Talk:Scout method

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Scouting Top‑importance

	Scouting portal Scout method is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Education High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in Scouting.

The content of Educational principles of Scouting was merged into Scout method. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

The content of Patrol system was merged into Scout method. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Good Turn

needs something about the Good Turn Chris 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rlevse 15:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Educational principles of Scouting

Merge, major overlap with these articles. The "Educational" one was just created. Scout method is the better name. A redirect should be left on the "Educational" page. Merging would reduce redundancy and make a stronger article.Rlevse 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The "Educational principles'" text gives many good sources for the method's article. --jergen 14:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For obvious reasons. And there is some good info on the Scout method in the Scouting article as well. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
In general I agree, because indeed in my opinion these principals are the Scout method. However by expending and formalising in time they lost their directness and sharpness for the normal reader (and Scout leaders). Therefore I wrote it in a direct and compressed way, more than I could fit in the formal language of the Scout method article. Also it is a list of all types of principles, without a real system and I found it difficult to incorporate this in the system of the Scout method articleDParlevliet 21:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Chris 02:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Sumoeagle179 17:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge. —Scouter Sig 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Stevecull 11:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged as requested. I expect this would also change "Rationale.." and "Scout law" paragraph. Because this will be deleting I propose its better to first give the original writer the opportunity to change before I delete to much? Otherwise I will try. Regarding the original article I would not object if it is deleted.DParlevliet 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 and 2 (from WOSM) are not available anymore. I could nog find alternative explanations on their site.DParlevliet 21:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Patrol system

Merge Patrol system is a key of the Scout method and should be merged.Rlevse 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. —Scouter Sig 19:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I didn't know we had a patrol system article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly new.Rlevse 23:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree. It part of the Scout method. --Bduke 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The Patrol system is certainly an integral part of the Scout Method, and I doubt very much that it deserves its own seperate article unless there is some other Patrol system used outside of Scouting. Horus Kol 11:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scout method

Should it be Scout method or Scout Method capitalized? --Jagz 17:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalised - The Scout Association POR Horus Kol 11:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"While Beaver lodges have no leader structure within them, Cub sixes have a sixer and seconder." Needs internationalized. It's not sixer, etc everywhere.Rlevse 12:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in all counties Beavers have lodges. --Egel _Reaction? 14:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, a Patrol in the UK is more normally of around 8 Scouts... I realise that the terms may vary in some countries, but isn't it right that we show what is common - and then nation specific articles can talk about the variation... as a counter-example, the Scouting article has a Summary of age groups and sections which does not reflect anywhere near the variety as shown in the article Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding... but, that, to me, is correct - an article shouldn't be filled with "mostly it is this, but it can also be ... or ... or ... or" ad nauseum... that is why we have articles for specific countries to talk about their specific variations in programme. Horus Kol 12:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont' have to go that far, one could just say something like Cub den(whatever) elect a leader and asst leader. Rlevse 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Cub "den" is not universal... Horus Kol 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name of the article be changed to "Scout Method" then, with a capital "M"? --Jagz 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jagz, I would check with an administrator or someone who might have a better idea. Or try to change it and see what happens. Generally people probably think of it as capitalized, so it makes sense to us. In the wiki world they have some weird capitalization rules, so I can't tell if it would offend those rules to capitalize it. sorry, no more help. --Tinned Elk 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... The BSA Language of Scouting is silent on this one. There are several references to "the methods of Scouting" on the BSA website, but only one reference to the "Scouting method". --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is capitalized here in section 2, paragraph 3.[1] --Jagz 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing

I did some copy-editing and reorganization to make this article clearer. When I first read it I could not tell what the method really was and thus got some info from the Scouting Ed System publication referenced from this page. I still think it might do to have more structure. There is also no real explanation here of the "scouting game" or what the progression or "class" is. I see from the comments that this is really several articles merged, so I hope that I have added some clarity to the article! --Tinned Elk 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better merge

Some time ago I merged the details of the method, but too cautious, resulting in a somewhat disorderly article. I tried now to merged it better, in which I:

Divided the details into the 7 groups of WOSM
Removed a lot of double parts and merged other parts in the decriptions.
Removed some small parts which should be in other topics, discriptions of specific countries or not relevant historical background
Made the claims more practical. In the Baden-Powell article there were objections in how far the article was a theoretical goal or a description of reality, what it should be. Regarding the statements of WOSM I partly agree. They are so high-pitched that one cannot imagine that the none-educated volunteer Scoutleader in weekly half a day can do this, probably don't even understand it. Therefore I returned to Baden-Powell's more practical explanations and removed descriptions which were not clear how it is done in real life Scouting work.
Another reason for using a less abstract description is that Wikipedia is not a scientific encyclopaedia, but intended to be used by average people, also not native English speaking, as far as the subject makes possible. It would be strange if for instance Scouts would not understand what the article is about.DParlevliet 21:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egel replaced the badge system by the Personal Progressive System (PPS). Because the original Scouting Badge system is still used in many countries and the paragraph contains some important Scouting principles about instruction I think it still has its place in this article. So I re-entered it. The PPS part needs a better reference because I could not find the text or intention in the mentioned page 113 of the reference. That young people don't join the Scout Movement to gain mini diplomas is true, but does not imply that these should not be a part of Scouting. Young people also don't join the Scout Movement for a Personal Progressive System. DParlevliet 21:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was page 114. I have merged the two versions and made it less abstract. --Egel _Reaction? 04:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes:

The Personal Progressive Scheme is essential no badge systems. You could them, but that is a choice. In Ierland I did not see badges for the RAP part. Getting a badge when being "50% a better person" is somewhat peculiar.
"Scout has made the decision work on a subject" although right, it is superfluous. If he works on a badge it is obvious that he has decided to work on the subject. But I think I understand your intention, and I have written it somewaht different.
"These badges are not a final goal, but a first step..." This is only for the traditional badges, which were therefore not high standard. With PPS he gets badges with 50% and 100% of the final objectives (Toolbox p81), so are not a first step. However also present badges are mostly final, so made a better description
Badges are not only symbols, but real levelsDParlevliet 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The method of the Girl Guide/Girl Scout Movement

Commitment through the Promise and Law
Progressive Self-Development
Learning by doing
Teamwork through the Patrol System and training for responsible leadership
Active co-operation between young people and adults
Service in the Community
Outdoor activities
Symbolism.

http://www.wagggsworld.org/en/grab/1109/1/1ConstitutionbookletEnglish.pdf --Egel _Reaction? 13:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

Evrik is correct here. Page numbers don't go directly into the article body for display, but they can be added to the ref itself and display as part of the ref. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is {{rp}}, but I consider it a hack. If you want page numbers directly in the reference, then you need a separate citation template for each reference. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget, thanks for the work. When I wrote the article I saw no other way (used in some scientific papers) other 17 the same references with only a different page number. Not nice, but references without page number are useless. Because in all those months there was no objection I taught it would be acceptable. Of course when someone would have suggested me this solution I would have changed it myself, but just deleting data in stead of improving is unacceptable. One would better read WIKI-rules (and Scout law) how to handle contributions of editors. I surely hope they don't have handled their scouts in the same way. When content is mutilated to get a good form one is on the wrong track. I am afraid that the project is so focused on getting featured articles that content is sacrificed while working against official Wiki-rules. I hope this article will keep free from this. DParlevliet 20:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"... or maybe when your content was deleted multiple times you could have followed the fifth point of the Scout Law and taken your issue to the talk page rather making it seem like the other editors were somehow doing something wrong. --evrik ^(talk) 21:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I first added the content on december last year as a separte article but on request of the project merged it into this article in January. The page numbers were there from the start, without comments until now. The article, nor part of it, was ever deleted, but step by step improved by several editors. Deleting content, in stead of improving (like Gadget did), is against Wiki-rules, so is wrong and rude against the editor who did the work of carefully referencing his edits. If not: show the Wikirule with allows reference data to be deleted because of form. DParlevliet 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite your references for the following statements, "Deleting content, instead of improving is against Wiki-rules," as for your request, I refer you to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Now please stop trying to be such a prig and if you cant admit you were wrong, just stop trying to say how the other editors were wrong. --evrik ^(talk) 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I told in my answer to Gadget that I did not write the reference pages according Wiki rules. So... its now your turn? Also I suppose it is the one who deletes who has to explain, not the one who wrote good content. But even then, no problem: see Deletion policy the first line "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion".DParlevliet 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude let it go. You keep proving my point. --evrik ^(talk) 21:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

I propose to do routine copy edits of this article. Copy editing involves

improving grammar
correcting errors of punctuation, spelling, and so on
Paraphrasing copyright material to avoid legal issues
removing duplicate material
altering wording to improve clarity
improve organisation of content

The article has been tagged as needing copy edits since December 2008. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 12:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs some cleanup. But the changes you did to the article were fairly extensive, all in one big edit. How about a few words here about what the specific individual problems are, along with your proposed improvements, so that we can agree on the new text here first? HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Please feel free to critique the first edit - the one you undid. I assume you have specific objections you would like to discuss? I thought these were fairly obvious improvements to grammar, wording, etc., so I am interested to hear what exactly I did wrong. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

Thanks, Babakathy, for this edit. When I made the previous edit, I was conscious of leaving Scout POV in the article, but I wasn't sure if it was attributed clearly enough. Taking out the value-laden language solved that problem quickly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the previous changes because the reference is: "Discipline is not gained by punishing a child for a bad habit, but by substituting a better occupation, that will adsorb his attention" (Aids to Scoutmwatership page 31) and "It cannot be done by forbidding ..." (page 12). But indeed it does not mention "more attractive", so I removed that part DParlevliet (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Scout method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]