Talk:Youth organizations in the United States

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

Rename[edit]

As this page includes at least one de facto Scout association, a re-name to Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States is requested. The current one is a little misleading. DiverScout (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Scout organization is a Scout-like organization. Spshu (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the English language it is not. A Scout organization is a Scout organiszation. A Scout-like organization is one that is a bit like a Scout organization by is not one. This page is looking to me like a POV attempt to marginalize all non-Boy Scouts of America associations. The title needs amending or the actual Scout associations need removing from it. The same for the defunct page where actual organizations are being labelled as "like". DiverScout (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the English language it is or at least can be. Some how a Scout organization is not like another Scout organization? As the create of the article that just previously pointed out:

I chose the "scout-like organization in the US" to keep the article title short and use the terminology in the Template:Scouting in the United States, but I am using it the broadest term (scout-like, brake away organization, alternative scouting, etc.). Most US scouting organization cannot state that they are scouting organization given the BSA's trademark of it.

and above that is not an attempt to be POV in naming the article but short. You then claiming the opposite in say that it is POV attempt. Do you bother to read or just like making false claims and in effect attacking me! Did you bother to read the change in the lead sentence, apparently not. If you have not figure it out, the law is (or has been) biased against all non-BSA scouting groups as it has in the UK (see the BBS&GSA). If you have not figured it out, the Scouting WP Project and yourself in adopting the BSA's MOS is move that biases the project against other scouting groups. Since they have those advantage they end up being more cover by the news thus more notable then these groups. So, WP builds in that unnotability about the lesser group whether scout or scout-like organizations which this article attempt to rectify. Heck, I guess I should have just let each and every one of the article be deleted via the AfD process instead this attempt (the article) to at least have something about them here at WP.
So back to the Scout org. and Scout-like organization issue. Don't you know that English is one of the most imprecise language in the world. Scouting organizations can be considered a subset of scouting-like organizations is what I pointed out.
Sorry, but the move was unwarranted as a consensus was not reached. Now, I have my watch list filled with robot edits for the "Robot: Fixing double redirect to Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States". Spshu (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cake is a cake, it is not cake-like. You were vague and incorrect and created a misleadingly titled article. That has been amended. This is no different to you deciding to "be bold" and concentrate a large number of sourced articles onto one page. There was no consenus for that either, was there? Next, the links for the additional information that you choose to ignore may be out of date - but are still valid. If you wish to create personal attacks, and post POV incorrect information under misleading article titles, please create your own web space. If you wish to contribute to an encyclopedia, I am sure that we will all enjoy working with you. DiverScout (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a cake is cake-like, else it sure isn't a cake. Some thing in a subset is still apart of its larger set. No it isn't a misleading title and you have failed to get a consensus to do so. There is consensus as there has been no objections and only one objections to the redirects to the article just additional questions like Scout/Scout-like issue.
It is you that have created personal attacks and since you indicate at your user page that "you create your own reality", there is no sense in talking to some one that indicates that they are delusional. Spshu (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note the three edit rule. Once again you choose to ignore it, I see. I will be reporting and pushing for another edit block against you, I guess. DiverScout (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the consensus rule, you choose to ignore. And no I have not ignored the 3RR rule as you cannot count. Spshu (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are on notice after clicking the edit link that the added information is verifiable which it was not. As they link to nothing. So your information was removed as unverifiable. Spshu (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Link rot DiverScout (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below that those source don't indicate what you think they state. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC
IMHO: I agree that the title of the article is misleading and violated NPOV, as it seems to indicate that first (in significance) there are the Boy Scouts, then the rest which are independent of the Boy Scouts. Except for government sponsored groups (like Hitler Youth, & communist scouts in communist countries), they are all independent. I deleted "small," as that is not defined nor documented. An organization with over 1 million participants is not really small. Also, some of these may have clubs in countries other than the USA. For NPOV, an article like this should just list the Boy Scouts with the others, not indicate that there are the Boy Scouts, then everything else. All, including the "Boy Scouts" should be called "scout-like," if any are. The term scout is existed before the Boy Scouts, as for men who scouted for the army vs. Indians. (EnochBethany (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
EnochBethany, the BSA and the Girls Scouts of the USA (although I found out that the local councils are incorporated) are both Congressional Chartered organizations. Such charters are rare and most non-profits and alternative groups incorporate through the standard incorporation procedures of a state. The BSA charter gave them a super-trademark status over Scout and Scouting and any other scouting term. They are also granted the right to copy US military uniform and insignias (although the BSA has done other wise) and were until recently granted access to military bases and land particularly for the tri-annual Jamboree. The US President is the honorary president of the BSA (although at last check Obama hasn't 'take up' the position). Spshu (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy[edit]

The WFIS Scout organization "BPSA" have been active in the USA longer than indicated in the section on this page - as I previously attempted to indicate through adding already-present data from elsewhere on Wikipedia. As the 2002 Group is defunct, and their web domain is now used by some Chinese(?) organisation, I was going to amend the link to a standard archive of the page. Sadly another editor appears unwilling to release "ownership" of the page.

Data relating to the earlier version of the B-PSA in the United States, who operated as Baden-Powell Scout Association (prior to the US copyright issues on Scout becoming a blocking issue) can be easily read on the archive. [1]. Once the edit block is released I intend to restore this data to the article. DiverScout (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still contrary to the sources in the article. Monterey Herald: "He eventually learned about the Baden-Powell Service Association, which formed in the United States in 2006 but had only an adult component." Furthering looking into the Texas State website was about P-B Scouting Assoc. (not P-B Service Assoc.) sale tax exempt and not its incorporation. They could be separate organizations. Even, 1sttarrantbpscouts.org's website states:

"The task of the corporation’s board of directors is to work toward bringing existing Baden-Powell groups from across the US together under a unified program, and to offer new groups an attractive alternative to the only other existing American program.

So it is clear that there were other B-PS groups out there per your own source. So Tarrant's B-PSA may not be related to the current B-PSA except in name only. Secondly, reliable news outlets like the Monterey Herald trump primary sources as articles are not supposed to depend on primary sources.
Sadly, an editor wants to belittle other editor to seize ownership of the article and that I got the page locked, because an editor will not summit verifiable information, wait for consensus and file improper 3RR reports. Spshu (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are incapable of reason. A shame. DiverScout (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shame on you. Since, you just want to assume what ever you want. Spshu (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Media Director for the Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA), and today I was made aware of the fact that some misleading information has been posted about our Scouting association on the following Wikipedia article, which we are unable to edit due to the fact that it is a protected page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States#Baden-Powell_Service_Association

There are several problems with the information contained in that article about our association that needs to be corrected. The most important of which is the statement that we are a "secular" scouting organization. This is not the way that the BPSA wishes to present itself, and is indeed very misleading. There are other factual errors as well, and I have corrected them all and have provided supporting links where needed.

One thing I found was especially interesting (read: FALSE) is how the very first 3rd-party link used on this article for our association that is the reference for "...is a secular inclusive coed traditional Scout organization..." doesn't say that at all! If you click the link to the article, it says nothing about the BPSA being "secular". That is a misleading and incorrect statement. Saying that we are "secular" implies that we are an atheist organization, which is not true. We allow religious people just as we allow nonreligious people to join. It also says that we are "a branch of the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association in the UK," which is also completely false. We are *affiliated* with them, yes, but we are not a branch. We are completely independent.


Can someone please update this section for us as soon as possible? Please let me know.

Thank you, Jeff Kopp, Media Director, Baden-Powell Service Association US: http://bpsa-us.org and Email: media@bpsa-us.org

Here's how we would like that section to appear:

The Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA) is an independent and traditional-style Scouting association that takes its name from the founder of the Scouting movement, Robert Baden-Powell. The BPSA is a member organization of the World Federation of Independent Scouts (WFIS), and is affiliated with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of England and works closely with the Baden-Powell Service Association of British Columbia.

See: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/18/9-faith-based-and-secular-alternatives-to-the-boy-scouts-of-america/ and http://www.troop97.net/wfis.htm

The BPSA offers a traditional ("back to basics") Scouting program for youth and adults, girls and boys, men and women, with open and inclusive membership policies that disallow any and all discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion (or no religion) or other differentiating factors. The association's motto is "Traditional Scouting for Everyone!"

See: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/new-scouting-group-brings-more-inclusive-philosophy-to-st-louis/article_005e6aff-7326-5b25-a56c-92dce7fca425.html

History

The Baden-Powell Service Association formed with an adult-only component, Rovers, in 2006. David Atchley, a former Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America, joined up in 2008, after being asked to leave his local Greater St. Louis Area council of the BSA after he attempted to create a non-discrimination policy for his own Cub Scout pack. In the BPSA, David was responsible for adapting the programs of the other Baden-Powell Scouting associations in introducing youth sections to the BPSA's program. In 2009, Atchley became commissioner. By 2011, the association had only a handful of units. BPSA reincorporated in 2012, became an official 501©(3) nonprofit in 2013, and has since grown to include more than 45 chartered Scout groups today.

See: http://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/26471/boys_scouts_alternative_081012 and http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wiccans-earth-lovers-do-gooders-theres-scouting-group-your-kid-v19680825

Program

Within each BPSA Scouting Group, Scouts are organized in groups called “sections” according to their age: Otters (ages 5 to 7), Timberwolves (8 to 10,) Pathfinders (11 to 17), and Rovers (18+)

http://bpsa-us.org/program/ and http://www.troop97.net/wrldsct6.htm

BPSA's highest award for youths (Pathfinders) is the George Washington Scout Award. The highest award for adults (Rovers) is the Baden-Powell Award. http://bpsa-us.org/program/pathfinders/ and http://bpsa-us.org/program/rovers/ kopper (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would it be possible for us to have our own separate Wikipedia article? kopper (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, if we can get sources, we can start to break up this train-wreck of an article created by someone with little (if any) comprehension/knowledge of the topic. DiverScout (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided sources above. I would like to think that our own website is a valuable source of information about our program, too. I came here today to try to get some misinformation corrected, because it's causing people looking into our program to look elsewhere, again, because the information provided is not correct, nor was it even accurately translated from the source articles! Can you please make the changes for us? Also, here is another relatively new article posted about us: http://www.vp-mi.com/feature/article_998dcd52-9f25-11e3-98e1-001a4bcf887a.html
Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/boy-scouts-gay-policies-benefit-alternative-groups.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/todd-schweikert-brooklyn-scout-troop-girls-gay-members_n_2441354.html and http://www.parenting.com/blogs/show-and-tell/brian-parentingcom/boy-scouts-gay-rights and http://www.brooklyneagle.com/articles/park-slope-scout-troop-welcomes-boys-girls-gays (I can probably find a few more if you insist.) kopper (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Kopp, I take the little birdy to be DiverScout, a BPSA (UK) associated editor that shouldn't be editing the BPSA's section under a conflict of interest as you have rightfully recognized that you have.
Yes, it does say that as the has a header in the article with "SECULAR PROGRAMS" under which the BPSA is listed. Since there are no restriction on the BPSA membership including that the leader is atheist then how can it not be a secular program?
Not sure what your problem, Jeff, is with the age groupings. Also, Wikipedia articles are for subject that have are considered notable enough. The whole point of this group article. Previous to the creation of this article, the Baden-Powell Service Association got a single paragraph in the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association the Scouting WikiProject had for your organization. As you might know, the more we use from the organization's website makes the article considered less credible and more puff piece. The additional sources might be helpful.
Gee, DiverScout, that is interesting that you consider it a train wreck when you added information that Kopp would consider FALSE that the current B-PSA (US) was incorporated in 2002 and all that stuff I reverse out of the article that had to do with the other B-PSA that exist in the US. WOW, now that would be a complete train wreck. Secondly, you need to knock off the non-scout & WP attitude, ie. the bullying/personal attacks.
I do see a couple of typos like "a" instead of "as", Jeff, that might straight some stuff out. Spshu (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I'm not sure who is who or what editors allowed to do what or anything, nor do I wish to get involved with some sort of obvious personal feud that you guys apparently have going on here. I simply wish to, once again, correct misinformation about our association that appears on this page. This is on your website, and it is incorrect, and we need it to be changed. The reason we do not consider ourselves a "Secular" scouting organization is because we welcome ALL people, not just the non-religious. I don't really care WHAT that article says; just because someone posted an article about us on some 3rd-party website does not mean that they somehow know more about our program than WE do. Stating an organization is secular gives the incorrect impression that religion does not enter into it at all, and that's not the case. We actually give our Scouts the choice to use the word "God" in their Scout Promise if they so wish. It's a personal thing that we let them decide to include or not include (substituting "my conscience" for "God" or using the Outlander's Promise). Also, the BPSA in the United States formed in 2006, not 2002. We are NOT in any way connected with the Baden-Powell Scouts' Association of the UK, so there is no conflict of interest for DiverScout to edit this article about us. He is simply not a member of the BPSA US. Does that make sense? Hope so! I hope to get this resolved quickly. Again, the information on this article is incorrect and we may need to escalate this issue if it is not taken care of soon. Thank you. kopper (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, editors can edit in specialist subject areas - otherwise Wikipedia would be even more of a joke than it already often is. Sadly there are editors who are not interested in trying to get accurate and complete information on this site, instead using it for attempts to flame, spam and goad others. The result is that train-wreck pages full of nonsense appear. Luckily, eventually, these people go away. Seen it before, and will see it again. DiverScout (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

←Secular means "1.Not specifically religious." Thus since you do take members of any religion or no religion there for you are secular. Really, kopper, you just claimed that you are affiliated with Baden-Powell Scouts' Association as that is what you want in the lead. "I don't really care WHAT that article says; just because someone posted an article about us on some 3rd-party website does not mean that they somehow know more about our program than WE do." Sorry, but that are the rules on WP. DiverScout, I suggest that you take your own advice since Kopper just point out TWICE now that you WHERE WRONG. So you need to go away and stop your attacks, flaming and goading me. Spshu (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, technically we are NOT "affiliated" with BPSA UK, we are an independent organization affiliated only with WFIS. Can we at least get the rest of this fixed? Like our highest badges and other info? I had no "problem" with the age groupings. I merely included all that with the entire rewrite of the info. Also, I don't think it's asking too much to simply refer to our association in the manner in which I asked in my opening paragraph above. It really is a better description of us, and can still be sourced from the same article. And, since this is OUR association we are talking about here, this is what we want, and how we want our association portrayed on your website. Does that make sense? kopper (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Ed) defines "secular" as "belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred." The common/tabletop Oxford dictionary defines "secular" as "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis." In either case, the intent/implication seems to suggest that "secular" means "separate[d] from religion." Based on this, I don't think the term "secular" correctly applies to the BPSA. Our intent is to welcome all--not to imply that we have set ourselves apart from all things religious. In the BPSA, we have members who are deeply religious, including practicing Catholics, Jews, and a number of Christians, as well as at least one Pagan. And, on the other end of the scale, we have agnostic and atheist members, too. It would be more correct, although wordier, to say the BPSA is accepting of all religious beliefs and practices as well as those people who express no religious beliefs or practices. I Therefore, using the word "secular" absolutely could scare off some people who might otherwise benefit from the BPSA's program. kopper (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

The discussions on this page are crossing the line and violating the civility policy. Most involved are Scouts, and I want to remind everyone that a "Scout is friendly." Please interact in a respectful and civil manner.

There has been some mention of conflict of interest. It is possible to edit articles where you are involved. The key is to be transparent about who you are and who you are associated with and to pledge to advance the aims of Wikipedia over outside interests. You can do this by clearly stating your background on your userpage as I have done at User:Gadget850/about.

As an admin, lead coordinator for the Scouting project and as an interested editor, it is my goal to make all articles within our purview both brilliant and reliably sourced. I really do not like taking preemptive or punitive actions, but I will do as needed to advance Wikipedia as a whole.

So, take a deep breath, back off for a day or two and come back with your heads in the right place. There is no hurry to get this done right now, so lets reflect and do it correctly and civilly. --  Gadget850 talk 02:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral blanking and redirects without discussion[edit]

There should be discussion before redirects before certain articles such as Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist) and Royal Rangers, etc. are blanked and redirected here. In particular I note those two articles describe international organizations while this article is US specific. Also Royal Rangers with 125,000 members and Pathfinders with 2 million (worldwide) are considerably bigger than American Heritage Girls or Trail Life USA the first with 20,000 and the second just started that are also more explicitly Scout organizations, are US specific, and no attempt has been made to fold them in. Someone else has reverted the first two organizations and SpiralScouts International. I'm reverting Awana and Calvinist Cadet Corps also on grounds of being international. --Erp (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note a discussion and on the whole disagreement with the scheme is taking place on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting --Erp (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a source that can be used for the article, but I made a direct query to the UK Royal Ranger's HQ (another international organization dropped onto this US-only page) about whether they considered themselves to have anything to do with the Scout Movement. The reply stated that they do not, and only operate with A.O.G. children's programs. The now-merged article had issues in relation to international scope, but the organization is clearly not US-only and is questionable in being considered Scout-like. The former issue means that this redirect is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and also should be reversed. DiverScout (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Royal Rangers has a different approach to this. Most Central European RRs think they are Scouts (eg Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, Netherlands) and the rest speaks of "Scout-like" or "scout-type". Even the British branche states on their website "Royal Rangers is a 'Scouting' type organisation" [2]. --jergen (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They don't make it easy! :) DiverScout (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The person responding to you probably thought you meant the Scout Association, not the Scout Movement. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably more that there is an international scouting organization called the World Organization of the Scout Movement, so they probably assumed Scout Movement was short for the full name. Spshu (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going Forward[edit]

Thoughts I've had

  1. Rename this article as Youth organizations in the United States. This avoids arguments about what is or is not a Scout or Scout-like organization.
  2. Include a history section describing when did youth organizations start in the US and what happened after.
  3. Describe the current situation with a brief description of the big groups such as 4-H, BSA, GSUSA, Campfire with links to their main articles. Describe specifically religious youth ministries/youth groups. Create separate articles for the big ones if they don't already exist. For small ones affiliated with a particular denomination, create a section in the denomination's article (among other reasons more likely to gain the attention of knowledgeable editors). Describe also groups that exist more as inschool clubs which would include Gay-straight alliance or Fellowship of Christian Athletes

What do people think? --Erp (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really good idea. Go for it. DiverScout (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bid bit late, Jergens decided to put it up for deletion. Spshu (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposed[edit]

So should we rename the article Youth organizations in the United States to avoid the unclearness of Scout-like? --Erp (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the rationale above is convincing, but make sure that there are no redirects to there from what were articles on organisations with members outside the US. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that solves the final concerns with this article. DiverScout (talk) 07:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say organizations with significant numbers of non-American members outside the US (note the BSA and GSUSA have a moderate number of troops outside the US for American children living abroad). I won't do anything until a week or so to allow time for comment. --Erp (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These organizations have been ID as scouting or scouting alternatives in the sources, there shouldn't be any argument over that they are scouting or scouting alternatives. So, I recommend that the article name be Scouting and scouting alternative organizations based in the United States.Spshu (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However that is a very scouting-centric perspective. Several at least would draw their closest similarity from the Boys Brigade which predates Scouting by several decades and is also provided some elements of modern Scouting. Perhaps we should call the article Brigade and brigade alternative organizations in the United States? In addition the article almost completely ignores the most Scouting like organizations of all (BSA, GSUSA, Trail Life, American Heritage [Camp Fire doesn't even get a mention]) and points to separate wikipedia articles for them but gives a brief synopsis on AWANA which is many times bigger than Trail Life and American Heritage put together yet does not compare itself to scouting at all in their web site (it does seem to concentrate on religious study to the exclusion of most other things which doesn't strike me as notably scout-like [but then we don't have a definition for that]). --Erp (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removal of the whole "Scout-like" nonsense is pretty essential here. As stated above, and also stated in the past, Scouting is, if anything, a Boys Brigade-like organisation, or maybe a Woodcraft Indians type organization. Writing an article including non-Scout associations from the POV of Scouting is not appropriate. The proposed rename removes all POV and will allow this list to include all US youth organizations. DiverScout (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Erp and DiverScout. Let us stick with the proposal at the top of this section. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison - Youth organisations in the United Kingdom DiverScout (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not have BSAS, GSUSA, Trail Life, AHG and Camp Fire because they are notable enough to get their own article, Erp. It seemed to redundant for them to have their own section. They are also linked from the Scouting Navbox, which would be mostly likely removed when rename to just "youth". There is no POV here, it was how it was reported with over lap by four main sources, they are until you can find a source other wise "Scouting alternatives". Brigade and brigade alternative organizations in the United States could be an acceptable compromise. Spshu (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AWANA is bigger (even if you just count the US part of its membership) than Trail Life, AHG, and Camp Fire and has its own article so why is it here? By your reasoning none of the groups with their own articles should be here. --Erp (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because of notability, Trail Life, AHG, and Camp Fire are notable enough for their own article. Number of members isn't a measure of notability so AWANA belongs here. Why are you repeating my reasoning, Erp? Those are the WP rules. Spshu (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviving my suggestion to rename this article to Youth organizations in the United States and to reword so as to not be so scouting centric. --Erp (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold - make the change. DiverScout (talk) 09:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Category:Youth organizations based in the United States exists, any article should match naming, and members of that category should be included. --  Gadget850 talk 11:57, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has not done one iota of good for the article and as I pointed out on CSB's talk page doesn't address the bi- or multinational issue. You have just made it into a "work for work sake" in duplicating the categories just by posting a bunch of wikilinks and miscategorized several scouting organizations. Spshu (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Youth organizations in the United States[edit]

Category:Youth organizations based in the United States is pretty well populated. --  Gadget850 talk 12:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Youth organizations or Scout-like organizations[edit]

On a case-by-case basis we need to look at which of the listed organizations are actually "Scout-like" and what specific, categorical criteria we are applying. To me the label Scout-like should only be applied to organizations that consider themselves a direct Scouting alternative organization, with the others (the majority) labelled as youth organizations. DiverScout (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to any one on WP to create criteria for the organizations. WP editors are suppose to use the source. Spshu (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First editors are suppose to use reliable sources and any other editor can impugn the reliability of a source; discussion will then ideally lead to some sort of agreement on whether to use the source or not. Let us look at your first source: Charles Biggs in the Tulsa Beacon in an opinion piece (he owns the newspaper which makes it self-publishing also); his credentials on the subject seem scant he even admits to have never been involved in Scouting and he definitely wants to push Christian organizations (AWANA and Christian Brigade). Second and more importantly the title is not neutral in regards to the organizations covered; it judges other youth organizations in relation to Scouting which is not fair to organizations that don't see themselves as part of the Scouting movement and who share only a surface resemblance to Scouting (having a pinewood derby clone is not sufficient). --Erp (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, there is no such reliable category as "Scout-like". You have now been repeatedly told this by many editors, and reasoning given - please read it. Your Scouts POV article needs to be Wikified - and will be. If you want to create a Scout POV list, I'd suggest creating a page on ScoutWiki, which is intended to be Scout POV or creating your own page where you can post what you like and not have other editors make changes. DiverScout (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, Erp, DiverScout is suggesting original research in setting up the criteria. I never claim any editor could not challenge the reliability of the source. DiverScout presents NO source but is pushin for the Scouting Wikiproject to do original research to establishing classifications of being "Scout-like" in this thread.
Now in the matter of the Tulsa Beacon article, Biggs indicated that he was involved in Christian Service Brigade (CSB) in the first line, which is identified as a scouting alternative by [Religion News. Secondly, Awana is indicated as a competitor to Pioneer Girls, the original companion program to the CSB, which is indentified as "American Evangelicalism's Girl Scouts" in the Ashury Journal's article title and which former Girl Scouts or Girl Scout leaders see the similarities (pg. 63) after becoming Pioneer Girls/Clubs leaders. The similarities of which came from the CSB as they where the companion girls' program. So while Pioneer Clubs is a scouting organization or alternative, they would not acknowledge that they are because they would not realize that the program was recreated in the CSB then hand down to the Pioneer Clubs (PC). So, he was involved in scouting and does not "admits to have never been involved in Scouting", it is you doing so.
For your second point, judgement must be made at some point, however it is the journalist, not the Wikipedian place to make that judgement in regards to the organizations covered. Some organziation have recreated scouting independent of scouting, just like the CSB and PC did. The journalist didn't just drop in the large Boys & Girls Clubs of America (and they didn't) as it is a youth after-school program. Which one of them is listed in this article because the have a pinewood derby clone? None. Adding the wood car racing was one of the last things I did before moving it into article space. Those races are a main activities (and includes woodworking) of "junior scouting" like Cub Scouting, so are a clue to those programs.
For the umpteeth time, DiverScout, I didn't make up the term, It was in use by the WP Scouting Wikiproject already and you used in your renaming of this article. You have been told this repeatly.
The core sources: AP ("alternative to the Boy Scouts"), NBC News ("'scouting' group", "competitors") and Religion News ("Evangelical alternatives to the Boy Scouts", "Church-based scouting alternatives" ) and http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2013/05/and-now-it-begins-catholic-groups-rise-up-to-replace-the-boy-scouts/ Patheos] (replacements) all call them either "Scouting groups", "scouting alternative" or replacements. Spshu (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So continues your history of abusing editing. There is little point in discussing anything further with you, and I will not bother. I will work with more aware editors and simply remove your POV when required. You have had your chance to show any ability to reason. DiverScout (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erp, first no consensus has been reached about renaming to "Youth organizations in the US". If you claim to dislike that discussion had not been held for redirects to this article then you should not have disregard that no consensus had been met in moving this article. Spshu (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion took place, on here, and a decision was made. A user has then, a long time later, correctly been bold and made the change. Finally that article that you created has become encyclopedic. DiverScout (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Independent[edit]

What does independent mean in this context? --  Gadget850 talk 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent question. I would think that Independent would mean a scouting or other association that is not affiliated with an international association. But by that standard the Baden-Powell Service Association (BPSA, affiliated with WFIS) should not be included on this page. The other alternative is that Independent means not affiliated with WOSM or WAGGGS, but if that is the case then there are other associations that could be included on this page. Dcs.trad (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting one. I am a WFIS Scouter. I do not consider myself "Independent" due to not being in WOSM. However that seems to be an accepted use of the phrase. the smaller independent groups, of course, would not be able to be listed as they would fail notability! DiverScout (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Champs[edit]

Earth Champs is a program of the Sustainable Business Coalition of Tampa Bay, Inc.[3] The previous URL now redirects.[4]

  • After a diligent web search, I see no current incarnations of Earth Champs outside the Tampa Bay area. This appears to be a local program.
  • I see no evidence that the program engages in any Scouting activities.
  • Other than the website and a few pages stating the organization exists, I see no evidence of activities.

--  Gadget850 talk 13:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kids for Earth[edit]

  • I see no evidence that the program engages in any Scouting activities.
  • Other than the website and a few pages stating the organization exists, I see no evidence of activities.

--  Gadget850 talk 13:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category, article, list article[edit]

Given that the category Category:Youth_organizations_based_in_the_United_States exists though that is not quite the same as youth organizations in the United States (some of which may be home based elsewhere), I don't think we should repeat all those organizations within this article but instead point to the category listing for further info (admittedly the category needs some cleaning up). What this article should do is summarize the significant youth organizations, explain the types of youth organizations, and give some general history (when did youth organizations start in the US?). --Erp (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The latter part is a very good idea, but I do not agree that the list should be incomplete. The aim should be for it to be complete, certainly matching the entries on the category. Anything less would be potentially misleading to readers. DiverScout (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So combo list article and regular article? There are a lot of youth groups especially if we include youth wings of more age inclusive organizations; it is one reason for concentrating on the types and the most important but clearly stating that many more exist and pointing to the category (and even then note that local organizations may not reach the notability baseline for Wikipedia). For a list article we should include a brief summary including whether the group even still exists, general size if it does still exist, and geographical region if not nationwide. Also what is the cutoff for 'youth'; do fraternities/sororities count?--Erp (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was strict on the "national" aspect for the UK article. Anything regional was not included, which helps remove a lot of the fraternities/sororities and the like. Not saying that that is the only way, or even the right way, but it seemed a good way to start. DiverScout (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other section and where to go[edit]

I've done a preliminary check of the list and removed several for being local (and fixed the cat in the original articles). I note that several of the organizations no longer exist (and a few of them in part because it turned out the CIA was a major source of funds, definitely a history there); I'm not sure how we want to handle no longer existing organizations. BTW Girls, Inc. seems to have some of the longest roots going back to 1865; we do need some good scholarly references on the history of youth organizations in the United States. We should also look at High school club since many of the youth organizations' local chapters are such clubs (and the Student group article is a mess). --Erp (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

request for deletion for Christian Service Brigade[edit]

Christian Service Brigade an article previously redirected to this article which was subsequently reversed has now been put up for a formal discussion on deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Service Brigade and a redirect here. --Erp (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting organizations[edit]

I note an edit war about mention of the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the USA in this section. I am not seeing a discussion about this as suggested in an edit summary. I think it is crazy that this section does not mention the two largest organisations. The table of contents looks very odd with mention of only a small organisation. The fact that they are in the lede is not relevant, but if people thing it matters I would prefer to remove them from the lede and not mention any specific organizations there. I am not going to revert the last edit, but let us discuss it further here. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The originator of the edit war is a vandal who ought to be blocked. They lie and damage entries - wanting to turn this back into the farce that they created originally. We can wait to discuss it - but they will never do so, and will never abide by majority views. DiverScout (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for reverting before checking in talk. I wouldn't say an intentional vandal but rather someone who has a particular view who hasn't managed to convince other people of his view's rightness and so get a consensus (I'm not even sure he has even explained his view [is it that the primary division of youth organizations should be scouts, scout like [however faint the connection might be], and other?]). Instead the consensus (other than him) sees things very differently, but, he is not willing to accept that and perhaps channel his energy where the consensus and he do agree. --Erp (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

blogging not accept source?[edit]

A change I made to the Troops of St. George section was rolled back and the above reason was given. First, if blogging is not an acceptable source, then another of the references in that section isn't valid either (namely this one - Patheos - which is currently a dead link anyway). But the reference I gave was an interview with the founder in which he described the Troops as a "fraternal organization" (rather than "alternative scouting organization" as its currently described on this page). It's hard to see how that isn't an acceptable source. Dcs.trad (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a blog at a seemly religious news service as opposed to a multiple person blog that the Wisky Catholice site states it is ("Whiskey Catholic is the product of three friends’ long-held passion for the only three objects worth pursuing: Catholicism, culture, and whiskey." Per WP:BLOGS, newsblogs are allowed while personal blogs are not as they are self published and there for not consider reliable sources.
It does not say that personal blogs are never allowed. It says "largely not acceptable." It's hard to see how an interview with the founder of an organization isn't acceptable -- Dr. Marshall would be a "recognized expert" on the subject. Dcs.trad (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Patheos isn't a "newsblog" by that definition since Patheos isn't a news organization. Dcs.trad (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you go to any thing else the founder writes about the group it is clear that it is an alternative scouting organization. :*TSG FAQ: "Are you affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America? No we are not. The Troops of Saint George is a Catholic outdoors movement for fathers and sons."
  • 6 Reasons Why the Troops of St George is Not for Everyone: "I was a non-Catholic boy scout and I do know that Catholic boys had an influence on me. Trust me. I understand. However, if we are going to avoid the mistakes of the BSA, we are going to have to make a stand on this. We must be on the same page when it comes to moral issues. Which leads to…"
  • "6) We have high-standards. This point comes from Baden-Powell." Spshu (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O, that Patheos has quotes directly from Marshall's “mini-manifesto”: "3. The Scouts of Saint George will be like the Boy Scouts of America with hiking, fishing, camping, merit badges, and a highest rank (equivalent somehow to Eagle Scout). Same format and structure."
"6. The Scouts of Saint George won’t reinvent the wheel. Traditional scouting works. Why change it? We’re just going to preserve the tradition and import a Catholic identity."
So how isn't that a scouting organization? Spshu (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because things have changed since Dr. Marshall wrote that "manifesto" and he no longer claims that the Troops of St. George is a scouting organization. Cf. About Taylor Marshall ("I founded the Troops of Saint George, an adventure fraternal apostolate for Catholic men and their sons"), The Troops of St. George are Back! ("We are a separate organization with an entirely different mission, style, purpose, and identity") Dcs.trad (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpiralScouts ??[edit]

I came across SpiralScouts at http://www.spiralscouts.org/ , but don't see them listed here. 71.175.167.93 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpiralScouts International are in the lead but not the body for some reason. -- Gadget850 talk 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ERP removed them from the article's body under the guise that if they had an article (notable or not) they should not have a section here, while BSA & GS/USA were given a section when they have a clearly notable status and could just be link from the lead section like Trail Life USA and American Heritage Girls. To which they jump all over me. I have added SpiralScouts and other that have been removed. Spshu (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baden-Powell Service Association[edit]

In accordance with the subarticle idea behind this article, Baden-Powell Service Association with assistance of User:SixFourThree in find additional sources has been move out its own article. Spshu (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Youth organizations in the United States. 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) 07:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of scouting[edit]

The scouting MOS states: "In addition to standard style guides, formal style guides of the Scouting organization that is the subject of the article will be used." In no way shape or form does that mean that scouting is capitalized. But give the article covers multiple scouting organizations general MOS> Proper names versus generic terms: "Capitalize names of particular institutions (the founding of the University of Delhi; the history of Stanford University) but not generic words for institutions (the high school is near the university). Do not capitalize the at the start of an institution's name, regardless of the institution's preferred style." The word, scouting, is used generically here. Spshu (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that section, which is meant for pedantic users just like you. "When Scout, Scouting, Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Guide and Scouting-related award names, progression levels, age sections, other language equivalents (i.e. Second Class, Varsity Scout, Eagle Scout, Bronze Wolf) are used in articles in the context of the Scouting Movement, they are considered proper nouns and are always capitalized. Example: "a group of 50 Scouts", not "a group of 50 scouts". For usage in other contexts not related to the Scouting Movement, refer to the Manual of Style for guidance on capitalization. Do not capitalize event names unless the reference is to a specific event. Examples: "pinewood derby" and "national Scout jamboree"; but "Valley District Pinewood Derby" and "2010 National Scout Jamboree." "--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Youth_organizations_in_the_United_States&oldid=1206123353"