Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:52, 13 October 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: WikiProject Scouting
 * Main editor has vanished. Secondary recent editor is the one who nominated it, other significant editors have been inactive for several years.   Will Beback    talk    20:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because...
 * to many non-free images.
 * Uses self-published source, author is not notable.
 * Article is out of date and no longer maintained. -—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggested at Talk:History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) that this article may no longer meet FA criteria due to its heavy reliance on a single, self published source. That issue does not seem to have come up during the original FA nomination in 2006. Featured article candidates/History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America). It's my view that the source is relatively unobjectionable for a small article on an obscure topic, but that it does not qualify as a "high-quality reliable source" as required for FA. Another issue, perhaps easily solved, is whether merit badges should be considered logos for the purposes of claiming fair use.    Will Beback    talk    20:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what else would suffice for a high-quality source for this subject, this subject is about the history of Boy Scout Merit badges, where else would you expect to find high quality sources for this particular subject? The current source is fine, both high-quality and dependable.  Surely a reliable source and quite sufficient for FA.  And yes, they are certainly logos for each of the individual categories they represent.  Logos are not limited to just the symbol that represents an entire org.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's a special merit badge=logo template which should have been used, and which probably solves that issue.
 * On what basis are you asserting that
 * Duersch Jr., Fred (2003). Merit Badge Field Guide. Downs Printing Inc.
 * Is "high-quality and dependable"? Is there a review of it somewhere or is that just a personal opinion from someone who has read this very obscure book?   Will Beback    talk    19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it? My personal opinion? Ok, well, fine, just give us some examples of high quality sources for this subject and we can compare.  Let's start there. Here's a few starting points, although with a 100+ years of history, tens of millions of adherents, and with a core element being merit badges, I'm sure this will be easy to find another expert in the field who's compiled them all - if it's even necessary to do so.  I just don't think it is, I think it's being picky.  But that's just may be me.  :) Dreadstar  ☥  19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe this will help establish a basis for expertise in this case. The obit is for the author's father. Fred Duersch, Jr. is considered an expert in this field. He is a contributor to the Journal of the American Scouting Historical Society and the International Scouting Collectors Association Journal. His Scouting books include Green Khaki Crimped Edge Merit Badges, 1947-1960 which was expanded into the Merit Badge Field Guide, now in it's 3rd edition, and A History of the Order of the Arrow in the Cache Valley Council. He has also written a number of genealogy books.(thanks Gadget!) Dreadstar  ☥  19:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for copying that post by user:Gadget850 from the article talk page. For the record, here's part of my response:
 * The very brief article by Duersch in the Journal of the American Scouting Historical Society doesn't seem like it's sufficient to establish him as a published expert, and the Journal itself isn't exactly a scholarly work itself. It seems more like a high quality hobbyist's newsletter/catalog. The Herald Journal article makes him sound like an avid collector, but not a published expert. Green khaki crimped-edge merit badges issued by the Boy Scouts of America from 1947 through 1960 is held by only one library, and also looks self-published. Ditto for A History of the Order of the Arrow in the Cache Valley Council. Self-publishing three books doesn't make one a published expert either.
 * The issue is that, especially for FAs, we don't say that we should use the best available source, even if they're self-published. Instead we say that the sources have to be high quality. I still see no evidence that this book is deemed to be "high-quality and dependable" by any objective observer. I again ask on what basis that assertion is being made, and also would like to know if anyone has personally seen it.    Will Beback    talk    20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant to credit Gadget for that, it was a simple search. I'd like to know where you get your opinion from, I think expertise is established in this case - obscure or not.  I saw your response and was unconvinced.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: What is your basis for saying it is "high-quality and dependable"? Is that view based solely on the credentials of the author? Have you seen the book yourself?    Will Beback    talk    20:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I'd like to know where you get your opinion from, I think expertise is established in this case - obscure or not. Have you read the book, are you familiar with the field? What is your expertise and experience in judging this?  I saw your response and was unconvinced.  Dreadstar  ☥  20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to play a game. If we can't fix this issue then the review should move on to the next stage.   Will Beback    talk    20:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've provided a list of sources [absolutely nothing], but have asked why the current source doesn't meet requirements and have received repetitive questions on whether I've read the source.  No positive attempts to find other sources or refute the current one have been made besides just a vague opinion, with repetitions of the same questions that were asked earlier; I don't see any attempt by you to actually "fix" the issues, so that's why I feel this is just some kind of game.  Apologies if this is incorrect, appearances can be deceiving.  By all means, let's move to the next stage...which sounds like a threat, if you think about it.  I'm game. :)  Let's start with someone pointing out dubious content in the article.  I think that's key to any WP discussion.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a list of sources, that's a poorly formed Google search. As for for my efforts to fix this issue, I've been working on it since September 2010. More recently I posted a request on the Scouting Wikiproject asking for help finding better sources. I am trying to fix this. I've given my opinion that a featured article should not be based primarily on an obscure self-published book. How obscure? Not only is it held by only two libraries, but Amazon has never even added it to their system. We need to find "high quality" sources for this article for it to stay an FA.   Will Beback    talk    21:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, my mistake, it's just a poorly formed Google search. Disregard.  So, if Duersch isn't an expert, who is? How are you making your judgment on expertise in this area?  Are long-time, published and respected hobbyists considered experts or is there some other criteria for this field?  What have you improved since September 2010?  How has nine months of working on this subject made you expert in a field that's a hundred years old with millions of actual adherents?  Obscurity does not equal an unreliable source.  I've asked you several times for one single source that meets your criteria and have receved no answer, have you not been able to find even a single source that meets your threshold in nine months of searching? All that work amounts to one actual edit?  Duersch is the expert that's necessary.   Dreadstar  ☥  21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There might not be any high-quality sources for this topic. There's a lack of good sources for many hobbies.   Will Beback    talk    21:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, don't mean to sound cranky. If I had just one source that you felt was suitable, I'm sure I could find more.  And I just don't really understand how Duersch isn't sufficiently expert in this area.  What better source could we have for Boy Scout Merit badge history?  Dreadstar  ☥  22:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's unlikely that the two of us are going to resolve this by arguing over it. Let's let this process run its course.   Will Beback    talk    22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sorta my point earlier...although it may have been lost amidst the fun rhetoric ... :) Dreadstar ☥  22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Too Many non-free images?
As a preface, we must note that the items in the images are more or less the subject of the article. And I believe most of them are copyrighted material, used with permission, but not (of course) with the total release for all purposes (including commercial) that WP prefers. And so they are essential for the article, and can't be replaced by free use equivalents. Now, on to the reason noted in the FAR. The guideline does not prohibit a larger quantity of images, it prohibits a larger quantity in cases where they can be replaced by one, which is clearly not the case here. And an important part of the article content is the evolution of one to the other, and the distinctions between them, so the sequence of images is important to illustrate this. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think too many NF images is a problem here, they're necessary to identify the various elements of the article's subject. Dreadstar  ☥  22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article and added two more non-free images. As I have asked before: What number is too many? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles like this are a recurring concern at the NFC talk page. If this is going to be a featured article, it's really something that needs to be gotten right. There are certainly concerns- for instance, could we not cut the amount of NFC in half just by removing the back of each badge? Do we really need to see that? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The front and back are a single image. The accompanying text explicitly refers to the front and back. What is the criteria for too many non-free images? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no advocate or main author here, just a few folks trying to help out...resolving this while trying to keep the real world quality / informativeness of the article also good.   I suppose anything could be deleted,  but it looks like the backs are important to the content.  I think that this is a special case...first where the objects in the images are the subject of the material, but beyond that, the details of the items shown in the images are also the subj4ect of the text.  North8000 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is certainly going to have to be a number of non-free images here, but there should be as few as possible- we should aim to minimise the amount of non-free content. Our question should not be how much we can get away with under "the rules", but how few we can get away with while keeping the article informative. J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I think that (unfortunately) I'm the most active editor here at the moment, but I'm no expert in that field.  I'll have to look closer and try to figure out where that point is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked it over. I think that it's at the minimum where any removals would definitely lower the quality of the article. (Not kill the article, just degrade it)  This shows front and back of about 10 styles that spanned about 100 years, probably thousands of types, and I'm guessing a hundred million produced.   And the backs do illustrate what is described in the text. Not sure where that leaves this. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline does not prohibit the use of non-free content in lists like this, but it does ask us to reduce it whereever possible. I disagree that the backs need to be shown- they can be imagined from the description and the fact they're effectively a mirror image of the front. This is a case where non-free content is going to be necessary, but the current amount is not appropriate for a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the images. Add back any you feel are necessary. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Heavy reliance on a single, self published source?
I think that the reference book first is a book, and also has very high (possibly the highest) real-world reliability for the material which cited it. As info, it is one of the 20 sources cited in the article, and 12 of the 31 citations in the article. This is a specialized, non-commercial, non-academic topic which would tend to have less sources of those latter types. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we take this to rs:noticeboard for determination? North8000 (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Dreadstar  ☥  22:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Posted: WP:RSN   Will Beback    talk    22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope the discussion there won't be a simple repeat of the discussion here, or a vote by scouting enthusiasts.   Will Beback    talk    22:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, I have to say that I hope it won’t be pile-on by myopic scouting haters. How's that for rebuttal?  Come on, jeez-louise.  A hundred million scouts can't be wrong, eh?  Dreadstar  ☥  23:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I don't see why such a comment is called for. Seems like assuming bad faith twice over, referring to responses that haven't even been received. Also, if the key points were made here, it is wrong to say they should not be repeated, in fact if they were the salient points, they specifically 'should' be included included there.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring mostly to the long, unproductive thread above. I've posted a question for you at the RSN thread. The main point is how you decided the book is highly reliable, and whether you've actually seen it in person. Could you please reply there?   Will Beback    talk    23:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "simple repeat of the discussion here, or a vote by scouting enthusiasts." is no reference to the discussion above, it's an insult. Dreadstar  ☥  23:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I added some more references and citations. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Result from reliable source noticeboard posting on the source in quesiton This has now slipped into the archives there. Not counting comments from the participants here, (of which 2 hinted at "fine for FA" and one at "not") we had one person respond, and they said that it is a reliable source. Both that person and others said that they are not giving a reading on it in relation to FA status. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Article is out of date and no longer maintained?
"Maintained" is not per se a requirement for FA, although it's effects may be relevant if such causes it to be out of date. Which reduces this to the "out of date" statement. What is out of date?
 * Tell me what's out of date and I'll be happy to keep it maintained. Dreadstar  ☥  18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also be happy to fix it, but there is no statement on what is out of date. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the article and didn't notice anything that looks out of date (not that I'm an expert). Being a history article helps, as history doesn't change that much. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic may not change, but FA standards do. BTW, I've posted a question about your "preliminary review" of the Field Guide at WP:RSN. I'd appreciate a reply.   Will Beback    talk    10:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This section is addressing the "article is out of date" point from the review nomination, and my comments were addressing only that. On your second point, as one of the participants here, I think that my viewpoint is brief and secondary, and that we should not start a deeper discussion/dissection of it and distract from getting feedback from the uninvolved experts there.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Circling back, there has been no indication of any outdated information or missing new information in the article.  Does anybody know of any?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Updated with the type K and historic badges. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Other discussions

 * Can you at least confirm that you have actually read the book? If you won't then it's logical to conclude that you have not. If nobody arguing for the book has read it then that is a significant factor.   Will Beback    talk    19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, your viewpoint is not brief and secondary - it makes a direct assertion that the source is high quality based on your review. It's reasonable to ask how you came to that conclusion. If you won't reply to this point I'll annotate your post there to say that you apparently have not read the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 19:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So, if you don't receive the response you're looking for, you'll just put words in someone elses mouth? Sweet.  And this is exactly my problem with your comments from the start.  Dreadstar  ☥  22:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I answered there, which was that the first sentence of my post already answered how I came about saying that, albeit not with the spin that Will's re-direction was hoping for.  North8000 (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I still conclude, absent any evidence to the contrary, that none of us have read or seen the book. That means we have an obscure, self-published collector's guide book as the main source for a featured article. However, rather than fighting endlessly over this borderline-at-best source, why not just look for some better sources? What about the Scouting journals cited above as the sources? They're a step up from Duersch's book.   Will Beback    talk    10:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your 'conclusions' are dead wrong; let me just tell you straight up front that not only have I seen the book, but I own a copy, but I don’t see how that’s of any value whatsoever in identifying it as a Reliable source, the only thing it would buy is verification that the source reflects the content in the article. But you haven’t disputed any content, and haven’t even bothered to answer when directly asked if there was content you dispute.  Instead, you keep pounding on the idea that the editor’s opinions about the source are invalid because no one has answered your questions to your personal satisfaction; and I just have to add that I clearly see in North’s statement that he’s reviewed content from the book even if he doesn't own it or has even seen the original.  Your line of questioning is irrelevant.  If you want to provide some true value, then I suggest you go out and do a little legwork in finding sources.
 * If you do the legwork, then you will see that the ISCA Journal material is clearly supportive to the content, and is from the source book...so, if you conclude it's a RS, then some of the article material can be sourced here..but really, doesn't the original source override the use from the sources that use it, or are subuses of it?
 * Take your focus off the editors and look for sources that meet your approval. Dreadstar  ☥  19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My focus has never been on the editors. It's always been on this self-published book.
 * Thanks for communicating that you have the book in your possession, that makes this discussion easier.
 * Can you share with us whether the book cites any references materials, and if so which? That would address two issues: the reliability of the book itself, and other possible sources for the article.   Will Beback    talk    20:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Go find a copy yourself per Offline sources. I'm telling you I think it's reliable, as additionally confirmed by the responses to your request on RS/N.  You haven't trusted me or North on this so far, why start now?  Dreadstar  ☥  20:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You wrote in your edit summary, "what next, photos and videos of me fondling the book?" Between that and your comments on this page I really don't feel you're trying to resolve this in a collegial spirit. I'll let the FA regulars deal with it from here.   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Hello, McFly, I've suggested that route before, comments like "The main point is how you decided the book is highly reliable, and whether you've actually seen it in person" just seem to lead to other questions and demands for information. So my view is to the bottom line point, or escalate this to the folks that will acutally make a decision.  Dreadstar  ☥  21:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, responding to your post about 6 back, if you look what you have been writing, I think you would see that your main focus has been on the editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's been on the book, and secondarily on bald-faced assertions that it's highly-reliable. However this thread does not seem to be producing any consensus, and hasn't resulted in any corrections to the problem, I don't see how participating further would be helpful. The problem remains that the article is based primarily on an obscure self-published book. I'm going to let the FA regulars deal with it from here. If they think that this still qualifies as an FA then that's fine.   Will Beback    talk    22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * However it got there, I think that that is for the best. And taking into consideration any feedback that we get from others at the the RS noticeboard.  North8000 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As North says, your focus has been on editors, not sources. Hopefully we're now down to brass tacks, and I'm sure you'll allow things to proceed from a neutral, unbiased beginning at any further discussions you may initiate.  Dreadstar  ☥  23:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could we get some comments from the participants on whether they feel this article needs to go to FARC or whether it can be kept before that? It looks like the discussion above (most of which appears to focus on the reliability of one source) has stalled, and few other problems have been brought up. It also looks like we have several editors willing to address concerns, so I am hopeful that we will not have to go through a full FARC process with this article. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been watching but haven't commented any further beyond my comments which are at the end of each of the three questions. The question of the reliability of that one source has been discussed. (Plus I also added a few more sources and cites.)  Other than that, I don't think that there are any other specific questions open. The people situation here is more complex than meets the eye....long story short, I don't think that the nominator actually shares/agrees with the concerns that they expressed. They are a very very very low key,  NEVER-argues 100%-by-the-book type person who I think nominated out of exasperation and did not agree with their own nomination.     IMHO does not need to go to FARC.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that the article meets current FA standards. That's due to the reliance on a single self-published book, Merit Badge Field Guide. So far as I can tell that source is very obscure, did not receive any reviews, and is held by only a couple of libraries in the world and included in one bibliography. The author is merely an avid collector whose only edited publications are a couple of brief articles in a collector's newsletter. There are scant other citations for the bulk of the article. While no one expects peer-reviewed academic sources for an article like this, there is no lack of edited publications on the general topic of the BSA and there's no need to lower sourcing standards. Reliance on a single, poor source does not meet the FA criteria of covering a topic comprehensively and using high quality sources. I think that an FARC is necessary.    Will Beback    talk    11:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Without even attempting to repeat the substantial discussions here, at the article talk page and the RS noticeboard regarding that source..... Briefly, by my quick count, the source (book) in question is one of 24 sources in the article, and 12 of the 35 citations.  The feedback from the RS noticeboard was that it is a reliable source, and a "no comment" regarding it and FA criteria.  I think that in the discussions in all three areas, Will is the only person who feels it does not have sufficient quality or reliability for this question-at-hand or in general.  I don't think that the above numbers indicate over-reliance on it, but if were felt that they did, I think they could easily be changed. Many of those 12 cites could be doubled up or replaced by the other listed sources, although I think that it would be a shame to "replace" (i.e. remove cites) just based on the feedback from one person. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of citations doesn't indicate the reliance of the Field Guide because the bulk of the article, the "Types of merit badges" section, has only two footnotes, both to that book. That section accounts for half of the article text. Including other sections, like "Specimen variations" and "Manufacturing errors", roughly 2/3 of the article is sourced to that one, self-published book.   Will Beback    talk    19:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully concur with North, there is no need for FARC. The author of the Merit Badge Field Guide, Fred Duersch, Jr. is an established expert on the topic of this article – the history of Boy Scout Merit Badges, his work in this field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications such as the ISCA.  The book itself is a notable source for the subject of this article, utilized by Scout Masters and Troops all over the country.
 * 1) Duersch has been published by reliable third-party publications, including the cover article for the December 2004 issue of International Scouting Collectors Association, which is Duersch’s article titled “Kahaki Crimped Merit Badges”, from a chapter in his book “Merit Badge Field Guide.”
 * 2) The book is sourced to Boy Scout literature, government reports, and other BSA organazational entities such as:
 * Merit Badge pamphlets
 * Boy Scout Handbooks
 * BSA Annual Reports to Congress
 * With acknowledgements to Boy Scouts of America National Council Staff members, David Park, Esq., Diane Leicht, and Melissa Brown; as well as a list of over fourteen merit badge collectors, for their assistance.
 * 1) Some examples of Duersch’s expertise and notability, Scout to the Max, published in The Herald Journal.
 * 2) Scout troops use Duersch and his work to verify and quality check their own Merit Badge publications Merit Badges, Past and Present, And Their Evolution, commenting "I am indebted to several people who provided new sources of information, especially Fred Duersch, Jr",
 * 3) Even in a scouting guide to buying on Ebay:


 * Duersch's book is of very high detail and quality for historical and identification purposes. I own a copy of the book “Merit Badge Field Guide” and will be happy to verify any information uninvolved editors may ask about.  There is no doubt this is a high-quality, notable and reliable source for the subject of this article. Dreadstar  ☥  21:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a more comprehensive list of ISCA Journal issues that Duersch has articles published in:
 * Vol 4 number 4 December 2004 “Khaki crimped merit badges 1947-1960” (cover story)
 * Vol 5 number 1 March 2005 “Wide crimped merit badges”
 * Vol 5 number 2 June 2005 “Fine twill crimped merit badges”
 * Vol 5 number 4 December 2005 “Fake/genuine first aid to animals MB”
 * Vol 5 number 4 December 2005 “Scout camps and first camp patches of the cache valley council”
 * Vol 6 number 1 March 2006 “Rolled twill edge merit badges”
 * Vol 7 number 2 March 2007 “Narrow crimped merit badges”
 * Vol 8 number 2 June 2008 “Silk vs cotton merit badges”
 * Vol 8 number 4 December 2008 “Type G cotton merit badges”
 * Vol 11 number 2 June 2011 “New BSA merit badges”


 * ''Collecting Merit Badges, The ISCA Getting Started Collecting Series (By another author, based on Duersch's work, with credit given)
 * -- Dreadstar ☥  21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Addressing Will's earlier comment, the exclusivity for that one "big" section is easily changed per my prior note. But I don't think it's as big as Will described it unless one counts only vertical inches. It's basically a table which is stretched by having an example image of each type in there. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was counting words, not inches. Regarding Dreadstar's posting: we normally don't allow self-published sources at all. A really exceptional one might be allowed for a regular article. this book has never been reviewed, it's in only a handful of libraries, and it's only cited by other self-published sources in the amateur collecting world. Further, the ISCA journal that Duersch has contributed to appears to be little more than a hobbyist's newsletter. My point is that this book might meet that minimum threshold, but it is not a sufficiently high-quality source to serve as the backbone of a feature article.    Will Beback    talk    22:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I added several more references (and cites to them) to that section. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The Boy Scout Handbook is probably a primary source in this context.   Will Beback    talk    01:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a type of use of the primary source material which is is compliant. Also, by definition, authoritative. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Authoritative, yes. But the two issues with primary sources are that we can't draw any conclusions from them and the article should not be based primarily on them.   Will Beback    talk    03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

With respect to the material obtained from the Duersch book, I spot checked a large amount of it against ISCA publication # RA025RO-0105 and it corroborated all of it. Although the ISCA pub. is published by the premier organization in that area, (only 13 pages, but rifled in on the same aspects of the same topic) this is not to say that it has higher credentials for wp purposes, just another reflection that the material obtained from the source in question is reliable. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than corroborating the self-published material in the magazine, why don't we just use the magazine in the first place?   Will Beback    talk    03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this environment, it's best use is probably just further corroboration of the material obtained from the Duersch book which a large amount of information has now shown to be the very highly respected gold standard in this area. I noticed that everything that you write about it puts the worst possible spin on it.....after all of the above your only reference to the book is to call it "self-published material". And then you refer to the journal by a ~50 year old world-premier organization in this area which corroborated it's reliability as as a "hobbyist's newsletter".  This is getting old. North8000 (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The world-premier publication on collecting bottle caps would likely still be a hobbyist's newsletter, because collecting bottle caps is a hobby. An FA should use the best available sources. If we have a "50 year old world-premier" organization's journal then we should use that instead of an obscure self-published book.   Will Beback    talk    03:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are scrambling and ignoring what I'm saying so I think I'm starting to see what's happening here. I commented on the negative spin you are putting on all of this and you are just saying the spun stuff is not false, which was never the question.  Then when I said the one publication corroborated the material from the book, and said "this is not to say that it has higher credentials for wp purposes" then you said I should put that in as a source. Inview of this I don't see where further discussions on this particular thread would be productive. But repeating on the one scrambled up item, the journal covered on the reliability of the author and the book, and the other publication I mentioned corroborated the material obtained form the book.   Two different publications.  Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sufficient to say that there are enough issues about the sourcing of this article to continue with the review.   Will Beback    talk    20:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and nobody else has agreed. Frankly, to me this has the look of an "axe to grind" situation.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's correct. The comments by Bruce Grubb at the RSN says that the definition of "high quality" source includes: "It should be a secondary source." and that "It should be published by a well-regarded academic press or by the academic division of a well-regarded publisher" Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_99 None of the sources for this article meet that standard, much less the main source. If uninvolved FA reviewers think this situation is consistent with current FA criteria then there's no problem. If they think it is not, then the article can stay as it is just without the little star.     Will Beback    talk    02:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's misleading at best. Bruce Grubb was clearly responding to WhatamIdoing's comment that FA folks should write a standard, and quoted the whole standard in response, and then you extracted that item from their quote.  They were not commenting on the article nor on the source which you are questioning.  North8000 (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They were commenting on the definition of "high-quality sources", part of the criteria for a featured article. Their proposed definition clearly does not include obscure self-published sources. But if the FA community wishes to define "high quality sources" so as to include such sources that's fine with me.   Will Beback    talk    02:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(undent) May I suggest trying to bring in some of the FAC source experts to comment on this source? User:Nikkimaria, User:Ealdgyth and User:Brianboulton are the three that I believe are seen most often doing source reviews at FAC. A brief (and neutral) summary and request on their talk page may be beneficial to resolving this discussion... Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've posted a request on User:Nikkimaria's talk page.    Will Beback    talk    21:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've never seen the book in question and know pretty much nothing about this topic (I'm not American). However, the relevant issues here: is this source a high-quality reliable source (as required by the FA criteria), and does it meet WP:SPS. Based on the evidence presented in this review, I would say that it can qualify as a reliable source, but likely not as a high-quality reliable source. Thus, it should be used sparingly and only for uncontroversial information. For example, the book is currently used to cite the following sentence: "Merging of merit badges can be seen in "Plant Science", into which all crop growing merit badges were merged in 1972 because America had changed from an agrarian society into an urban/suburban society since the founding of the BSA". All information preceding "1972" is relatively uncontroversial and can probably be cited to this source with no issues; all information after, unless specifically cited within the book to a more reliable source (or unless it was the author himself who was responsible for the change), approaches speculation. The extensive use of this single source is somewhat concerning. Editors have suggested above that material cited to this source can be cited to other sources; if that's the case, that should be done where possible. Incidentally, on a quick look I do see additional problems with citations; based on that, I would suggest that further work on the article is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My scope here is limited, but I think that I can finish fixing the specifically noted items. A significant amount of the alternate sourcing has been done already, (after the start of this discussion).  There may be a few cases where this will mean just taking out the sentence.  North8000 (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I deleted the noted phrase; that change also made the remainder citable by another source. I'll look for other similar situations. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Took more of those out and added more refs & cites. Again, my role is somewhat limited here, just trying to "pitch in" a little. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologise for just jumping in here without having read the entire discussion (and perhaps this has been resolved already), but as recently as last year there was an article that became a FA despite the majority of the article being sourced by a self-published book. See Featured article candidates/John Brownlee as Attorney-General of Alberta/archive1 for the FAC I'm speaking of. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that and pointing it out. There are some significant differences between the sources in question. At the Brownlee article, the source in question is biography written by an academic (Foster) working his his field of expertise, who has been published on the topic in a scholarly press book, and the nominator explained that the bio is a reworking of Foster's doctoral dissertation. It is held by approximately 37 libraries. By comparison, the source in question for this article is written by a hobbyist who has only been published in hobbyist publications and has no other credentials. The book is held by only two libraries, both close to the location of the printer and possibly the author. Every rule on Wikipedia has some flexibility, and I can see why the Foster book could be allowed given the circumstances (though it's not ideal by any means to base an article on so few sources). However the circumstances with this article are not the same.   Will Beback    talk    23:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jenks24. I think that would give an additional "belt and suspenders" rationale; IMHO it is on pretty good ground even without that consideration, even more so with recent reference additions.    North8000 (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Will just put 11 tags on the article. One has to question the timing, this is looking more like an "axe-to-grind" situation.  Individually, none look particularly problematic, basically asking for cites on a lot of non-controversial very detailed items, but together they will take a large amount of work. But one does have to question the quantity and the timing.  North8000 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the axe in question? A large part of the article, the heart of it, had no citations. It's fairly standard for FAs to have at least one citation per paragraph. I could have added more citation needed tags, but I didn't want to engage in overkill. I'm not sure that there's an exemption in WP:V for "non-controversial very detailed" information. I don't imagine that anything about the history of merit badges is controversial, but we still need verifiable sources and citations, just like with articles on controversial topics. In any case, the whole point of this review is about whether this article should be a featured article. Making sure that the material is properly sourced and cited is a legitimate part of that process.    Will Beback    talk    22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You sound like you didn't read what I said. I said: "individually, none look particularly problematic" and you are talking as if I said there should be an exemption from wp:ver.  Where the heck did you get that from? !   I DID say that the quantity and timing of this reinforces the indication that overall this is looking like an "axe-to-grind" situation on your part. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so what axe am I grinding, and why? As for timing, what would have been a better time to add citation requests? Lastly, how is conversation resolving anything?   Will Beback    talk    02:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section has focused mainly around referencing, including whether high-quality reliable sources were used and the need for additional referencing. While I realize that work has been happening on the article, I am hoping that a move to the FARC section will give this review a chance to proceed in a bit less verbose fashion, and to possibly attract some new attention that may have been scared off by the sheer length of the discussion above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say. I've been just trying to help a little here.  IMHO an analysis of this whole thing shows it to be a one person situation.  The source in question is solid, (went to RS noticeboard)  and, to be doubly sure/belt-and-suspenders, with substantial other sourcing recently added, the article is less dependent on it. The patches (and the details of the front and back of the patches) are the SUBJECT of the text by the images of them/ which they illustrate.   Nobody has pointed out anything that is out of date.  And even half of the uncontested detailed info which the person recently did an 11-tag tag-bombing on has now been sourced in that short amount of time.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with North8000. This seems like a one person crusade by Mr. Beback who seems to be carrying out some sort of campaign (for what reason I don't know). The source has been vetted by wiki, and the images are directly discussed in detail, which means they are okay and aren't mere decorations, and are the subject of the article. As for Mr. Beback, he tagged the article before, didn't get what he wanted in his personal, biased campaign, so he keeps tagging his his drive to destroy this article. I'd love to know what is driving Mr. Beback here. Dana-if the subject of this is sourcing and as North8000 says it's "...solid, (went to RS noticeboard", what is there to be gained by prolonging this?216.246.49.18 (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See North8000's comment above: "Not counting comments from the participants here, (of which 2 hinted at "fine for FA" and one at "not") we had one person respond [at RSN], and they said that it is a reliable source. Both that person and others said that they are not giving a reading on it in relation to FA status." The issue is whether that source can be considered a high-quality reliable source appropriate for an FA, which was not conclusively answered there. Also, Brad raises other sourcing concerns below. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That book is the most authoritative one on the subject in the world. 206.217.140.229 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist:


 * 1c There are numerous "not in citation given" tags, and some paragraphs without citations.
 * There has been much improvement to the article but after a lot of thought, I cannot consider the sources being up to par for a 2011 FA. A lot of them are primary and consist of publications by the BSA. These are not third party sources. Duersch might be described as a third party but that third party status has a lot of investment in the BSA overall in addition to being a self-published source. Other sources that Duersch has written for are also ones that have a primary interest in BSA collecting. The article certainly isn't crap and is a sure bet for GA status but it just cannot meet the 1c requirement for FA. Brad (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (added later) As an opener, my goal here is not some intended result regarding FA status, just to make sure that the process is played out well, and also to keep the quality of the article. There is one point which I've seen elsewhere which I would like to address. Even limiting to the USA, the BSA is a very large, de-centralized, diverse entity, with millions of affiliated persons currently and tens of millions over its history and I think that saying a source that is somehow affiliated or somehow has an interest is a primary source for anything related to BSA is mistaken. Taking that only two orders of magnitude higher, that's like saying anything written by a human is a primary source for any topic that involves humans.  If there were some issues of independence regarding POV or disputes of the material, I think that there would be questions (but still not primary) but I don't think that that is the case.  North8000 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 2c: Sources and citations are totally chaotic. Sources are missing publisher info, dates and retrieved on dates. Books cited multiple times should be in a bibliography with only page numbers for citations.
 * Article needs to comply with WP:SEEALSO and WP:EXT. Brad (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * (added later) Brad, I thought I try the easy one and looked at See also but didn't see anything obvious. Maybe missing context notes, but the titles seemed pretty self-explanatory. Or maybe they should get integrated into the article? I'm sure I could be missing something, but not sure what it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally they should be integrated into the article. Brad (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All tags are now fixed. None are in the article, but I'm sure Beback will try to insert more. Refs were greatly improved by Dreadstar last night and what might be left can be easily fixed. 206.217.140.229 (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking from my limited and recent role here, "1c" tags are very recent (I think that all but one are just a few hours old, per above, and the other one is just a few days old.) and something that I could take care of. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I added a few citation request tags, there are many more uncited paragraphs that will still need citations. Also, a number of recently added citations do not support the text they're placed next to.   Will Beback    talk    03:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Beback and Dreadstar had many edits to this last night and it's much improved. But note the pattern, Dreadstar actually added things but Beback continued adding tags in a campaign (see it's history) he's been carrying on for 6 months or so. he adds tags, others address them, he adds more tags (why didn't he tag it all in one swoop? -- a very valid question. Note others have raised similar concerns about his behavior here and his motives. Also note I could only find one edit to the article that was an actually improvement vice tag bombing or some other attempt to attack it. His skillful POV warring is hidden behind wiki lawyering and twisting others words. For an ongoing example see User_talk:North8000. He clearly is carrying out a vendetta against Scouts or a particular user and this comments and edits need to be taken in that context. This is merely stating the truth. Right now there isn't one single tag in the article but I'm sure as the sun shining Mr. Beback will soon add more in his desperate attempt to carry on his campaign.206.217.140.229 (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a campaign, but that it is not against me personally.  I think I was just in the line of fire. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I happen to think that Will Beback is making some very astute observations about the article. After looking at things more closely I'd be willing to say the article is a complete disaster. Before I even made my above comments I checked out some of the "not in citation given" tags and found the tag to be completely appropriate. But rather than address the problems the article has the main group interested in keeping the article featured would rather argue and complain about campaigns and vendettas. I'm not very sympathetic at this point. Brad (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure whatever happens happens properly and not as the result of a skilled campaign. I think that the three initial reasons given are either resolved-issues or non-issues. I think that the images are important to the quality and informativeness of the article and should stay. I think that the book in question is the highest quality source in the world on the detailed areas which cite it. I'm willing to do some work on the article, but not a large amount.   That is my whole agenda. Notice that there is nothing in there about FA status.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the references needed updating and I just did a lot of that. But, Will is carrying out a campaign because everytime people address his tag-bombing he comes back with more tags on stuff that's been there for months or years. So when he next logs on he'll no doubt add more tags, however dubious those may be. I saw a post earlier today on Mr. Beback's talk page with Timid Guy. Looks like another long history there with similar issues. Beback won't stop til he gets his way or is forced to stop. He'll sugarcoat his actions and wikilawyer it but in the end he'll target a group or user and never let go. That's his pattern. Now I'm perfectly willing to address more legit issues in the article, just as North is, but I will NOT let a vendetta and months long hounding to be carried without speaking up. If the FAR people want to allow that I can't stop them, but I will speak up. Nikki and a few others have made good suggestions and I will help work them but I will not condone Beback's tag-bombing and questioning the best source on this subject out there. Now if Beback would put some effort in fixing the article rather than merely tagging it and attacking it (another of his patterns), then I might agree he's trying to help it but as is he's merely trying to take it down. 216.246.49.18 (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal comments. This isn't the place for it.   Will Beback    talk    21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Truth hurts doesn't it?216.246.49.20 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Brad, sourcing for the article has dramatically changed in the past 12 hours,  and there are currently no tags at all. As you can see, I've been making a large number of edits to the article adding and removing sources, as well as copyediting and adding content. My main interest is in attempting to upgrade and improve the article so it meets current FA standards.  In its time, it was a TFA: Today%27s featured article/February 22, 2006 - it would be a shame to just let it drop off the FA map without making a serious attempt to make it meet current FA standards.  Any advice or help would be appreciated.  Please don't delist until I've had a chance to make further improvements.  Dreadstar  ☥  18:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Credit to IP User:216.246.49.18 as well for their fine assistance! Dreadstar  ☥  18:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've addressed all the 'not in citation given' tags by adding appropriate citations and removing ones that don't support the content.
 * All paragraphs now have at least one citation, and there are no more citation tags in the article.
 * I've integrated all the article links that were under the 'see also' section, and have removed that empty section.
 * I've removed dead links from the 'external links section', let me know if there are other inappropriate links there.
 * I could use some help with the 'bibliography citation style' Brad mentions above; I'm not sure how to do that.
 * Thanks! Dreadstar ☥  19:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dreadstar, for all of that effort. However I think that the sources still need vetting. I really doubt that some of the assertions in the material are in the cited sources. For example, comments about the rarity of certain merit badges cited to an old copy of the BSA Handbook. Also, there seem to be some self-published websites used as sources. And many assertions still have no citations at all. It's better than it was when we started this process, but I don't think we're done.   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disturbed that so many of the old and new citations do not contain the asserted material. I just called a library reference desk and had them check a newly added one, and the librarian found nothing of the kind in the cited book. Unfortunately, this pattern makes it necessary to verify more of the sources individually.   Will Beback    talk    23:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It disturbs me that you continue to hide your real motive here. But at least you continuing to only attack the article vice pointing out its weak points and then actually helping improve it (such as by finding refs, improving formatting, etc) helps prove our point that you are carrying out a crusade.216.246.49.20 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC) PS-ever wonder why you're the only regular here on your side of the fence? 216.246.49.20 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 216, please stop making personal attacks against Will Beback. Comment on the content, not the contributor. Continuing to accuse Will Beback of "crusades", "hounding", "campaigns", "wikilawyering" and other issues will not be looked kindly upon. Also, asking why he didn't do all of the tagging at once and then accusing him of tag bombing (adding a lot of tags at one time) is kind of odd... Again, please stop making personal attacks. Dana boomer (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the scuba book reference in the spoof section was my mistake. In any case I've been comparing content to the source and will continue to do so.  Feel free to vette all the sources and content, and if possible add some good sources and content when you come across them.  Thanks for your help!  Dreadstar  ☥  01:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that mistake happened and you've decided not to tell me. Why don't you vet the sources that you can access. Once you're sure that they are correct then we can proceed with verification.   Will Beback    talk    01:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, I think that such continued drilling where someone already said they made a mistake and undid it falls under what we are trying to get away from here. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been repeatedly told I'm here to grind an axe, and an anon using a proxy keeps claiming I have a hidden motive and complaining that I'm adding spurious tags. Asking an editor once to explain how or why he added a completely incorrect source is not "continued drilling". Please stop commenting on me - I'm not the issue here.
 * Again, I suggest that those who have ready access to the sources review them carefully to make sure that every assertion is sourced, and that the sources are summarized correctly.   Will Beback    talk    21:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're trying to put the painful conversations behind us. On that one particular issue, the article content issue is resolved.  I think that mis-statements of what people said and the "proxy" talk only tend to goad people into continuing those discussions.   Why don't we try to just put that behind us? North8000 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's all just move away from the painful stuff and just review and improve the article. Let's have some fun here instead of giving/getting ulcers. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Delist:

 * 1c There are numerous "not in citation given" tags, and some paragraphs without citations.
 * There has been much improvement to the article but after a lot of thought, I cannot consider the sources being up to par for a 2011 FA. A lot of them are primary and consist of publications by the BSA. These are not third party sources. Duersch might be described as a third party but that third party status has a lot of investment in the BSA overall in addition to being a self-published source. Other sources that Duersch has written for are also ones that have a primary interest in BSA collecting. The article certainly isn't crap and is a sure bet for GA status but it just cannot meet the 1c requirement for FA. Brad (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (added later) As an opener, my goal here is not some intended result regarding FA status, just to make sure that the process is played out well, and also to keep the quality of the article. There is one point which I've seen elsewhere which I would like to address. Even limiting to the USA, the BSA is a very large, de-centralized, diverse entity, with millions of affiliated persons currently and tens of millions over its history and I think that saying a source that is somehow affiliated or somehow has an interest is a primary source for anything related to BSA is mistaken. Taking that only two orders of magnitude higher, that's like saying anything written by a human is a primary source for any topic that involves humans.  If there were some issues of independence regarding POV or disputes of the material, I think that there would be questions (but still not primary) but I don't think that that is the case.  North8000 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 2c: Sources and citations are totally chaotic. Sources are missing publisher info, dates and retrieved on dates. Books cited multiple times should be in a bibliography with only page numbers for citations.
 * Article needs to comply with WP:SEEALSO and WP:EXT. Brad (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (added after Brad's update ). While I think keeping this article at FA isn't going to be possible, and with my inexperience with FA standards and processes, my thought is that looking at the sources in such a limited fashion seems to go against the spirit of FA, "accuracy, neutrality, completeness, and style according to our featured article criteria".
 * It definitely meets the first part of 1c :
 * (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature
 * The second part of 1c seems to contain a very subjective and vague element when it says "high-quality reliable sources"
 * "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"
 * What exactly is 'high-quality'. Cannot a SPS by a noted and relied upon 'amatuer' historian be 'high quality'?
 * And are BSA publications truly primary sources? I would think the primary sources would be things like BSA meeting minutes, notes taken by the participants, records, etc...the BSA publications are probably SPS, but not necessarily primary.
 * Anyway, just some thoughts from an FA newbie.. :) Dreadstar ☥  03:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Could we please get some more comments here? How is the work going? Also, if there are discussions/issues that the participants feel have been finished/resolved, could they please be moved to the review talk page, with links pointing in both directions? This page is getting very long, and long pages tend to have a discouraging effect on outside editors who might otherwise be willing to comment. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here were my final comments:
 * I posted a comment here about Will's behavior, behavior at this article. Will moved it to his talk page. (ONLY) as an olive branch I'm not planning on putting it back in here. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep my sanity, I only allow myself active involvement in one painful article at a time. Unbelievably, an article about merit badges has become a second one, and I'm totally disgusted at what has happened here.   I'm leaving.    North8000 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Dana, I've collapsed the oldest discussion. Some of the newer discussions are still relevant, so I'm not sure what to do with those. Another uninvolved commentator, Brad, seems to have come to the conclusion that the sourcing is not up to FA standards. Some additional sources have been added. I've requested a copy of the main source, a self-published guidebook, through an inter-library loan. I expect that I'll be able to add more citations, and perhaps to improve the text based on it. However that won't do anything to address the quality of the source itself, which has been the main bone of contention.  Will Beback   talk    01:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the best source in the world on this subject and is extremely accurate. It's considered 'the bible' on this topic. What part of that do you not get? And congrats for driving North8000 away. Proud of yourself, Will? So sad wiki puts up with this continued repeat behavior by you.66.240.210.102 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The final straw was Will hounding other RS references out of the article on the basis that they only partially supported the material which cited them.  While it is quite common and proper to ask for more sourcing in such cases, it certainly is novel to work to get sources removed.  North8000 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting off-topic personal remarks. If I see another one like this I'll have to file a complaint. The only topic here is the article.   Will Beback    talk    23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to keep this low key. It not correct to imply that comments about happenings here and at the article are such or improper.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria's question
Update? At this point I see two explicit delist declarations and a whole lot of discussion, but the conversation seems to have stalled. Are editors still interested in working on this review? Would anyone else like to comment on whether this article's FA status should be kept or not? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What for? The community refuses to open its eyes to and do anything about Will's shenanigans. Here's the primo example in the threads related to this article. Normally when one feels there is insufficient support in a ref for stmts in the article, you ask for more refs. But with Will, Noooo, Will says you have to throw out that ref. This led to North8000, and others withdrawing from this article. And does the community do anything about this abusive admin who twists things to suit his own ends? Lordy no. See Talk:History_of_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America) and "The final straw was Will hounding other RS references out of the article on the basis that they only partially supported the material which cited them. While it is quite common and proper to ask for more sourcing in such cases, it certainly is novel to work to get sources removed. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)" and "To keep my sanity, I only allow myself active involvement in one painful article at a time. Unbelievably, an article about merit badges has become a second one, and I'm totally disgusted at what has happened here. I'm leaving. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)". 112.140.185.250 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As indicated I left for the reasons described previously. I think that it should be kept but don't have the stomach to fight an acrimonious delisting effort. I think that the original 3 reasons given with the nomination have been addressed. Regarding the sourcing in the questioned area (the area that relied on the book) new sources have been added in those areas.  Some of the new ones have been harassed out, others remain. So the ones that remain reduce the reliance on the book in those areas.  Now, on to the question of the book.   It was taken to the RS noticeboard and determined to be an RS, and they declined to weigh in on suitability for FA. Also general discussions have made it clear that it's the highest quality and most highly respected source in the world those particular areas, so any substitution would represent a degradation of the article.
 * FA standards can vary from very high to perfection. Doubtless this article has some areas which fall short of perfection which would typically require tweaking during initial FA review.  I certainly don't want to argue that the article is perfect, doubly so in this environment.   But my humble opinion is that it should retain FA status.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I'd be happy to provide any additional requested thoughts or opinions, but do not intend to get into any painful discussions, including refuting or debating the posts of others, so please take what I do or don't say in that context.  North8000 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist: I don't think I've ever written this as an explicit !vote, so I'll do it now. There has been effort to address the sourcing problems, and several sentences or listed facts have new citations, but the article still relies almost entirely on an obscure self-published book written by a hobbyist. No matter how well-written and authoritative it may be, that is not the kind of reference which exemplifies Wikipedia's finest work. If that's the best source available then maybe there's no way to bring this article up to FA standards. However if better sources are found and used then I'd be happy to see it promoted again.     Will Beback    talk    10:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I finally obtained a copy of the principle source, Duersch's Merit Badge Field Guide, 2nd Ed. (2003). I've added a bunch of additional citations, some cite requests for assertions that aren't in it, and a couple of failed verification tags for assertions cited to the book but which I can't find. I obtained it through interlibrary loan from one of the two libraries in the world which carry it, and I am apparently the first person to borrow it. The author indicates that the first edition had only 550 copies and that the 2nd edition differs mostly in corrected errors, some new merit badges, and a large section on teen badges, which this article does not mention. I gather there is a 3rd edition from 2008, but I don't know how it differs.    Will Beback    talk    03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.