional Scout sections", someone from the UK thinks "with a Rover section" and someone from continental Europe thinks "one core section". The basis of my comment is that there is in this article a different definition of "the traditional Scout sections" than that you would expect from reading Age groups in Scouting and Guiding. --Egel Reaction? 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding on that. It's interesting to see how B-P's idea was adapted in different countries. I guess that the appropriate European pages might want to note that they don't operate the traditional sections set by B-P, but those which are traditional to their own country, then? -- DiverScout (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might be best to qualify the statement: "... retains the traditional Scout sections as developed in the UK by Baden-Powell." --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest possible year for the re-introduction of senior Scouts in the UK, I could find on Scouting Milestones was 1939. That is after the retirement of Baden-Powell (Jamboree of 1937). --Egel Reaction? 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Senior Scouts were introduced in the UK after WWII around 1946. This is supported by the fact that Senior Scout Patrol names were of people and some of those people were famous during the war. I was in Mitchell (R. J. Mitchell) patrol, after the inventor of the Spitfire. Yes, he did that before 1937, but I do not think it would have been seen as notable enough to name a patrol after him in 1939. I think there was also a Gibson patrol named after the Dambusters ace, but I could be remembering incorrectly here. I do not think the BPSA did adopt the traditional section structure. They adopted the pre-Advance Party structure. In the 1950s I recall a lot of resentment from Troop Scouters that Senior Scouting had removed the older boys who had been good patrol leaders before the war in the traditional structure with the 11 - 18 core section of the Scout Troop. --Bduke (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting Milestones also states that Senior Scouts continued to run parallel to Rover Scouts in several areas, certainly through the inter-war period. The implication is that the sections were very muddled during those times. Even allowing for the 1939 date as the start for Senior Scouts, and ignoring the earlier dates, that is basically 70% of the time that Scouting has existed. -- DiverScout (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Senior Scout Section is very much a part of traditional Scouting in the UK. When the split in Scouting occurred following the advance party report the sections that were in existence were: Wolf Cubs, Scouts, Senior Scouts and Rover Scouts and the BPSA simply continued in the same way with the addition of Beaver Scouts much later as you rightly point out. Interestingly the reorganisation of The Scout Association in the UK a few years ago virtually reintroduced the traditional sections as follows: Beavers, Cubs (Wolf Cubs), Scouts, Explorer Scouts (Senior Scouts) and Scout network (Rover Scouts) Mspice2215 (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "the traditional Scout sections" is a UK POV. And it is somewhat offensive to other traditional Scout organisations, who use an older set of Scout sections.
The official reintroduction of the Senior Scout Section in the UK was at least after the retirement and most likely after the death of B-P, what makes it not likely that he had a active part in that development. So please give a reliable source. --Egel Reaction? 09:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you find it offensive is, of course, also pov-so your comment is not really valid.I have changed it to UK traditional though to try to make you happier.Their is also now a link to a site showing what others have said about senior scouts to be true. 87.82.15.149 (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only set of "traditional Scout sections" in the UK with Senior Scouts developed by B-P in that ref is Cubs, Scouts, Senior Scouts an Old-Scouts (1916-1918) and the only set of "traditional Scout sections" in the UK with Rover Scouts developed by B-P in that ref is Cubs, Scouts and Rover Scouts (1918-1939?). So please give a ref that backups your statement, that B-P developed the "new" Senior Scouts. --Egel Reaction? 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this quote:-

"Baden-Powell first suggested the idea of Senior Scouts in 1917 to try and prevent the leakage of older boys from the Scout Movement and you could become a Senior Scout providing you were 15½ and had gained your First Class. However by 1917 you could not leave the Troop to become a Senior until you were 17 and by the end of 1918 the term Senior Scout was dropped and replaced by Rover Scout.
It was not until 1946 that Senior Scouts was again officially recognised as the Section between Scouts and Rover Scouts."

gives the correct summary of Senior Scouting. It is from the Irish B-PSA page. --Bduke (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, I have a couple of weeks of serious illness and it all kicks off! :) I think that Bduke has summed up the sections and their relation to B-P. I'll link to the B-PSA Ireland page as, although it says the same thing on the Scouting History page, I think that the B-PSA page makes it easier to find the appropriate information.
Also, thank you for reverting the vandalism. -- DiverScout (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BPSA listing at Age groups in Scouting and Guiding[edit]

BTW- The BPSA is not listed at Age groups in Scouting and Guiding. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is because WOSM only recognises one Scout Association in every country so to them The Scout Association is the only "official" Scout organisation in the UK thus keeping the divide going between TSA and BPSA - and so the controversy goes on... mspice 2215 82.34.55.108 (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have the (exact) ages you can just add the BPSA to Age groups in Scouting and Guiding. There are more non WOSM/WAGGGS Associations in that article. If you think it is to difficult, give the ages and I will do it. --Egel Reaction? 09:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age ranges for BPSA in the UK are:

Beavers 5 - 8 Wolf Cubs 7 1/2 - 11 Scouts 10 1/2 - 15 Senior Scouts 15 - 18 Rover Scouts 18+ (although the training programme is only for those aged 18 - 25 yrs)

BPSA is open to boys and girls.

I wouldn't know how to update the 'age groups in Scouting' - the reference source is the BPSA's own web-site. mspice2215 82.34.55.108 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I went ahead and did it myself. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another edit[edit]

I have moved the opening sentence of the history section (1907 -1969) "The Baden Powell Scout Association shares the heritage of the Scout Association..." into the intro section. It's a small point I know but it's important to remember that the BPSA between 1907 - 1969 was in fact the Scout Association, they only became the BPSA following the advance party report and the eventual split of the movement. The sentence implied that the BPSA was a separate movement which ran alongside the Scout Association during those years and this was not the case, they were the Scout Association! Hope no-one minds mspice2215 82.34.55.108 (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that is a sensible edit. -- DiverScout (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"That" issue again[edit]

I notice than a new editor has mistakenly removed the ex-"controversy" section which has been agreed to be merged into the history section. Before this kicks off again I'll put it back in.
Considering that the B-PSA is now growing internationally at quite a rate, and growing "domestically" as well, I'm feeling that this entry is becoming less and less notable - the same rationale for not listing the SA controversies becoming equally relevant. I do feel, however, that this needs to be discussed properly and in the right spirit before anything is done. DiverScout (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the originator of that particular thread I am starting to agree that perhaps this particular issue is becoming less important, at the time I raised it I felt it was worthy of note but there does not seem to have been any repeat instances since it all happened - if people want it removed then perhaps it should be. I'll leave it to Wikipedians who know and understand all of this better than me mspice2215 77.96.231.238 (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In repect of the falling numbers of groups during this period, which was what was considered to make this notable for Wikipedia, I have just noticed that this period of time is also shown as having had a marked decrease in numbers in The Scout Association[1], but that no mention of the controversy issue is made there in connection with this decrease. I propose that the reporting of this period in the B-PSA article ought, perhaps, to now follow the same line as the reporting of the decrease in numbers on the TSA article. DiverScout (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The growing crisis in the Scout movement". Scout History Association. Retrieved 2007-08-17.

Edits by User:Traditionalscouting[edit]

The recent edits need discussion here. The reference to Australia has been removed without explanation as have the references to to the 1st Tarrant Group in the US. Please explain your reasons here. --Bduke (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree— I don't see the justification for the removal of this content. I urge all editors to please include an edit summary for each edit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of groups active in the UK[edit]

How many B-PSA groups are actually active in the UK at present? Are they concentrated in a particular part of the country or are they spread out? When I made my enquiries about joining a few years ago I was told that they did not exist in my area (Essex) and if I wanted to be a Rover the nearest crew was in Reading! Their offical web-site talks a lot about Yorkshire but says little about the rest of the country. mspice2215 77.96.231.238 (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm replying as a leader (and a Rover), not as a representative! The total number is not readily available, as far as I know. Nothing sinister, it's just that the guys who run the B-PSA have had to put up with a fair amount of "nonsense" from elements in TSA, and they really don't see numbers as an important part of scouting! There are, iirc, over 40 groups spread around the UK. If there were a few of you wanting to be Rovers, you could always request to start your own Crew! In several countries WOSM leaders have done this, although in the UK the SA seems a lot less willing to accept this idea... DiverScout (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to get an idea as to how active the B-PSA is in the UK as an addition to add to the article rather than as a comparison to the SA - no it was only me who was interested in transferring to the B-PSA, it's something I may look into again in the future once I get my career change on track and a little more time on my hands! :-) Mspice2215 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! If you did, I'm sure that you'd be made very welcome. DiverScout (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media Officer Baden-Powell Scouts Association[edit]

New Edits as of 22.49 GMT on 25 August 2008 should not be altered. I am the Media Officer of the Baden-Powell Scouts Association and can be contacted via www.traditionalscouting.co.uk

The facts now on the site are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traditionalscouting (talk • contribs)

Please tell us why you made these edits? So far as I can tell should every traditional scouting organisation with the name "Baden-Powell Scouts" in this article, especially when they are members of the WFIS. --Egel Reaction? 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had some email correspondence with Traditionalscouting, and the gist of the reasons are that this is about the organisation registered in the UK. Baden-Powell Scouting in 6 other countries is affiliated directly with the UK organisation, not just through WFIS, and so are part of it. These are Ireland, Argentina, Malaysia, Germany, Denmark and Canada. Australia and the US are not. That is what he is asserting, but there is no source for it. In the case of the US, the B-P Scouts claim to be affiliated to the UK organisation and Ed gave me a link which I have just added to the article. However the US organisation does not include the 1st Tarrant. In the case of Australia, I think Traditionalscouting is correct and that the B-PSA there, while it exists, is not affiliated directly with the UK based organisation. Indeed I think there is some bad blood between them. We need sources for this. If it turns out that the the US B-P Scouts are only linked to the UK lot via WFIS and not directly, I think the material on Australia and the US should be moved to Traditional Scouting with a section on groups that call themselves Baden-Powell Scouts but are not part of the Baden-Powell Scouts Association, based in the UK. This article would then be just about that UK based organisation. His removal of the material about the 22nd Waltham Forest Baden-Powell Scout Group is because he says it gives undue weight to this incident, but I think largely because he does not like it. This section has just been removed by DiverScout as part of adding other information. The inclusion of that incident is clearly an issue and the B-PSA folks clearly do not like it. I'm inclined to think it is notable and sourced so should be included but not in a way that gives undue emphasis to the incident. --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, one month ago I proposed the deletion of this over a decade old incident - and the only comment was from the originator, who agreed that it was no longer notable. No other comments were forthcoming. Bringing it up again makes it seem that the WOSM people want it to stay for some reason, but are less keen on having it repeated on The Scout Association page connected with their loss of numbers at the same time period. If it is on one, it needs to be on both - otherwise neither - as those cited abuse incidents took place in both organisations and the negative publicity clearly affected both organisations, even though the larger size of TSA and their better legal and publicity teams, meant that by percentage there was less damage in TSA. I cannot think of any reason, other than the bad-blood that we all know exists between elements in our Associations, for it to remain on either. Let's not turn Wikipedia into a petty battleground for arguments that ought to have been dead and buried long ago, especially seeing as we're all Scouts! DiverScout (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. I do not belong to any Scout association and my association with the UK Scout Association was almost entirely before the B-PSA was formed as I resigned in 1971. I am not and have never been a member of Scouts Australia, although I was on a Group Committee for almost the whole of the 1990s. I am not pushing WOSM or I am not part of any bad blood you talk about. I am not "WOSM people" and I am quite prepared for the issues to be dealt with on SA articles. I just can not do everything.
I understand your points and those of Traditionalscouting, but I thought most editors here had agreed with changes in the wording to that section. You supported its retention in May and later called for a proper debate which I do not think really happened. I am not going to reinsert it, but I do think it could be included under wikipedia policies. It strikes me as being significantly more notable than all the other cases I have seen. Notability does not decline with time. If it did not affect membership, and that can be sourced, then that point can be excluded. The membership decline is not the only claim to notability.
What do you think to the other parts of my post, which were about 2/3 of it? Should this article include material on people who call themselves Baden-Powell Scouts but are not affiliated to the UK B-P Scout Association? How do we know (i.e. from what sources) who is affiliated? --Bduke (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, Brian - I've unintentionally made you think I'm having a go at you personally! Discussions on the net are a right pain, as no matter how you try to type messages the intonation is always missing. I apologise to you for annoying you and will try to explain what I was meaning to say!
Ok, mate, I accept that, but since I am the only non-B-PSA, non-BSA editor with a known connection to the UK working on this article (I think), I really did think you were accusing me of being in the war on the pro-TSA, pro-WOSM side. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is, as everyone knows, bad blood between the two sides. It's a family argument, and they're always the worst. Look at some of the comments made in the discussion threads and you quickly see this. I may be a WFIS/BPSA man, but on here I'm trying to be just a Wikipedian. I edit plenty of other stuff and have added a lot of stuff on TSA articles.
As I am and do, of course. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted that amendment at the time, but have since spent a lot more time investigating the matter. At least 10 years of that abuse went on undetected in TSA. TSA refused to share child protection information with the BPSA, and at that time the CRB check did not exist making suitability checks almost impossible.
There are some real issues here and let me try to be clear about them. "TSA refused to share child protection information with the BPSA" should be discussed somewhere as it is clearly important and notable. Is it, however, sourced? We can not accuse the SA of refusing to prevent child abuse without a very good reliable source. "at that time the CRB check did not exist" and the point that you made that the Waltham Cross incident, at least partly, lead to the introduction of the CRB checks needs to be mentioned. That does give some notability to the Waltham Cross incident. Please do not read anything more into this than I actually wrote. These matters need to be in wikipedia, but I am not saying where. I do not know. We need to discuss that. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is that this case is no longer notable, if it ever really was, as a feature of the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association. If we really need to flag this up, then perhaps someone needs to create a page on "Controversies in Scouting" similar to that unpleasant one someone created debating BP's sexuality, but this new page would have to tell the whole sorry tale, not just imply that it was solely a BPSA issue as the original entry did.
People keep saying that notability does not decay with time. Once notable, always notable. I am not sure, but we do not drop favourable things in the history because they are 40 years old or more. These "Controversies in Scouting" pages are always difficult and mostly a time-consuming mess. I would prefer to not go down that road. I would prefer it to be in other articles. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the debate is tricky. I'd say that ideally each independent Association ought to have its own entry, but that would go against the almost constant merges proposed for traditional scouting groups. It is very hard to know, as when their web sites say that they are affiliated Wiki policy means that you really have to believe them unless there is internet evidence to the contrary. I was trying to keep out of that one, as I am not sure about the best way forward. DiverScout (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My own position in general is clear and hardening. My experience writing the new region articles based on non-Scouting geographical areas and covering all Scout associations is hardening my view. I think we have far too many articles on different associations in countries when a general article of "Scouting in XXX" would be better. We added general articles with this name after I mediated a dispute about whether non-English names of associations should be translated. That was long ago. They are generally disambiguation pages if not officially so. I would have liked that name to cover everything in at least some countries. However I have to say that this view is not shared by many others. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "constant merges proposed for traditional scouting groups" should and does apply to other smaller Groups. In part it comes from the lack of sources and in part from the lack of notability. As I mentioned elsewhere the link about US B-P Scouting is all smoke and mirrors. They have one Rover Crew and some lone Rovers as far as I can see from reading the web pages. That does not make a notable association. Everyone is reluctant to give membership figures. In all the hundreds of links I have looked at doing the regional articles, I have found it difficult to get accurate encyclopedic information about structure and numbers. It is all about recruiting and selling the product of Scouting. I think we need to be more strict on reliable sources and delete stuff that really has none. --Bduke (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-PSA in the U.S.[edit]

http://www.bpscouting.org/about.htm According to this site, B-P Scouting in the U.S. is "affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of England." They show several U.S. groups, but do not include 1st Tarrant in Texas. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tarrant have their own web site, indicating that they are part of the BPSA, but not mentioning the BPS. DiverScout (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the Media Officer of the B-PSA says no group in the USA is affiliated. I do know the Tarrant Group have a link to the Australian B-PSA folk, but I do not know whether it is formalised. This kind of stuff is just difficult to verify. Also that web site has not, I think, been updated for a long time. Does it still reflect what they are? Do they still exist? I heard they did exist last year, but how do we really know? --Bduke (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spent some time trying to dig out stuff for the USA - and only ended up finding a third independent Group claiming BPSA affiliation! I think I'm leaving this section well-alone! DiverScout (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1st Tarrant is registered as a Texas corporation— I will have to find that link again. Looking at WFIS North America,[2] they list "BPS – Baden-Powell Scouting" with a link to http://www.bpscouting.org/. This implies that BPS in the US is not under B-PSA UK, and looking at that page, they use a different logo with "B.-P. Scouting". This is confusing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even more so when that web site states, "B.-P. Scouting is totally independent of, and not affiliated with, either The Boy Scouts of America or the Girls Scouts of the USA. We are members of the World Federation of Independent Scouts and as such are not in competition with other American Scouting Associations, we are only their brothers. We are affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of England." DiverScout (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been trying to find out more about the Baden-Powell Scouts. Although they are WFIS, they are NOT part of the B-PSA. Hopefully their website will be clearer soon. DiverScout (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the BPS in the Scouting in the United States article as they are not BPSA, and that seemed to be the consensus from the discussion below. DiverScout (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-PSA in other countries[edit]

There has been discussion on the B-PSA and its presence in other countries:

  • Rename this article to Baden-Powell Scouts' Association (United Kingdom)
  • Groups outside the UK that are under the direct control of B-PSA UK belong in this article
  • Other groups that are verifiable independent of B-PSA UK, as appears to be the case with the Australian groups, should have their own article
  • B-PSA groups should not be stuffed into Traditional Scouting; that article has several issues that I have noted on the talk page.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with points 1 and 2. I disagree with point 3. The Australian groups do not have good reliable sources at present. I believe that is also the case with some US groups who call themselves Baden-Powell Scouts. Articles on these groups would be deleted for lack of notability and reliable sources. I disagree with point 4 and suggest that is exactly the place where the material that would be removed from here should go, at least until such a time as we have better sources. --Bduke (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, notability is an issue, as are reliable sources. I'm not convinced that Traditional Scouting isn't something we made up. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as just an attempt at classification. Some title needed to be used, and that was the one chosen. If this article becomes Baden-Powell Scouts' Association (United Kingdom) there will certainly need to be a restoration of Baden-Powell Scouts' Association (Ireland) as an article, even if the other groups become titled sections of other pages. DiverScout (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realised that there is gap between Ed's point 2 and point 3. Ireland, Argentina, Malaysia, Germany, Denmark and Canada are not under the direct control of B-PSA UK (point 2), but they are not independent of B-PSA UK (point 3) either. It is claimed that they are affiliated to the UK B-PSA. I think we can leave the title as it is and cover the UK Association and associations in other countries affiliated to it. We should move those that are not affiliated to Traditional Scouting, although I do not see consensus yet and we still need sources for this affiliation. On a different point can someone who reads Spanish add material on Argentina and Guatemala, clarifying the status of both but particularly the latter? --Bduke (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Groups not under the direct control of the UK organization should be in separate articles and linked through See also. If they are not notable enough for a separate B-PSA article, then document them in the Scouting by country article. If B-PSA Australia is independent, then it should be listed in Scouting in Australia; if it expands, then fork it to a new article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Scale[edit]

Has this article grown above C-Class? DiverScout (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

The navbox at the bottom links to the universal articles on Scouting sections. I do not think this is a good idea— this template should link only to section articles specific to the NSO. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, or else is there any point to the universal articles. Creating duplicates for the sections in each NSO (which I will do if required) would surely be against the actions being carried out by the Scouting Project to reduce the number of articles? DiverScout (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough content for section articles, then there is certainly no problem with creating such; the BSA, TSA and Scouts Australia all have section articles. The navbox is titled "Programme Sections of Baden-Powell Scouts' Association", but the links go to articles not specific to the B-PSA. I'm not going to push it, but I think it is a bad idea, and not just for this article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is as much available content for each section in the B-PSA as in the other Associations, but this could cause small chaos, as currently Beaver Scouts et al link straight to the SA pages - which would need to be re-named before this could be completed. I can see that once created there would be immediate calls to merge the content. If it's really wanted I'd suggest that this is discussed on the Project page as it will impact several pages and add to the number of Scouting pages at a time when I thought we're supposed to be trimming back. DiverScout (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beaver Scouts is for the SA section; Beavers (Scouting) is the universal article. It is not so much about trimming for the sake of reduction, but in consolidating articles that have not grown in the years since they were created, or in merging articles that are not notable outside of the context of the parent article (or the parent article does not exist). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Beaver Scouts is not a Scout Association only title, although the entry suggests it is. Were I to make one for Beaver Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association) theirs would end up as Beaver Scouts (The Scout Association), and we'd no doubt also end up with a disambiguation page added, presumably including Beavers (Scouting) which would duplicate a lot of the content of the other pages. DiverScout (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm not going to push this. Do notice that Beavers (Scouting) is mainly a list of differences, the only general commonality is the age group. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've had a go at one for Beavers. I'll wait and see what the reaction is before creating pages for the other sections (other than Senior Scouts, which seems almost unique to us now). DiverScout (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a typo in the title for Beaver Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association); shouldn't Senior Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts) be Senior Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association)? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it should - accidentally clicked save when I should have proof-read it and I thought I'd not move it again just yet! DiverScout (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamboree 2008[edit]

Is there any clearer info on this? Who organised it, was it BPSA or TSA? Was it an attempt at re-unification of the two associations? Was it a success? mspice2215 212.137.45.109 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Jamboree 2008 (Northumberland) --Egel Reaction? 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the article out and asked much the same questions, it appears that there is another argument raging on that particular issue...! mspice2215 212.137.45.109 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Report"[edit]

The document produced by the Scout Action Group in 1970 was actually called "A Boy Scout Black Paper", and not "The Black Report". 62.25.109.197 (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)I[reply]

He's right - here it is on Google Books: "A Boy Scout Black Paper, Scout Action Group, 1970 - 31 pages." ISBN 0950160903, 9780950160900. Alansplodge (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Baden-Powell Scouts' Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baden-Powell Scouts' Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baden-Powell Scouts' 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baden-Powell Scouts' 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:

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) 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Baden-Powell Scouts' 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 16:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baden-Powell_Scouts%27_Association&oldid=1199324663"