Talk:Scouts Canada/Archive 1

Merge
Yes, merge Canadian Scout Jamboree here. Rlevse 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Co-ed in history
I just read that Scouts Canada went co-ed and all-inclusive in 1998. I'm hoping I can find some time to research this, but am puzzled why something so momentous wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. --Habap 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Found a good discussion of this over at Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/archive2. I'll be adding some of that text to the article to explain more of the history of Scouts Canada. --Habap 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Duty to God
Is this statement true? "Scouts Canada defines 'Duty to God' broadly in terms of "adherence to spiritual principles" and does not have a policy excluding non-theists." --Jagz 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look around the Scouts Canada website and they say "Duty to God: Defined as, The responsibility to adhere to spiritual principles, and thus to the religion that expresses them, and to accept the duties therefrom". They also say "Scouting welcomes all cultures and religious denominations to our membership."  There is no mention of any particular policy about non-theists (or similar words). Whether such a policy exists, I don't know. Kingbird 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. --Jagz 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Special Programs
MedVents while becoming quite popular, is organized as a Vocational Venturing effort, much the same as RCMP Venturers and does not constitute a separate section. What we may want to note is that Venturers and Rovers may be organized along standard or vocational structures (for example Medical or RCMP/Police). Opinions?cantis 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material
Several paragraphs have been frequently removed by an unregistered user without explanation and have been reverted. Finally the anon editor removed the material with the edit summary "Old Content, no longer relevant". This seems inadequate to me. Parts of that material are old and may need rewriting to update it. Other section such as that on the B-P Scouts should remain. I have reverted and now semi-protected the article in an attempt to force discussion on this matter on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)


 * Some updating of that information would be good. Most certainly, it is relevant and needs to stay. --Lkmorlan (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of the Issues stuff is inaccurate, opinion, Violates the NPOV guidelines and/or off topic. Specifically - the information on pension liabilities is the opinion of one accountant that has been challenged by several other accountants, the information on camps cites only a non-recognized (by anyone, including industry canada) source of which the contributor is a founding member of and the Baden Powell Scouts do not exist in Canada (as established by Industry Canada)- their spinoff which cannot use the word Scout represents less than 60 youth members across Canada.  The accurate material in this section are the references to market share, though it should include information on the steps being taken to reverse this.


 * The section on elections does not take in to account the new election procedure, which was designed by a member of the group that has written most of this section. Spicegw 001 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the status of this about the BPSA in Canada? Certainly, this is the discussion that was needed, but more is still needed. --Bduke (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure, Spicegw 001, that you had consensus yet to remove all the material that had been restored by me when I semi-protected the article. Certainly you need to add sources for the assertions that you make. I am also not clear that you have the NPOV right. You are removing critical comments about Scouts Canada and just adding pro-Scouts Canada comments. Also note that removing the semi-protected template does not remove the semi-protection. It just means editors will not know it is semi-protected. --Bduke (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the reason why I did not remove all the material that you restored - simply the material that was out of date or supplied by a lobby group. Spicegw 001 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, but I am still inclined to think soem more of it could have been left until consensus was clearer. More importantly the absence of sources is a concern. How do we know the B-P Scouts have folded? The link I give above is dated January 2008. If you can not source the statement you added, it should be removed rapidly. --Bduke (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have now included some sources and I agree that my wording was probably unfair, I've fixed it. However, I seem to have made an error with the reference engine - could you help me with my formatting?  Spicegw 001 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have fixed it and added a reference to BPSA. The court case over the trademark and name still needs referencing. The Robert Bateman link is to a disambiguation page that does not seem to include him. --Bduke (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's listed there as a naturalist - not sure how to get the link to point at him in particular-I didn't know there were so many Robert Batemans (Batemen?) 207.81.87.174 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

BPSA
--— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  23:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WFIS still shows three BPSA groups in Canada.
 * The BPSA British Columbia site has been updated this year. Note that that the title is "BP Service Association".
 * The BPSA in Ontario site was last updated February 2nd, 2008.
 * My error in wording - but I would note that there is a separate page for the BPSA on Wikipedia. It would probably be more suitable for this to be listed on the Scouting in Canada page, rather than the Scouts Canada page. Spicegw 001 (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is fine as is, with a link when the name is first used. The Scouting in Canada page covers all the independent groups. --Bduke (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Patron Scout or Patronne Scout
Would someone please get a reference for this? I reverted back to Patron as the IP editor was changing it in only one place and not all places in the article. Is it just a difference between English and French? Do we need to use both terms? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  23:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's Patronne. That might just be because I'm french. Or Patronne may be a female and Patron a male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the Governor-General is male. However, what is really needed is not what you are sure about, but an independent source saying what he is actually called. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The English title is "Patron Scout", see Scouts Canada: Board of Governors. I could not find any mention on the website of the French speaking ASC. --jergen (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The Governor General's web site calls him the "patron scout". The web site does not mention "patronne scout". --Lkmorlan (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict
3RR exepmtion - Noted repeated removal of sourced material by an editor, who has ignored requests to discuss the issue on this page or their own talk page. Their actions, in repeatedly removing sourced materials, appears direct and obvious vandalism (although almost certainly well-intentioned). Logging possible need for intervention and protection on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring DiverScout (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Admin note - Hopefully we are moving forward on this. DiverScout (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Image Dispute
There was no justification for user:Tawker to have speedy deleted this file. It was a perfect svg representation (not "older" as claimed) of the Scouts Canada emblem. Emblems are used in infoboxes, not "logos" or current branding. Nothing was significantly different from the smaller, lower quality logo being foisted now. Please restore it, and consider the Scouting WPMOS, which is aiming toward svgification of all Scout national emblems. Again, a discussion was warranted before user:Tawker did this unilateral move. The emblem _was_ in use, and was deleted without any discussion. Please restore, then discuss, as you should have done previously. Any weak arguments about svgs per WP:LOGO don't hold water, all images on that page are svgs. At any rate, you didn't discuss, this was your error of omission and I don't need to "calm down" when it was clearly your error.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At present there is no documentation in MOS that I can find to suggest emblem is used in lieu of logo. Even on the BSA page, the image states "logo" instead of emblem in the description.  Given the purpose of the logo is to identify the organization the current logo (as is on page) is the logical choice.  Given fair use policies we are not permitted to maintain non free images when they are not being used, the deletion was routine. -- Tawker (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Tawker cannot prove any such violation ever took place, the svg was always shown no greater than 140 px, he's trying to cover for his policy mininterpretation and for failing to discuss the matter before his improper speedy deletion.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a second look at the image and it's definitely bigger than 140px. Regardless of size displayed, the source file hosted on WMF servers is not permitted to be larger than necessary.  The key issue here is which logo should be displayed to identify Scouts Canada, not CSD criteria. Again, I can see nothing in policy that suggests that we should not use the org's logo.  Please remember to assume good faith in discussions here, it makes everything work better -- Tawker (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You only seem to use Wikipedia policy when it suits you. What about "If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary."? This was obviously a contentious issue, and you chose not to address it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it did not seem that contentious of an issue, I was under the impression you were mistaken as to what was current logo (per edit summaries) - calm down a second, you're getting all wound up -- Tawker (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, I would like to add that within the WP:MOS, it clearly states that: "...the current logo should be the logo presented."(Logos) Additionally, the paragraph explains that if both the appearance differs and there is no loss of high-quality appearance, then using the new logo is quite reasonable and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munvo (talk • contribs)

No information on child sex abuse charges
The page fails to convey the issues raised by CBC and other mainstream media about allegatiosn of child abuse and the confidential settlements reached by Scouts Canada. As an open source, encylopedia I think we need to provide that information in a neutral language. One link Scouts Canada sex settlements kept secret. Kanatonian (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The CBC has been making more or less unproven allegations (effectively Fox news style) about Scouts Canada and has been going for sensationalism rather than neutral accuracy.  The only report we have seen has been from the CBC, everyone else has more or less reported that the CBC made these allegations.  Unless there is something substantial, I don't think it is neutral to include anything at this point in time. -- Tawker (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding NPOV and Reliable Sources. NPOV, says we use neutral language but you cannot eliminate CBC as a source because of NPOV, you can eliminate it only if its a non reliable source, clearly it is not. Whether it is sensationalism or it is like FOX news is irrelevent because those are your opinions and sentimants. What we are talking about is verifiable facts published by reliable sources. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Too many acronyms this week, I mixed the two. Anyways, my point being, the CBC piece was an opinion documentary, and VERY careful wording would be required in order to make any statement NPOV.  I believe any wording would also need to include the relevant facts about the availability/practices of screening in the prior eras, Scouts Canada's educational component regarding preventing abuse and some context on the relative rareness of cases compared to other organizations. If you wish to propose something on the talk page, feel free, but I request you do not add anything to the page unless it has been discussed first. -- Tawker (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as the counter information is available from rs sources or scouts canada itself. thanks Kanatonian (talk)
 * Obviously the information about Scout's Canada and its involvement in not reporting potential sexual abuse of minors now is in the mainstream. Scouts Canada has apologized, has opened an inquiry and came up with a preliminary report suggesting that they may have hurt children along the way by not reporting all predatory activities of pedophiles or child molesters. Kanatonian (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a section about child sexual abuse. Lkmorlan (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned it up and set up a pointer to the main article on the topic, no sense duplicating the same article. I do think it would make sense to attempt to use multiple sources for this, reliance on one source is a bad thing.  I have attempted to do so.  -- Tawker (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well. One can assert that the content written is supported only by subjective, non-verifiable sources which have a proven track record of defaming the reputation of others. An example would include a lawsuit against the CBC, The Fifth Estate being held liable for harming the reputation of a highly respected clinician-scientist   .  Because of this, the articles written by the CBC should not be included on this page.  Furthermore, these articles do not include creditable sources that are publicly verifiable   . The list does not end there, the CBC and it's program The Fifth Estate are known for many more acts of libel   . Such articles that are produced by the CBC include a bias towards only one view which are supported by their own policies .  To address; however, any statements made by Scouts Canada should be included as they are applicable and verifiable.   It should be noted that such content should be carefully worded as previously mentioned to avoid a bias or defaming tone. -- Munvo (talk) 15:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be added that the articles supporting the text removed cannot be publicly verified, have not been peer-reviewed, often hold a bias towards a single viewpoint and as such, do not carry a neutral point of view. Because of these points, the content violates Wikipedia's core content policies and its stance on holding a neutral point of view . -- Munvo (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The CBC is a well-respected news organization and the documentary just won an award. Disagreeing with this news source is not grounds for removing it. Lkmorlan (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One single award does not change the evidence provided that demonstrates their clear failure to create and distribute neutral content; more specifically The Fifth Estates. Please see my previous comments regarding how such content violates Wikipedia's policies. Additionally as mentioned by DiverScout, the issue revolves around the documentary and not current Child Protection issues. -- Munvo (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not just the CBC. Numerous news sources have reported about child abuse in Scouting. It is a long-standing issue, from well before last fall, even if it has only recently been added to this page. I don't like that we have to write this either. But hiding the truth will cause more children to be abused. Lkmorlan (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about hiding anything, it's about putting it into perspective on this article and expanding on it on the main article. If you look at the Costa Concordia article, there is a mention of the disaster and a link to the main article on the disaster, this is the exact same case, we present a brief note of the issues with a link to the main article.  It's about balancing the article and presenting the information in a more appropriate place.   -- Tawker (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tawker, we do not need to create an unreasonably detailed section about a specific issue which can be addressed appropriately on a separate page dedicated to such a topic. To add, Wikipedia is not the place to address individual concerns with organizational policies and "long-standing issues". -- Munvo (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is child sexual abuse. That should be the name of the section. Child protection is the response to abuse. The CBC is merely one of many news sources that have reported on the issue. The opening paragraph needs to be about the issue, child sexual abuse, not about the CBC's report about child sexual abuse. Lkmorlan (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, no. The issue is failure of Child Protection policy of the time to prevent abuse.  This is not an article on child abuse.  The abuse is detailed on the linked-to main, dedicated article, and ought not to need to be repeated on this article.  If there are other media-covered concerns against the whole organisation (rather than indidual cases, which belong on the abuse page) then these sources should be added.  DiverScout (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * New title works well to me. DiverScout (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Same, it seems to strike the proper balance without going overboard. At this point, I think the section is pretty balanced and appropriate.  Now, there is the rest of the article to improve -- Tawker (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be really useful for anyone who claims to have "cleaned " something up to state what are his qualifications to do so. For somebody like Tawker to claim that the CBC reports of abuse in Scouts Canada are "more or less unproven allegations" when Scouts Canada have pubblicly admitted that everything CBC alleged actually took place, is simply disinformation and intellectually dishonest.

So if you were not there, if you have no encyclopedic knowledge of your alleged contribution to an encyclopedia, please take your oversized ego, shove it in your back pocket, step aside and allow those who actually know, to share their knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.36.4 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you that personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. Continuance to do so will result in a block.  With that being said, if you would take a second to look at the date and time stamps on the postings, at the time they were written there was no credible evidence presented.  Circumstances have changed.  However, personal attacks are NEVER acceptable -- Tawker (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is a current news issue and should be included until it is no longer considered notable. Whether the current text is appropriate is a different matter for debate, but SC people cannot simply do what appears to be hiding their heads in the sand over a current newsworthy issue.  The listed facts are by a credited to a reliable third-part source (despite the POV comments made on here), and those showing how SC are dealing with the matter (credited only to SC itself) are also retained, showing how the matter is being dealt with.
 * As an outsider I may have a look at the wording seeing as most of the issue is now on the abuses page and does not need wholescale repetition - but I will revert outright deletions as well-intentioned, though misguided, vandalism. DiverScout (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If Scouts Canada have introduced new methods of vetting volunteers since the cases (pre-1990s) then the opening phrase was really correct. It does not illustrate a reactionary change to the indicated cases, simply a chronological one.  The word "also" implies that these changes relate directly to either the CBC documentary or the KPMG investigation.  If so, that is a rapid and amazing response - but I think that these systems were introduced in the time between the cases and the documentary?  Please correct me if I am wrong in that assumption? DiverScout (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the current wording on the article in this diff - it seems to cover it in a manner appropriate and in balance with the length of the article. -- Tawker (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Scouts Canada's system of police record checks and interviews was introduced in the late 1990s. Lkmorlan (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New Uniforms
The article's details on the new uniforms is slightly inaccurate.

BEAVERS - Vests now include a logo, as do hats. CUBS - Now wear a grey shirt (pretty much a polo shirt with long sleeves and a thicker material, badges go on arm, no sash or epaulettes) SCOUTS - Now wear a green shirt (logos on right side, badges on arm, no sash or epaulettes) VENTURERS - Same as Scouts, but blue. ROVERS - Same as Scouts, but red LEADERS - Same as Rovers.

The article did not refer to the Beavers or Cubs uniform differences. --99.247.227.116 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Honestly, the entire article is inaccurate now. --99.247.227.116 (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The great thing about a wiki is, you can edit it and improve things. If there is a factual error, please go ahead and edit the article to fix it, be sure to include relevant references and citations :) -- Tawker (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Membership Stats

 * It strikes me that it would be easier to update and more accurate to show the previous year's final numbers, rather than this year's current numbers. Spicegw 001 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Membership is an instantaneous value; I added the date and broke it into youth and adult numbers. --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

 * Could we try to get some current photos on here? It's just embarrassing to have shots that are 30+ years old listed as showing current Scouting. Spicegw 001 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Logo

 * Update the logo to the latest version used by Scouts Canada? I change it and the bot keeps changing it back even though they are both under the same copyright? --Munzo101 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The image was uploaded to Commons, then changed here. The Commons image was then delete because it is non-free, then the change here was reverted. Then the image was uploaded to Wikipedia and again changed here. What is the difference between the original SVG image and the current image, other then the patch border? File:Scouts Canada.svg meets the specification on the Scouts Canada page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Reverted. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I give up. The link isn't dead. Page and images removed from my watchlist. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Camp List

 * Can we consider creating a separate page for the list of camps being put on this page? They appear to be adding a great amount of unneeded length to the already large page. --Munvo (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They should be split to go on articles about Scouting in the various Provinces. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Camps
Is the camps section really necessary? I suggest the entire section be deleted, as it does not seem to be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel2000 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - it doesn't appear to be necessary. --Munvo (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should consider a seperate page, List of Scouts Canada Camps or something. Weasel2000 (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The camps should be discussed in the Province Scouting articles, not here, unless the camp has a national significance like Gilwell Park in UK. Have a look at how camps are dealt with on WP in UK. The national activity centres have their own articles and other camps are mentioned in the region Scouting articles. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked Scouting and Guiding in several Canadian provinces, at least in Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, I have seen that several camps are listed. Perhaps we could remove the camps section from here and add on to the provincial articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel2000 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

New uniforms
http://www.vancouversun.com/scout+uniforms+flash+ditch+sash/4506546/story.html ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I got a new uniform. I'm an XXXL. They're too small for the sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.227.116 (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Flare magazine has no record of that claim — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.16.123 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

New Uniform
Aside from one quote from the editor of Flare, there is little evidence that Flare magazine itself has anything to say about the uniform. Can we change it to include the direct quote or scrap it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.16.123 (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Child protection
After reviewing the child protection section I found the following concerns with it: (a) the first reference, number 44 fails to mention the dates discussed in the associated sentence; (b) the third sentence is in the wrong tense; and (c) the entire paragraph seems irrelevant based on the final sentence. --129.100.254.153 (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Beaver Buggies, Kub Kars & Scout Trucks
Does anyone think the 3 are worthy of a section. Pinewood derby has an article, I'm thinking the 3 activities need at least a passing mention. -- Tawker (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

While a somewhat major program element of Cubs, I don't think it needs a mention. 206.116.100.69 (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Major awards
Would it make sense to integrate this section in with the respective section descriptions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.16.123 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but where would the Medal of the Maple go? it's a service award, not a proficiency badge like the others. If the MotM is to go anywhere it would be on a page separate with the other SC Honours and Awards. 206.116.100.69 (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

image, again
I have asked for the svg image (IMAGE A) to be undeleted, and have replaced Scouts Canada.png (IMAGE C) with it. The original removal was primarily being argued for the addition of extraneous text not on the badge (IMAGE B). That image has since been replaced, so that rationale no longer exists. Where a clear svg at low resolution is available, it is preferable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Scouts Canada (referenced in the article) - the logo is the badge design - the non badge design image is not the current logo of the organization. By it's very nature, a SVG file isn't resolution independent, it's a scalable vector image, it could be blown up poster size and still look normal.  A lower res JPEG or PNG can't be enlarged - a low resolution non vector image stays that way. -- Tawker (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And that "badge design" (IMAGE B) was removed. Further, we don't put logos in the infobox, we put the national emblem, with the logo somewhere else. These are similar enough the duplication won't matter. An admin has agreed with the restoration of this image, so unless you find a better rationale, the svg is fine here. Please don't be contentious for the sake of being contentious.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ps-Because you speedily (and dirtily) deleted the svg before to stifle open dialogue, I am premptively calling for WP:3O before you can pull that again. The issue is not as cut-and-dried and simplistic as you think it is, and you're not the only one whose view should carry weight. The debate should be open to the wider WikiScouting community, so I am posting it there as well.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here as a volunteer for WP:3O. After much research including looking at over a dozen scouting organizations and the official site of Scouts Canada, I find that this is the prevailing logo used by all of them unilaterally, and also happens to be the image linked on the site.  I do ask since the image was deleted, can someone link me the deleted image so I can see what was proposed as well?  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. --evrik (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused. This looks like a cryptic last 5% of a conversation that we can't find the other 95% of.  Could somebody explain what the key issues involved are?  Also actual image names for each would be helpful where they have not been given. Thanks.  North8000 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Scouts Canada's guidelines here the "badge design" is the current logo/emblem. Scouts Canada does not have a national emblem, the image that is currently on the page is an out of date version of the logo.  For those new to the conversation File:Scouts_Canada.svg is the old version of the logo Kintetsubuffalo proposes to use, File:Scouts_Canada.png is the version of the logo used on Scouts.ca and in Scouts Canada's branding/media guidelines.   -- Tawker (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing mandating that it be one way or the other (except possibly a file format change might be needed for fair use of the .svg) so I think that it can and should be decided in talk. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of using File:Scouts_Canada.png as it is in align with Logos; which clearly states that, "reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the logo is accurate and has a high-quality appearance"; furthermore, it goes on to state "...the current logo should be the logo presented." As such, I have reverted the change back to the to the new logo. Munvo (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition to my above statement, I posed the question to Scouts Canada's official twitter and here is their response: tweet in question. --Munvo (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd point out, according to the Bylaws, Policies and Procedures of Scouts Canada, the logo referenced on page iii of http://www.scouts.ca/bpp/en/intro-and-cover.pdf would be the correct one until the BP&P can be updated to reflect current usage, though that page was last updated in January 2013, so an update is unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.100.69 (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a solution to what's going to happen here? Captmakr (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted File:Scouts Canada.svg. --  Gadget850talk 03:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

How are the Council Commissioners appointed?
The sections on Organizational Structure and Controversies, Organizatonal Structure do not explain how the Councils are appointed. There have been different attempts but these have just been deleted by others in a wholesale manner. Deletion rather than editing has the intention of denying information. Clearly the governance of the organization is a significant controversial issue both within and outside the organization. The Council's are supposed to be the bodies electing the voting members who elect the Board of Governors. This is already pretty distant in accountability but if the Board controls the Councils there is NO effective power of accountability. There is also nothing on the term of office of members of the Board. Can we get a clear, simple description of how the Councils are appointed and whether the power controlling the appointment of the Councils is from the grass roots or from the top.101.171.42.149 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A further edit now suggests the executive commissioner appoints the Council Commissioners who then "appoint" their management teams (members of the CC) but then the same edit suggests the positions are publicly advertized and selected by committees. Are they appointed by the CC or selected by a committee? Who appoints the selection committees? We're not getting much further here. Over 120 hits a day and nobody can explain how the Councils are appointed and where the power in the organization really lies and whether there is any effective accountability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.159 (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Council Commissioners are appointed by the Chief Commissioner in short from my understanding. With that being said, a committee is formed to review the nominations for this role, interview the individuals and make a recommendation to the Chief Commissioner. --Munvo (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

National Youth Network
There's a claim about the National Youth Network representing youth- in the Council Youth Commissioner Job description- http://www.scouts.ca/sites/default/files/CYC-Description-2012.pdf there is no direct mention to actually representing youth. Neither does the Area Youth Commissioner position actually represent youth. It would be accurate to say they promote youth leadership and the like, but this concept has moved beyond simply representing youth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.100.69 (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are looking for here? Munzo (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Initiatives: 2011 uniform redesign
I think that one could argue that the 2011 uniform redesign is no longer an "initiative." Can this either be included in another section or removed entirely? Munzo (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Part-Time Programs: ScoutsAbroad
I think the case could be made that ScoutsAbroad is more so stand alone from "part-time" programs such as scoutsbaout given the aspects of ScoutsAbroad apply to members without any limitation on their membership length. I propose that ScoutsAbroad stand separate under Program from part-time. --Munzo (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The canoe photo, taken by child pornographer
Do any of you die-hard Wikipedians think it might be a little bit of a PR gaffe if your article features a photo illustration taken by someone convicted and served time for child pornography? Or, is this another case of Wikipedians wanting "information to be free"? - 2001:558:1400:10:317E:FB50:3910:3139 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Troll harder. I'm not going to suggest who may have written this, but here is a coincidental clue. As our knowledgeable 2001 IP address points out, Wayne Ray has apparently been in prison for child porn offences.. User:WayneRay was blocked indefinitely in August 2012. So should the canoe image be deleted? It is on Wikimedia Commons with a public domain license. There is nothing problematic with the image, but some people love to go looking for controversy. What do other users think?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've nominated the image for deletion on Commons: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:ScoutsYorkminster.jpg. I think there are serious copyright questions about this and other "Windfield Photographic Collection" images. See the DR for my concerns in detail.  INeverCry   17:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the copyright concern completely, I think we should absolutely not use this photograph. It is a photograph of children, where a convicted child pornographer is the one who says they took it. There are numerous examples of this individual grooming or trolling for photos of youths across the wikis. Its possible that this photo is a photo of victims of abuse and we should absolutely err on the side of caution and not use it in the context of a youth topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your removal of it from the article, and with your rationale for doing so. I think it should stay out regardless of the result of my DR.  INeverCry   03:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Warm time efforts
Thoughts on including history on Scouting efforts during WW2 on this page? Thinking the history section? Example: Legion: they were prepared Munzo (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Medal of the Maple

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus. Philly jawn (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose to merge Medal of the Maple into Scouts Canada. The Medal of the Maple article is very short (rated as start-class) and contains one external reference and two wikilinks, consequently being marked as insufficiently integrated into the encyclopedia and over-reliant on primary sources. While it does contain good and interesting information, most of that information would be best placed in this article as an expansion of the youth awards section. KilimAnnejaro (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on the grounds that there is capacity for expansion, and that this award page is of comparable quality to the 3 other similar Canadian awards (Chief Scout's Award (Scouts Canada), Queen's Venturer Award and Amory Adventure Award), so any merge proposal would best be done as a compendium proposal. Klbrain (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to keep the separate article. And IMO when you get a large multi-faceted organization one part of it writing about another part of it is not a primary source. Just like a human writing about the human race is not necessarily a primary source. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.