Talk:SCOUT eh!

Attention tag
External jumps need converted to cite php footnotes. Rlevse 11:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Rlevse 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and BLP
I came across this article on a routine check of articles proposed for deletion. Although I have removed the proposed deletion tag for process reasons, I see two main issues with this article: I will shortly be editing this article to address my second point above; I will leave the first point to those who are more familiar with the subject. The editor(s) who have been reverting the removals of unsourced non-NPOV content should look at the policies on conflict of interest, neutral point-of-view, and ownership of articles. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * it reads like an advocacy page for the organization with minimal independent sourcing; and
 * it is peppered with names of people presumed to be living, where either 1) there is contentious information about them that is unsourced, or 2) the (unsourced) inclusion of the name of a living, non-public figure does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the article.
 * I have no prejudice against re-adding the name of Rob Stewart, the CEO of Scouts Canada, since his position makes him somewhat of a public figure. I'd even be willing to let a mention of his name go unsourced, but if and only if the name is used only to identify him as the CEO. Any claims made about his actions, positions, or lack thereof must be independently sourced. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording (without references to individuals) seems fine to me (although articles can always use some extra work). As this is an article about a campaign group their opinions will always be PoV - as will the answering views of those they are campaigning against.  An hour spent on search engines has pulled up a raft of refences, some of which I have added to the article.  I may do some more on this later as, living in the UK, I'd only heard about this group in passing before and it has been quite interesting to find out more about their views.  DiverScout (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I knocked out a large lump that seemed mostly internal to the organisation, trying to change the focus onto background and the campaigns that have been run. DiverScout (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried to section things into various campaigns as well as move it into third person - there were still some paragraphs which read very promotionalspeak -- Tawker (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Language
I'll keep trying to sort out the various issues with this entry - but will be using British English. This may result in words and phrases that need to be changed into Canadian English and is purely due to my being British, nothing more sinister! DiverScout (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work!
You've brought this article a long way in 1 day, including substantially beefing up references. I changed my recommendation at AFD from "merge" to "keep". Nice work! Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks.
 * It is proving not very hard to find sources. I would, however, ask a certain editor who is hostile towards this group to remember that reference tags should be used according to policy and that every other word does not need referencing.  Where the group says that some people were hostile to the changes, this is pretty evident from the formation of this pressure group and the representations made in the press and to the government.  The membership figure in the lead is referenced in teh body - and it is common practice not to reference leads.  Thank you. DiverScout (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We all know the common phrase regarding assumptions, they tend to lead to a LOT of misunderstandings. I admit, I am a little citation happy at times, given Wikipedia's nature one can NEVER have enough citations.  Now the question is, how do we headline the article... should each campaign get it's own headline with a paragraph or two or does a larger issues section w/ multiple paragraphs seem more relevant -- Tawker (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They can, as with most actions taken on computers rather than around a nice warm camp fire! No worries about the citation tags.   I prefer less of them as they really make Wikipedia hard to read at times and are so often used as some type of scatter-shot by people. I don't mind the titles, but they do jump out of the page quite hard.  Mind you, I am known for my love of tables - so I'll leave style choices to others! DiverScout (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)