Welcome!
Hello, Robert c2227, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Scouting have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on
my talk page, or you can type {{
helpme}}
on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk)
03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | You are invited to participate in
WikiProject Scouting, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about
Scouting and
Guiding. You may sign up at the project
members page, or
sign up for our newsletter.
More information |
Please brouse around some of the discussions in the project. It may help you to learn how we approach writing articles about the Scout movement here on wikipedia. Good luck. I am sure you will be able to make a contribution. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I really hate to bite a newcomer, but you are starting to engage in edit warring. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and note the 3RR rule. Please discuss issues on talk pages, providing details and sources as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Gadget850, Edit warring takes two sides. You undid my edit without a stated reason and without adding a reference to the unsupported claim in the version to which you reverted. You didn't attempt to engage me over the facts. The statement in the article is clearly false. Robert c2227 ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Robert, please read WP:WEIGHT, especially what it says about small (or vastly limited) minority viewpoints. -- Egel Reaction? 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, I note your comments on your User page about editors imposing their conservative views. In a similar way there is an Establishment within scouting.
I am just trying to add truth and accuracy. As an innocuous example, look at the first paragraph of the article on The Scout Association, the previous version stated the "Association was formed ... in 1910 by the grant of a charter by the Parliament of the United Kingdom." How long had this error lasted on this page unnoticed by the expert Uber-editors on scouting while there was 150+ views a day? These are basic facts about the organization. I see little evidence of factual knowledge from primary sources, very poor organization and structuring of information in a hyperlinked web and lots of attempts to tell, or re-tell, unsupported stories. There are those on Wikipedia who hover endlessly over articles trying to control what is published in their domain, always ready to hit the undo button without good reason.
There has been lots of criticism of what I've done and how but no one has attempted to engage with me on the facts. Says s lot. Robert c2227 ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, A "charter of the Parliament" is an Act of parliament incorporating and/or granting rights and privileges, like a Congressional charter e.g. the BSA's 1916 Congressional charter. The Scout Association was incorporated by royal charter in 1912. The Boy Scouts Association's Canadian branch corporation now named Scouts Canada was incorporated by Canadian parliamentary charter. The Girl Guides Association was incorporated by a UK parliamentary charter and later by royal charter. I didn't write as if the error should have been obvious to all but its writer should have known that they didn't really know. RE your second comment: I didn;t tell "us" what what it should be because I included a link to the article which was corrected (with reference) and its history contains the edits. I am being very constuctive but have met a very conservative, reactionary and unconstructive response. Engage me on the facts. Robert c2227 ( talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see you're warming to me despite the initial hostility. Engage me on the facts and we'll make progress.
Here's a recent gem Edit summary comment by User:Egel on undoing my edit: "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true". At least they're openly honest.
Please list your User name in the space below if you agree with Egel and don't want Wikipedia to tell the truth about scouting.
Robert c2227 ( talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
These are actually a number of different Acts in the different former colonies. The Acts at least refer to the royal charter and 1912 date but they don't have the text of the charter. See my earlier commment about the royal charter below. I'd suggest citing the Acts for verification of the existence of the charter, its date and the associaton's name and, citing the Scouts Canada source for the text of the charter until a better source of the text is available. Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
My idea of the truth IS what is supported by reliable independent sources, primary sources, but much in the articles on scouts and scouting is not. There are cited sources as reliable as a website with a supposed quote from some edition of a book by Baden-Powell in which he told a story about himself. Yeah, reliable! There are citations of websites making unsupported claims. It all looks very important with lots of references but not many of them are primary sources or reliable.
Then there are issues with the way parts of the articles are written. The opening statement in the article on scouting is Scouting (or the Scout Movement) has the stated aim of supporting young people in their physical, mental and spiritual development, that they may play constructive roles in society. Of course the source for this could be cited but when the source is examined more critically the source would be by a particular organization (WOSM presumably). In which case the statement is incorrect because the claimed aim is not from or by Scouting or the Scout Movement but merely by a particular organization expressing its point of view. Correctly then the statement should be "The WOSM has the stated aim ..." and then it becomes obvious that such a statement doesn't belong under the article at all but under an article on the WOSM.
As to the cited source of the royal charter, I agree, a transcribed e-copy of the text on a Scouts Canada website is not the best. I have never seen a published copy of the royal charter. It wasn't the sort of thing The Scout Association published as the plebs weren't meant to concern themselves about such things, eh! However, I'm sure you've all seen the charter and have got some in your collection. I have some plain unpublished prints of the charter ... Oh, and I did get copies when I looked at the original petition by Baden-Powell, the committee and councillors and their petition draft, further drafts by the Privy Council office, final prints and hand scribed calligraphy on vellum charters. Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the qualified truth! Always good to cloak yourself in polices and guidelines. Have you considered religion too? Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Robert c2227! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Welcome!
Hello, Robert c2227, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Scouting have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on
my talk page, or you can type {{
helpme}}
on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
HiLo48 (
talk)
03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | You are invited to participate in
WikiProject Scouting, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about
Scouting and
Guiding. You may sign up at the project
members page, or
sign up for our newsletter.
More information |
Please brouse around some of the discussions in the project. It may help you to learn how we approach writing articles about the Scout movement here on wikipedia. Good luck. I am sure you will be able to make a contribution. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I really hate to bite a newcomer, but you are starting to engage in edit warring. Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring and note the 3RR rule. Please discuss issues on talk pages, providing details and sources as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Gadget850, Edit warring takes two sides. You undid my edit without a stated reason and without adding a reference to the unsupported claim in the version to which you reverted. You didn't attempt to engage me over the facts. The statement in the article is clearly false. Robert c2227 ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Robert, please read WP:WEIGHT, especially what it says about small (or vastly limited) minority viewpoints. -- Egel Reaction? 20:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, I note your comments on your User page about editors imposing their conservative views. In a similar way there is an Establishment within scouting.
I am just trying to add truth and accuracy. As an innocuous example, look at the first paragraph of the article on The Scout Association, the previous version stated the "Association was formed ... in 1910 by the grant of a charter by the Parliament of the United Kingdom." How long had this error lasted on this page unnoticed by the expert Uber-editors on scouting while there was 150+ views a day? These are basic facts about the organization. I see little evidence of factual knowledge from primary sources, very poor organization and structuring of information in a hyperlinked web and lots of attempts to tell, or re-tell, unsupported stories. There are those on Wikipedia who hover endlessly over articles trying to control what is published in their domain, always ready to hit the undo button without good reason.
There has been lots of criticism of what I've done and how but no one has attempted to engage with me on the facts. Says s lot. Robert c2227 ( talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, A "charter of the Parliament" is an Act of parliament incorporating and/or granting rights and privileges, like a Congressional charter e.g. the BSA's 1916 Congressional charter. The Scout Association was incorporated by royal charter in 1912. The Boy Scouts Association's Canadian branch corporation now named Scouts Canada was incorporated by Canadian parliamentary charter. The Girl Guides Association was incorporated by a UK parliamentary charter and later by royal charter. I didn't write as if the error should have been obvious to all but its writer should have known that they didn't really know. RE your second comment: I didn;t tell "us" what what it should be because I included a link to the article which was corrected (with reference) and its history contains the edits. I am being very constuctive but have met a very conservative, reactionary and unconstructive response. Engage me on the facts. Robert c2227 ( talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I can see you're warming to me despite the initial hostility. Engage me on the facts and we'll make progress.
Here's a recent gem Edit summary comment by User:Egel on undoing my edit: "it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true". At least they're openly honest.
Please list your User name in the space below if you agree with Egel and don't want Wikipedia to tell the truth about scouting.
Robert c2227 ( talk) 10:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
These are actually a number of different Acts in the different former colonies. The Acts at least refer to the royal charter and 1912 date but they don't have the text of the charter. See my earlier commment about the royal charter below. I'd suggest citing the Acts for verification of the existence of the charter, its date and the associaton's name and, citing the Scouts Canada source for the text of the charter until a better source of the text is available. Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
My idea of the truth IS what is supported by reliable independent sources, primary sources, but much in the articles on scouts and scouting is not. There are cited sources as reliable as a website with a supposed quote from some edition of a book by Baden-Powell in which he told a story about himself. Yeah, reliable! There are citations of websites making unsupported claims. It all looks very important with lots of references but not many of them are primary sources or reliable.
Then there are issues with the way parts of the articles are written. The opening statement in the article on scouting is Scouting (or the Scout Movement) has the stated aim of supporting young people in their physical, mental and spiritual development, that they may play constructive roles in society. Of course the source for this could be cited but when the source is examined more critically the source would be by a particular organization (WOSM presumably). In which case the statement is incorrect because the claimed aim is not from or by Scouting or the Scout Movement but merely by a particular organization expressing its point of view. Correctly then the statement should be "The WOSM has the stated aim ..." and then it becomes obvious that such a statement doesn't belong under the article at all but under an article on the WOSM.
As to the cited source of the royal charter, I agree, a transcribed e-copy of the text on a Scouts Canada website is not the best. I have never seen a published copy of the royal charter. It wasn't the sort of thing The Scout Association published as the plebs weren't meant to concern themselves about such things, eh! However, I'm sure you've all seen the charter and have got some in your collection. I have some plain unpublished prints of the charter ... Oh, and I did get copies when I looked at the original petition by Baden-Powell, the committee and councillors and their petition draft, further drafts by the Privy Council office, final prints and hand scribed calligraphy on vellum charters. Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the qualified truth! Always good to cloak yourself in polices and guidelines. Have you considered religion too? Robert c2227 ( talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi Robert c2227! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |