This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realize that many scouts and scouters dislike the 8th edition, but for those of us who had it as our first handbook, it wasn't disasterous. Unless you are saying our involvement in scouting was a disaster somehow. I like the program of the 9th edition better, but the 8th edition dealt with drugs in an honest and explicit manner for the first time ever and it was the first handbook to put pictures that reflected scoutings ethnic diversity front and center.
I need a lot of help with this project. Anyone who can lend a hand, would be appreciated. Thank you. --
Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 13:18 (UTC)
I'm a bit spread out at the moment, but I have a few constructive comments:
-- Gadget850 12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag at the same time I changed the opinion on the 8th edition from a declaration of fact to a statement that some consider it such. However, this opinion really needs a source. Who thinks that the 8th edition was a "disasterist" edition? Where did they say it? Is it published? Also... disasterist? Do you mean disasterous? Fieari 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the T97 reference. I also started with this handbook. After 32 years in Scouting, I can look back and see where things went wrong. I remember leaders saying "You can't take the outing out of Scouting", but I really did not know why at the time. T97 has another page discussing this in depth [1]. Again, these are opinons, but they are documented. -- Gadget850 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Worthiness of merging the handbook articles depends on how much work someone wants to put into details of the individual handbooks. If kept separate, they should be their own article, not subpages of the main article (look at their naming paths). Rlevse 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
007bond 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
merge per nom. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: May is have gone [May has come and gone?] and though this is the COTM, no one has made a single edit, so there is apparently much interest in expanding this area. I'd say merge them. Rlevse 10:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Ccraig was working on this a while back User:Ccraig/handbook when it popped up in the BSA cat. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the wiki links on the handbook editions as we've merged the info. Rlevse 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this necessary? I thought it would look good (which is of course subjective and unapplicable to the officiality of the situation) and be a useful reference for those interested in Scouting memorabilia collecting. It is also much shorter than individual articles for each edition. Scoutersig 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Rlevse 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have at least eight of the old handbooks in my collection, including the 1911 reprint. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by this line: "It had once been thought that there was a ninth variation but that was made by one man who supposedly had seen an interleaved version in the National Scout Headquarters many years ago. The BSA National Archives has no record of that variation ever existing."
Is it necessary? -- Jdurbach 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It struck me as vague, unnecessary and confusing so I've removed it. You've conveniently recorded a copy here in case someone finds more evidence that warrants adding it back. Jheiss ( talk) 18:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims that there were only 14 editions up to 2019. So why is it that a 1920 handbook claims itself as the "twenty-second edition" in the title? Afterwards, it claims the following:
"The Boy Scouts' Handbook was published in 1910 and subsequently the editions and quantities were as follows:
[...]"
etc.
Don't worry, the book is in the public domain so it's free to view for your own reference. But does this mean that we have 14 editions but several revisions within those editions? Or is the book, or our Wikipedia page, dubious? The 1914 version I see here looks pretty different from the 1920 version I mentioned above at a glance. So do archivists have ultimately hundreds of editions to track down and make scans of?
Note: @ Gadget850: mentioned something like this above in #Google Books. PseudoSkull ( talk) 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I realize that many scouts and scouters dislike the 8th edition, but for those of us who had it as our first handbook, it wasn't disasterous. Unless you are saying our involvement in scouting was a disaster somehow. I like the program of the 9th edition better, but the 8th edition dealt with drugs in an honest and explicit manner for the first time ever and it was the first handbook to put pictures that reflected scoutings ethnic diversity front and center.
I need a lot of help with this project. Anyone who can lend a hand, would be appreciated. Thank you. --
Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 13:18 (UTC)
I'm a bit spread out at the moment, but I have a few constructive comments:
-- Gadget850 12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag at the same time I changed the opinion on the 8th edition from a declaration of fact to a statement that some consider it such. However, this opinion really needs a source. Who thinks that the 8th edition was a "disasterist" edition? Where did they say it? Is it published? Also... disasterist? Do you mean disasterous? Fieari 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at the T97 reference. I also started with this handbook. After 32 years in Scouting, I can look back and see where things went wrong. I remember leaders saying "You can't take the outing out of Scouting", but I really did not know why at the time. T97 has another page discussing this in depth [1]. Again, these are opinons, but they are documented. -- Gadget850 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Worthiness of merging the handbook articles depends on how much work someone wants to put into details of the individual handbooks. If kept separate, they should be their own article, not subpages of the main article (look at their naming paths). Rlevse 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
007bond 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
merge per nom. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: May is have gone [May has come and gone?] and though this is the COTM, no one has made a single edit, so there is apparently much interest in expanding this area. I'd say merge them. Rlevse 10:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that User:Ccraig was working on this a while back User:Ccraig/handbook when it popped up in the BSA cat. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the wiki links on the handbook editions as we've merged the info. Rlevse 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Is this necessary? I thought it would look good (which is of course subjective and unapplicable to the officiality of the situation) and be a useful reference for those interested in Scouting memorabilia collecting. It is also much shorter than individual articles for each edition. Scoutersig 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it. Rlevse 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I have at least eight of the old handbooks in my collection, including the 1911 reprint. -- Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused by this line: "It had once been thought that there was a ninth variation but that was made by one man who supposedly had seen an interleaved version in the National Scout Headquarters many years ago. The BSA National Archives has no record of that variation ever existing."
Is it necessary? -- Jdurbach 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It struck me as vague, unnecessary and confusing so I've removed it. You've conveniently recorded a copy here in case someone finds more evidence that warrants adding it back. Jheiss ( talk) 18:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia claims that there were only 14 editions up to 2019. So why is it that a 1920 handbook claims itself as the "twenty-second edition" in the title? Afterwards, it claims the following:
"The Boy Scouts' Handbook was published in 1910 and subsequently the editions and quantities were as follows:
[...]"
etc.
Don't worry, the book is in the public domain so it's free to view for your own reference. But does this mean that we have 14 editions but several revisions within those editions? Or is the book, or our Wikipedia page, dubious? The 1914 version I see here looks pretty different from the 1920 version I mentioned above at a glance. So do archivists have ultimately hundreds of editions to track down and make scans of?
Note: @ Gadget850: mentioned something like this above in #Google Books. PseudoSkull ( talk) 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)