User talk:Robert c2227

Welcome!

Hello, Robert c2227, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Scouting have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Please brouse around some of the discussions in the project. It may help you to learn how we approach writing articles about the Scout movement here on wikipedia. Good luck. I am sure you will be able to make a contribution. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I really hate to bite a newcomer, but you are starting to engage in edit warring. Please read Edit warring and note the 3RR rule. Please discuss issues on talk pages, providing details and sources as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gadget850, Edit warring takes two sides. You undid my edit without a stated reason and without adding a reference to the unsupported claim in the version to which you reverted. You didn't attempt to engage me over the facts. The statement in the article is clearly false. Robert c2227 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert, please read WP:WEIGHT, especially what it says about small (or vastly limited) minority viewpoints. --Egel Reaction? 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert - in one of your Edit summaries, you mentioned the possibility of "a biased agenda" among those whose past efforts you would like to change. I'm truly wondering what biased agenda you think is on display. It's great to have an enthusiastic new editor on the Scouting front, but I'm wondering what is that is driving you. If it is to correct some perceived wrong, created by people with what you see as an unacceptable bias, I doubt if most of the rest of us are seeing it. While it's definitely not perfect, what exists in Wikipedia on Scouting has been created by a whole bunch of well-intentioned editors working in good faith. They didn't mean to do wrong. (And I don't think they have.) Can you further elaborate here on what biases and other systemic problems you are trying to tackle? HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, I note your comments on your User page about editors imposing their conservative views. In a similar way there is an Establishment within scouting.

I am just trying to add truth and accuracy. As an innocuous example, look at the first paragraph of the article on The Scout Association, the previous version stated the "Association was formed ... in 1910 by the grant of a charter by the Parliament of the United Kingdom." How long had this error lasted on this page unnoticed by the expert Uber-editors on scouting while there was 150+ views a day? These are basic facts about the organization. I see little evidence of factual knowledge from primary sources, very poor organization and structuring of information in a hyperlinked web and lots of attempts to tell, or re-tell, unsupported stories. There are those on Wikipedia who hover endlessly over articles trying to control what is published in their domain, always ready to hit the undo button without good reason.

There has been lots of criticism of what I've done and how but no one has attempted to engage with me on the facts. Says s lot. Robert c2227 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "Association was formed ... in 1910 by the grant of a charter by the Parliament of the United Kingdom"? I ask in all innocence, and this perhaps highlights two problems. Most of the world's Scouts are not in the UK (including myself), and even those who are are not going to know nor very often care how the Association was formed, so please don't write as if the error, whatever it is, should be obvious to all. Secondly, you only told us what was (allegedly) wrong, not what it should be. DO try to be constructive. And on that latter note, you can fix it, with good sourcing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48, A "charter of the Parliament" is an Act of parliament incorporating and/or granting rights and privileges, like a Congressional charter e.g. the BSA's 1916 Congressional charter. The Scout Association was incorporated by royal charter in 1912. The Boy Scouts Association's Canadian branch corporation now named Scouts Canada was incorporated by Canadian parliamentary charter. The Girl Guides Association was incorporated by a UK parliamentary charter and later by royal charter. I didn't write as if the error should have been obvious to all but its writer should have known that they didn't really know. RE your second comment: I didn;t tell "us" what what it should be because I included a link to the article which was corrected (with reference) and its history contains the edits. I am being very constuctive but have met a very conservative, reactionary and unconstructive response. Engage me on the facts.Robert c2227 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please stick with one article at a time. Multiple edits are just going to get reverted as editors try to figure out what the heck you are doing. Please read WP:BRD. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes Robert, Gadget's right. Don't try to fix every problem on the Scouting front all at once. And some of your Edit summaries have been pretty abrasive, and you've acted as if other editors are either incompetent or malicious. I can assure that neither is true. Don't be so rude about others here. This is a collaborative effort. Welcome to the team. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see you're warming to me despite the initial hostility. Engage me on the facts and we'll make progress.

Here's a recent gem Edit summary comment by User:Egel on undoing my edit: " it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true ". At least they're openly honest.

Please list your User name in the space below if you agree with Egel and don't want Wikipedia to tell the truth about scouting.

=
======================================

=
====================================== Robert c2227 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is really unhelpfull. Like it or not, wikipedia is not about the truth. It is about what is supported by reliable independent sources. This is the only way that an encyclopedia can be written, not by experts, but by anyone who comes along and helps. That is the true magic of wikipedia - how over 4 million articles have been written that are used by millions of people across the world. It is best to not talk about truth, but about sources. That is how we work. Egel was making another point that we do not include everything that we think is true because we have reliable sources. It may be that it gives undue weight to something. We have to make judgements. Now back to the charter. I think we should be able to find better sources. A source on a Scouts Canada web site about a Royal Charter arising in London for the whole British Empire as it was then, is not a great source. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  10:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You can find copies of the "BOY SCOUTS’ ASSOCIATION ACT" on many government websites of Commonwealth nations. This act says: "2. In this Act— “the Association” means the Boy Scouts Association incorporated under the Royal Charter granted by the British Crown on 4th January 1912;"    --Egel Reaction? 15:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

These are actually a number of different Acts in the different former colonies. The Acts at least refer to the royal charter and 1912 date but they don't have the text of the charter. See my earlier commment about the royal charter below. I'd suggest citing the Acts for verification of the existence of the charter, its date and the associaton's name and, citing the Scouts Canada source for the text of the charter until a better source of the text is available. Robert c2227 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

My idea of the truth IS what is supported by reliable independent sources, primary sources, but much in the articles on scouts and scouting is not. There are cited sources as reliable as a website with a supposed quote from some edition of a book by Baden-Powell in which he told a story about himself. Yeah, reliable! There are citations of websites making unsupported claims. It all looks very important with lots of references but not many of them are primary sources or reliable.

Then there are issues with the way parts of the articles are written. The opening statement in the article on scouting is Scouting (or the Scout Movement) has the stated aim of supporting young people in their physical, mental and spiritual development, that they may play constructive roles in society. Of course the source for this could be cited but when the source is examined more critically the source would be by a particular organization (WOSM presumably). In which case the statement is incorrect because the claimed aim is not from or by Scouting or the Scout Movement but merely by a particular organization expressing its point of view. Correctly then the statement should be "The WOSM has the stated aim ..." and then it becomes obvious that such a statement doesn't belong under the article at all but under an article on the WOSM.

As to the cited source of the royal charter, I agree, a transcribed e-copy of the text on a Scouts Canada website is not the best. I have never seen a published copy of the royal charter. It wasn't the sort of thing The Scout Association published as the plebs weren't meant to concern themselves about such things, eh! However, I'm sure you've all seen the charter and have got some in your collection. I have some plain unpublished prints of the charter ... Oh, and I did get copies when I looked at the original petition by Baden-Powell, the committee and councillors and their petition draft, further drafts by the Privy Council office, final prints and hand scribed calligraphy on vellum charters. Robert c2227 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:RS and in particular this on Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. We use secondary sources, not primary, but the definition is a bit confusing for new editors. We follow a mass of policies and guidelines and they have become more and more difficult to easily understand and follow. They also often define words in ways that is not standard outside wikipedia. "Notability" is a good example. I understand your point about the first sentence, but I think it is rather pedantic. We do not need sources in the lead, if the points are covered in more details further down the article. In this case a similar sentence from a WOSM source (stated) is given as a reference in the "Scout Method" section. I think we need to tidy this up and give references to other Scouting organisations, including WAGGGS. We might find a more general reference in books on Scout history. I'll look in one I have when I have time. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to tell the truth about scouting within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Egel Reaction? 10:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the qualified truth! Always good to cloak yourself in polices and guidelines. Have you considered religion too? Robert c2227 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Robert, please stop being so rude to other editors, and have another read of Bduke's post at 10:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC) above. Yes, Wikipedia does contain only the qualified truth. It contains (or at least should contain) only information that can be sourced to reliable sources. That is what Egel was referring to when referring with "the truth about scouting within the Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Do you understand and can you accept it? HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)