Talk:Scouting controversy and conflict/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Article needs to be expanded

This article needs expansion and addition of Scouting controversies and conflicts. Discuss what the problems are in countries and regions around the world on this Talk page. Also, add to the discussions in progress on this Talk page. --Jagz 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The banning of Scouting: a controversy?

I don't think so. It's just a fact. Further I don't understand how the three countries mentioned were chosen. Scouting/Guiding was or still is banned in - at least - fifty different countries for some time: Nearly all communist countries as well as most fascist countries banned Scouting - and there are some more totalitarian regimes who banned Scouting/Guiding including Afghanistan, Malawi and Iran. --jergen 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming the article doesn't answer my questions. Banning is neither a controversy nor a conflict. --jergen 11:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is the result of conflict between the Scouting program and those who banned them. There does not need to be a direct conflict between the two, it can be a conflict of ideology, etc. --Jagz 11:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
So you want to include all external conflicts/controversies brought by the society to Scouting? That's really a wide scope...
I'd like to limit the scope of the article on the existing internal conflicts/controversies within the Movement. There are some that are of worldwide (or at least of continental) interest but this article mentions only one of them. Why is this so?
In my opinion this is because it is easier by far to construct some non-existent problems than to describe the existing ones from a neutral point of view.
Concerning the banning: Pls start a section on Scouting and totalitarian regimes covering the whole scope from banning (eg Germany, PRC, Malawi) over going underground (eg Poland, Spain, Yugoslavia) to cooperation (eg Greece, Spain). This would be far better than some non-connected sentences mentioning "Scouting was banned in ... from ... to ..." --jergen 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "cooperation"? Also, did Spain really go underground and cooperate as you stated? --Jagz 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
"Cooperation" means open support - at least in Greece. For Spain: Pls remember that Spain has a number of different movements forming two umbrella federations for international recognition. Some went underground, some cooperated and some went underground first and cooperated later... --jergen 11:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for some more content

I propose the following controversies/problems for inclusion in this article:

  • Worldwide:
    • the growth of non-aligned/independent Scouting organizations (mainly in Europe and the Americas)
    • the controversy around the Scout Promise and the Duty to God; can be expanded to cover
    • the controversies on Religion and Scouting (there is a lot of them)
    • cooperation/merger of WAGGGS and WOSM
    • Scouting in totalitarian countries
    • Exclusion from WAGGGS/WOSM for political reasons (eg Poland, Yugoslavia - there must be some more)
  • France and French speaking countries
    • Unitarian Scouting/the controversy on the organization of the core section

All this needs a lot of recherches, but these are really existing controversies who are of concern for all Scouts and Guides. --jergen 10:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the article to clarify its scope. The name should be kept short and simple if possible. A longer name would make the purpose of the article clearer of course but is not really necessary. --Jagz 11:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't propose a renaming but some of the real controversies for inclusion. --jergen 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be written for the average person, not just for people associated with Scouting. The religious and Duty to God issues can be incorporated into Religion in Scouting. --Jagz 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've added some sections to the article that cover some of the issues you listed. I'm not familiar with some of the controversies you mention like the cooperation/merger of WAGGGS and WOSM. I suggest you add sections to the article to cover this and other controversies. --Jagz 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
At the start of Scouting in the Netherlands the Dutch were still very pro-boer so B-P himself and England were controversial. Maybe there are still controversies in some countries about that Scouting came from England / the western world. --Egel Reaction? 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the article

copied from Talk:Scouting#Scouting Controversies and Concerns article needs expansion

The Scouting controversies and concerns article needs to be expanded by the addition of Scouting problems and controversies (both historical and contemporary) from countries and regions around the world. --Jagz 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • It has been pointed out many times before: this isn't an international issue: it is only the USA where these things are an issue. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
The scope of the article includes all significant Scouting controversies and problems worldwide since the Scout Movement began in the early 1900s. The USA's current controversy over homosexuals and atheists is just a small part of this. Try reading what is in the article so far. --Jagz 23:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You're right: it has been significantly expanded, well done. I hope you won't take it amiss that I however won't take in active interest in these IMHO petty issues. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I'm sure they are not petty issues. --Jagz 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So far the article has these countries or regions: Canada, Cuba, Eurasian Scout Region, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, and the United States. --Jagz 02:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed three of the newly added sections and shortend one because no controversies were mentioned. --jergen 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a bit of a worry about this article. There are masses of arguments. Are they all to be included? From my knowledge (WP:OR) - UK Advanced Party Report (end of Rovers, uniform changes, etc,) that lead to B-P Scouts; Australia - uniform changes. I'm only starting to get into this. What is a notable controversy? --Bduke 12:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, a "SCOUTING" controversy is something that affects the "MOVEMENT", such membership, religios basis, should an association be coed, etc. An article on "SCOUTING CONTROVIES" should not include things like what uniform to wear, what the requirements for a certain rank in a certain association should be, etc.Rlevse 12:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some porposals on Talk:Scouting controversy and conflict#Proposal for some more content: In my eyes, controversies mentioned in this overview article should affect the movement as a whole - or at least a major part of it. Otherwise this article will sone become a duplication of the associations' articles - and thus would lead to an unusable mixture of local problems:
Is it really a major proble that Scouts Canada wants to sell some campgrounds? IMO only if the same controversy (including the deficits in internal democracy) rose in ten or more associations.
Can we continue this discussion on [[Talk:Scouting controversy and conflict#Scope of the article? --jergen 13:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
end of copy --jergen 13:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm coming here from Talk:Scouting. One problem is illustrated by my recollection that B-P Scouts were finally triggered by uniform changes - specifically losing the big hat. People often get upset by small things that trigger deeper frustratiuons. We have not resolved what controversies are. --Bduke 13:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the hat was just the trigger - in this case the controversy was about the modernization of the program and the interpretation of BP's writings which eventually led to the establishment of traditional Scouting.
If we want to write an encyclopedic article we should show these "background" problems and not those in the foreground... --jergen 15:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is the discussion on the creation of the article.[1] Essentially, the concept is to allow for a country by country (or regional) listing of controversies/conflicts. In many cases, there are not significant current issues but there are significant historical issues. The information in the article so far has used edited content from existing articles but it is not necessary that it be done that way. The problem is that I am unaware of controversies and conflicts in other countries unless I read it in an article somewhere. That is why I have put notices on Talk pages asking people to expand the article. You mentioned selling campgrounds in Canada although that was not mentioned in this article. I don't think hat size is worthy of mention, however, perhaps the Netherlands having colorful uniforms so they are not associated with military uniforms could be. I definitely think the ban of Scouting in Russia and the Soviet Union is worthy of mention. --Jagz 19:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This will only lead to unnecessarily doubled information in Wikipedia - once in the country's/associations's article and again here. Nobody needs this and it's the wrong path of thinking - starting with If the BSA has some controversies other organizations must have them too.
And once again: Colorful uniforms (and the discussion abou them) are not the real problem - it's Scouting and Militarism. If you aren't even able to name the problems in question I propose to stop contributing in this article. --jergen 20:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of people who are interested in this topic aren't going to be willing to search for and sift through dozens of Scouting articles for the information. Is there a Wikipedia policy that this article is violating? Just because you may be on the Scouting Wikiproject or whatever doesn't give you the authority to dictate what can and can't go into an article about Scouting. Making up sentences with nonsense doesn't help your position. I believe that the article as it was developing was interesting, especially from a historical perspective. Do you have a problem with history? --Jagz 20:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is in response largely to jergen above. It is all very well saying that the big hat was just a trigger and that modernisation is the issue. This article is about "controversy and conflict". To the Scouters who broke off to form troops that later became part of traditional scouting groups, the controversy and conflict was about the big hat and in fact a whole load of other detailed recommendations in the Advance Party Report, including the end of Rovers. To say it was really about modernisation is putting words in their mouth and it may very well be original research. The closest argument I ever heard that could be said to be about modernisation was some Scouters saying "B-P would not have liked this change" and others saying "Yes, he would. He constantly improved things".

On other issues, I tend to agree that material should largely be, in this case, in the UK article. There was a great deal of conflict in the first 20 years of Scouting in the UK with issues about politics (For example, should Scouts be loyal to their trade union or their boss?), emphasis on woodcraft, militarism and so on. If all of these conflicts are detailed for every country, this article will get very long. Another example is that we (from Oz) have not yet added anything on Australia and I am sure their are things to say. --Bduke 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if we split the article into two articles? One will have historical issues like banning. The other will deal with current controversies. Another option is to split it into an article about controversies within the Scouting movement and the other about conflicts between Scouting and society. --Jagz 23:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I propose that another article be created for controversies primarily within the Scout Movement. This article will be primarily about conflicts between Scouting and external forces such as the banning of Scouting in a country and social conflicts. It will also include issues such as a National Scout Organization being removed from membership in WOSM. The format will remain the same unless someone decides at a later time that they want to rewrite the whole article. There should be many countries that do not have issues significant enough to discuss. --Jagz 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, for example since Russia was discussed in the article (before being removed), the other countries of the Soviet Union that banned Scouting for the same reason would not need a full discussion but could just be mentioned so the article is not too long. --Jagz 00:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it is beter to rewrite the whole article now, with not the countries but the issues as sections --Egel Reaction? 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If nobody else is interested in listing the conflicts by country then I think someone else should take the lead on this article. I suppose we could just delete the article too if there is no interest. --Jagz 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed the article so that the issues are the main sections but some countries are included as examples. --Jagz 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality

Is homosexuality a Scouting controversy anywhere except the United States? --Jagz 21:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted the following sentences in the article today so I moved it here for discussion first. Should this be included in the article?
"Avowed homosexuals are not allowed to be scout leaders or members in the United States. The BSA argues that scouting reflects traditional family values. Homosexuals are allowed in Canada without any reservations."
--Jagz 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, homosexuality would need to be a controversy in more than one country to be included in this article. --Jagz 16:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The article now has a section on excluding individuals from membership and I included this topic as a subsection. --Jagz 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Democracy

Is democratic structure a Scouting controversy either within countries or at the World Organization of the Scout Movement level? For instance as stated in the Scouts Canada article:
Some members of Scouts Canada are upset with Scouts Canada's restructuring, including a loss of voting rights at the local level. In response, SCOUT eh! was founded in 2004, an organization consisting of "registered Scouts Canada members from across Canada dedicated to transforming Scouts Canada into a democratic association" Also, in the United States, religious organizations exert influence over the Boy Scouts of America at the national level. --Jagz 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Segregation

Is segregation a Scouting controversy? There was racial segregation in the Boy Scouts of America up until the 1940s; before then African Americans had to form separate troops. Is there social class segregation in Scouting in India, etc.? --Jagz 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There was segregation/apartheid in Scouting in Southern Africa: South_African_Scout_Association#History The Boy Scouts Association of Zimbabwe --Egel Reaction? 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WAGGGS/WOSM-issues

I came accross this while editing Girl Scouts of the Philippines:

I'm sure this is adequate material which can be used for this article. --jergen 18:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the controversy surrounding France and French speaking countries? --Jagz 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
All French WAGGGS/WOSM member organizations renewed their programs in the 1960s/1970s splitting the core section in two and introducing different colored uniforms for each section. This led to the seccession of the traditional "unitarian" Scouts forming new organizations, eg the Scouts unitaires de France, Éclaireurs Neutres de France, and Fédération des Eclaireuses et Eclaireurs, and to a massive growth of the Association des Guides et Scouts d'Europe (an earlier founded "unitarian" organization). Today these organizations count about 40 % of the French Guides and Scouts. Don't know how to translate unitaire correctly; this is derived from unit. This conflict reached at least Belgium and some of the former colonies.
Further major problems in French Scouting are the division between state/government and church as well as the emergence of small sectarian organizations of traditional Catholics.
It may take some time until I can search for sources - and most of them will be in French. --jergen 10:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion or expulsion of Scouting organizations from international organizations

The article currently only mentions Iraq. Jergen mentioned Poland and Yugoslavia being excluded from WAGGGS/WOSM for political reasons. What other countries should be mentioned? --Jagz 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hungary AFAIK. Sources are packed away. More perhaps next week. --jergen 10:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More Scouting controversies?

Are there additional Scouting controversies that should be in this article? --Jagz 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scouting from England/Western World

Egel commented:
"At the start of Scouting in the Netherlands the Dutch were still very pro-boer so B-P himself and England were controversial. Maybe there are still controversies in some countries about that Scouting came from England / the western world."
Are there other controversies in the world about Scouting originating in England or the Western World? --Jagz 23:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Scouting and the Catholic Church

Scouting had in its early days major problems with its acceptance in the Catholic Church since it was viewed as masonic. The most recent incident occured in Austria; for details see Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas. --jergen 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Trademark protection

The Boy Scouts of America and Scouts Canada have actively protected their trademarks to words like "Scout" and "Scouting" through legal means. The result has been the suppression of rival organizations. --Jagz 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not often I bring my POV into discussions on Scouting articles, but I do so now. What you describe is unscouting and unethical. How can any Scout defend this? --Bduke 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Its a WWBPD ("What Would Baden-Powell Do"). Lord B-P himself help the Boy Scouts of America stop the American/US Boy Scouts by lying under oath in a US Court that he intendent to have Boy Scouts to be an organization, not a movement and/or adjuct to other youth program (like Boys' Brigade and Church's Lad Brigades) like the facts were in Britian. In Britian, Boy/The Scout Association moved to restrict any rights to use Boy Scout in an attempt to squash British Boy Scouts, a merger of the Battersea Boy Scouts *(break away), London troops and CHUM Scouts (see their article). On top of that, US Congress in giving the Federal Government Charter to the Boy Scouts of America included all rights which stopped pre-existing "Boy Scout" novel series, toys, etc. and they even sued the Girl Scouts, as Camp Fire Girls was the original official BSA girls affiliate. Here BSA [Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America|sued]] the Youthscouts more recently. Spshu (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Military aspects

I put a cleanup template on the "Military aspects" section because it needs to be edited and written in proper English. --Jagz 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of this could probably be worked into BP's article, but BP is a FA and this section needs major work. Moving it to BP as is would get BP FARC'd (no longer an FA), so that section needs brought to FA level first. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Militarism

I moved this section from the article until it is cleaned up. It was in the article for an extended period of time without substantial editing. --Jagz (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I restored it because WIKI does not allow to delete or move content because of not being cleaned up to one editor's expectation. According WIKI rules one has to improve articles, not requesting others to clean up and delete when they don't. There is no reason to expect the cleaning will be done in the talk page when it was not done in the article. DParlevliet (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The section is excessively focused on Baden-Powell. The section should be about militarism and Scouting in general, not just how it relates to Baden-Powell. I added a POV template to the section. --Jagz (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The part was written because of an often mentioned opinion that Scouting was founded by Baden-Powell as a movement with important military aspects, mostly because of his profession and the idea that Scouting was based on a re-written military handbook. Therefore the article focuses on how Scouting was designed, by Baden-Powell. I have never heard of suggestions of military aspects later on in Scouting life, but everyone can add that, if it exist. The section was written for the Scouting article but refused because of "bad English". The Wiki Scouting group suggested to place it here, which I did. The section is written about the design of Scouting, which covers the largest part of "militarism and Scouting in general". It does not pretend to be more. So it could only be limited, not POV. DParlevliet (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This article for example says that there was a, "shift in position towards that of a non-military organisation", early in the Scouting movement.[2] --Jagz (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The article deals with the period 1909-1912 when Sir Francis Vane formed a separated branch of Scouting, including the whole Scouting London district. According Tim Jeal (p 404) this was caused by the tactless methods from Kyle from the Head Quarter and a growing suspicion that Head Quarter was too closely involved with military organisations. Kyle forged with Baden Powell the resign of Vane (he goes or I go). Both Jeal and the article does not make clear what really Vane's military objections were. According Jeal (p410) Scouting was designed and intended as a non-military organisation. This is supported by the fact that the rebellion started in Scouting, so they saw no military when they joint the movement. Also according the article Vane did not blame Baden Powell for the military movement. So shifted Scouting to the military later on? Not the method, anyway not in Scouting for Boys. In contrary because of critics even the few military items were removed, probably more because of publicity then to suppress real military customs in Scouting. What remains is the statement in the article that in some troops a lot of boys went to the army, but that does not imply that Scouting itself was military. Anyway also the article states that after the decline of Vane's organisation in 1912 Scouting occupied a politically middle ground. So I come to the conclusion that the section I wrote is neutral. The article questions only a short period in the forming years of Scouting in which it is even unclear if the scouting became more military then the civil way was designed. It follows Jeal's view that Scouting was not intended to be military, shows why it was not intended that way by BP, but also mentions that in no way this was caused by anti-military feelings from BP or Scouts. However I will try to add a remark about this period in the section. DParlevliet (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggested another name becausethe section was not intended tot give BP's opinion about militarism in general but about in Scouting. Otherwise it would be in the wrong acticle. It does focus on BP's scheme because he designed it and by editing the Scouting "bible" Scouting for Boys he determined it for some decades. It could be that Scouting in practice was more military then he wished, but the article suggested by Jagz shows the opposite: scoutmasters with an aversion to military. Scouting was made popular because BP was a military hero, by boys who always admire military as hero's. So it is more surprising that Scouting on the base level of the troops did not grew into a military direction. This can only be caused by the support of the scoutmaster of a non-military scheme. Anyway in my opinion the section must remain a general scouting one. DParlevliet (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In quoting from B-P, to defent the movement against the charge of militarism chronology must be taken into account. Using later writings to defend the early foundation can falsify the picture. Baden-Powell was sensitive to the critics, and in the pages of successive editions of scouting for boy, definte changes can be seen. There is a reasonable number of academics who consider militarism to have been an influence, especially in the beginnig period. The most serious challenge to these academics was a fellow academic, Allen Warren, but he was in the pay of The Scout Association of England, but his work was mainly focused on the 1911 onwards period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.136.12 (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Order of World Scouts says, "In 1909, a group of troops withdrew from Baden-Powell's Boy Scouts Association and formed the British Boy Scouts (BBS), out of a concern that Baden-Powell's association was too bureaucratic and militaristic." --Jagz (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this section does need urgent attention. Scouting was almost used for military purposes, with B-P's blessing. There was a a full military standards award, including sniper training, set up by B-P. See the Red Feather award. B-P also, remember, produced at least one recruiting poster for WW1 and only really turned against war after this event - which, iirc, was also the time that the BBS lost most of their leaders, not the stated 1912 (unless you have a source proving otherwise). I may attack this area some point soon. DiverScout (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

  • There is a difference between Scouting as organization and the scouts as persons. Baden-Powell has always resisted of making the organisation military (connected) or, shortly before the Great war, transferring it to cadets (see Jeal page 448-449). But he was not anti-military and was proud that so many scoutleaders did volunteer in the war. But this was their personal choice, they did not go as scouts. Baden-Powel did regard this as a duty for your country, for every civilian.DParlevliet (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • No. Look at the Red Feather award before posting ill-informed beliefs. This was a directly military award for Scouts who had been trained to military standards to fight as soldiers. Scouting has not always been purely non-military. We are here to report the truth, not our (or Jeal's) opinion. DiverScout (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I am also considering whether a comment on the Boy Scouts of America anti-terrorism training ought to be added to show that this area of training continues today. ("Around 35,000 "Explorer" scouts aged from 14 to 21 are currently in the "law enforcement exploring" programme across America. Dressed in combat fatigues and armed with air guns firing tiny plastic pellets, they are taught how to assault buses, raid marijuana fields and rescue terrorist hostages from buildings.") I'm unsure, though, as this is listed as being law enforcement despite the fact that it places the Scouts in combat situations, wearing combat gear and using simulated assault rifles. Regardless, it shows that, although we mostly keep away from the area, the statement that we never have and never do involve ourselves in military training is a false one. DiverScout (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The question is not if Scouting had militariy traces but was it designed with a mlitary goal or did it got in time major military items. This special Scouts Defence Corps was in numbers and time marginal. But the text in the article is in itself right. The BSA-item should be a part of BSA-controversy because it is not typical for world-wide scouting. DParlevliet (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the statement that this article was making was that there were no military training programmes provided in the global Scout Movement - an incorrect statement seemingly being mostly credited to a commercial biographer. Are you saying that this Boy Scout Association scheme, put forward by Baden-Powell, is somehow nothing to do with Scouting? Are you also saying that the BSA are now not a part of World Scouting? Sorry, but we do not ignore or hide things simply because they may be uncomfortable. This article is supposed to have a global perspective, meaning that examples from around teh world should be included where appropriate. The only reason I can see for possibly not including the US example is the one I have given - the fact that is is covered as law enforcement training rather than directly military. I remain unsure about that distinction, however. DiverScout (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from a 2001 book (Education and warfare in Europe) and specifically from its section headed "Militarism and youth movements: Scouts, Komsomol, Hitler Youth":

"The Boy Scout movement deserves particular attention in the context of its role in the preparation of young people for war."

And:

"[...] the Boy Scout movement [...] added [...] militaristic elements such as military style uniforms, ranks, salutes and a form of medal system in badges and other symbolic regalia. There was even drill with long sticks as weapon substitutes." Page 80 -- http://books.google.com/books?id=JbecAAAAMAAJ -- Jandalhandler (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  • The core of militarism is fighting and killing, not uniform, ranks, badges or drill. Uniform, ranks and badges can be found anywhere outside the army, like police, bus drivers, ships officers. Drill can be found in a lot of schools and educations (while Baden-Powell had forbidden drill or exercise with gun-looking elements). DParlevliet (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No he didn't, and you have been given a link to a scheme that he created specifically for that purpose of fighting and killing and given a reference to a similar scheme offered by a major WOSM member association. It is not a core of Scouting, but the desperate revisionist efforts to pretend that we have not ever (and do not now) have some military elements is simple POV, not academic fact. DiverScout (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
        • A small part of the Australian experience - Up until around eight years ago the Scout uniform was khaki. The only other well know organisation with a khaki uniform was the army. For many reasons, but one definitely being to get away from the obvious military connection, the uniform changed to blue. Yes, Scouting did have a military image. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Uniforms

Egel mentioned a controversy with uniforms:
"The uniform is one of the few aspects of Scouting that has some controversies, problems, criticisms in the Netherlands and probably the rest of Europe because people easily associate uniforms with military and fascist youth movements. This is one of the reasons that the European Scouting uniforms are so colorful."
Are there any other Scouting controversies about militarism? --Jagz 22:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The exclusion of individuals from Scouting

From the article:

"The United Kingdom Scout Association requires adult leaders to acknowledge a higher power, but does not necessarily exclude atheists from roles in Scouting, as long as the local Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant leader will support the values of Scouting and the investigation of faith by the young people in the movement."

But, from a document from the Scout Association, under the heading Key Policies, section e) Religious Policy:

"The atheistic absence of religious belief is a bar to becoming a Member of the Movement."

It really couldn't be any clearer. In Britain today, you can be Moslem, Sikh, Jewish, or one any of the hundreds of varieties of Christianity, and Scouting welcomes you with open arms, but if you are an atheist, you are unfit to help young people become better members of society. I only found out today, as I was completing the necessary forms to help our local scouts, that this astounding policy still exists. Forty-eight years ago, when I was excluded from moving up from the Cubs to the Scouts because I was an atheist, it was very upsetting. In the 21st Century, to find that there has been no progress from those days, apart from allowing other religions to join, is more than upsetting.

This needs to be reflected in this article, but I am too angry at present to do it.The Real Walrus (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed upsetting. I chose to leave the SA as a leader 38 years ago, because I was an atheist, but the powers that be were not forcing me out. On the contrary they suggested I should stay as "deep down I did believe"! However, we need a detailed reference to where this is stated. It is also not clear that it applies to all "members" or just to leaders. It should not be added anywhere until we can see the source. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain of two things:
  1. Why you would be "angry" about not being accepted by an organization that openly requires religious belief; or,
  2. What your feelings have to do with improving this article
If there are people who want to change Scouting so that religious faith is taken out, but all the other values are kept, by all means let's write an article about such people; and what organizations they have created, e.g., the Pioneer movement created by (atheistic) Communist governments in Cuba and the USSR. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure why you are opening up a discussion from nearly four years ago, or whether you are responding to the Walrus or myself. First, your point that the alternative to Scouting with a religious faith is a communist organisation is a very right wing American POV. There are plenty of other organisations and other ways of removing the religious element from Scouting. The problem in many countries is the hypocrisy. A boy spends up to 10 years in an organsation where religion plays little or no part. He then wants to become a leader and is told that he has to be religious. No wonder some people are angry. As an example of hypocrisy in the UK, I recall a local Cub Leader in the 1960s who filled in the leadership form religion section with "None". She was told that this was unacceptable, so she changed it to "C of E (None)" and this was accepted. "C of E" is the established Church of England, and she had probably been baptised there. She was one of the very best Cub Leaders that I came across. I also point above to further hypocrisy when some of the top leader trainers in UK refused to recognize that I no longer had a faith and just urged me to carry on as if I did. I left in disgust, because I thought the most important points of Scouting were honesty and honour. I now live in Australia where Scouts Australia requires only a promise of duty to "my God", which some argue is a null promise for many people. Over 20% of Australians filled in "No religion" in the census last year and that number is growing from census to census. A large proportion of those who recognise a cultural religious affiliation in the census do not practice that religion. Religion plays very little role in most Scout Groups. However, even that maybe null Promise has a touch of dishonesty about it. Finally experience tells us that Scouting works just as well in achieving its aims without religion. So discussion of this one of the "Three Gs" is simmering away in Scouting organisations around the world and we need to address it properly when it becomes visible with good sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead

has sketchy references to the US civil rights movement and the Indian resistance movement but I could'nt find anything about that in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.77.150 (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclusion of the non-religious

  • Controversies have arisen from the exclusion of certain people, including atheists, agnostics, and/or LGBT people, from membership of some Scouting organisations ... "Duty to God" is a principle of Scouting worldwide, though it is applied differently among countries.[3][4] The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) takes a strong position, excluding atheists and agnostics,[5][6] while Girl Scouts of the USA takes a more neutral position. The United Kingdom Scout Association requires adult leaders to acknowledge a higher power, but does not necessarily exclude atheists from roles in Scouting, as long as the local Commissioner is satisfied that the applicant leader will support the values of Scouting and the investigation of faith by the young people in the movement. Scouts Canada defines Duty to God broadly in terms of "adherence to spiritual principles" and does not require members to be part of an organized religion, but does require that they have some form of "personal spirituality".[7] In other countries, especially in Europe, some Scouting organizations may be secularist or religiously neutral (such as Eclaireuses et Eclaireurs de France and Corpo Nazionale Giovani Esploratori ed Esploratrici Italiani).

The only mention of excluding people is "Boy Scouts of America (BSA) takes a strong position, excluding atheists and agnostics,[5][6]" - which is hardly detailed. It's a claim based on two footnotes. I daresay few leaders will take the trouble to read the footnotes.

Could we please mention individuals by name (or if there's a privacy issue in some other way) who have been excluded for being agnostic, i.e., for expressing their uncertainty about the existence of God? Also, is it also atheist boys who are excluded, or only atheist troop leaders or BSA officials? Please give details - especially if the intro says "detailed below". --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I started a draft at Talk:Boy Scouts of America membership controversies/Religion some time back. There are two youth-related incidents and one adult; obviously there must be more. It really needs sources that have examined the issue in detail. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
"Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members or adult volunteer leaders." That quote should be in the article, and we should also try to find out if any boy has ever been kicked out of a troop for revealing that he isn't sure whether God exists (Agnostic) or declaring he is quite sure there is no God (Atheist). --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sidebar response to Gadget850, I think that those two "youth" situations were actually because the parent wouldn't sign their application.North8000 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

to be added in later

Page 11 World Organization of the Scout Movement – Triennial Report 1996-1999 Page 10 AN OVERVIEW OF THE TRIENNIUM, continued Scouts battle leprosy with WHO and AHM Child Protections A Memorandum of Understanding to implement the strategy for the elimination of leprosy as a public health problem was signed at the World Scout Bureau in July 1997 by three parties: the World Health Organization(Action Programme for the Elimination of Leprosy); the Munich based AHM Leprosy Relief Organization, and the World Organization of the Scout Movement. Partner organizations in ten countries, where leprosy is still prevalent, have been provided with material to implement this agreement: Bangladesh, Brazil, The Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Indonesia,Madagascar, Nepal, Philippines, Sudan and Tanzania. Scouting’s Involvement in the Elimination of Leprosy: Resource Material for National Scout Organizations has been prepared and circulated to associations concerned. The document highlights the educational dimension of this activity both for the Scouts and the communities involved.s In a message sent to all national Scout associations, the World Scout Committee expressed its concern that the Scout Movement - in every country- must actively work to protect all Scouting members, especially young people, from physical, sexual and emotional harm. All Scout organizations are expected to have policies and procedures which are intended to protect members by means of the recruitment and training of suitable leaders, and provisions for the removal of leaders found to be unsuitable.Responses to the World Committee message show that several national Scout associations have well developed protection programmes, and some of these are being used as models for adoption by other organizations and agencies.Some Scout associations indicated that they are presently reviewing their policies and procedures; unfortunately some Scout associations have not responded at all. It has been noted that some widely publicized cases of child abuse related to “scouting” were in groups calling themselves “scouts” but which are not members of the recognized national Scout association in their country; and there are also cases involving “former Scout leaders” whose offences had nothing to do with Scouting and who had been removed from Scouting - often many years ago - precisely because protection programmes were effective. The feedback is being reviewed to consider if more can be done at the world level to help national Scout organizations have effective protection programmes.Using the theme Scouts can help cure,Scouts in India and other countries are helping teach people how to recognize and test for early stages of leprosy.

What is the intention of this text, who wrote it and where would it be added in later? I see no connection with Scouting controversy or conflict.DParlevliet (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Scouting controversy and conflict. 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) 05:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scouting_controversy_and_conflict/Archive_1&oldid=1107280264"