Talk:Boy Spies of America

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Declined speedy

When I first saw this article, I thought it was some teenager playing a prank. But I googled the organization, and it seems to be a real historical group that has been written about in a number of sources, so I'm declining the speedy to give the author time to work on this. However, I noticed in my googling that the organization seems to be getting some current attention from the US "Tea Party;" it's important that this article be about this historical organization, and not used to make any political points or connections to contemporary organizations. If it turns out that I'm wrong and this subject can't be developed into a full article, the speedier (or anyone else) should feel free to send it on to WP:AfD. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

I found this NPR interview, which seems to indicate that we might find information about this organization (a little, at least) in Ann Hagedorn's book "Savage Peace: Hope and Fear in America, 1919." I can't commit to reading it very soon, as I'm preparing for a long trip in the near future, but I wanted to throw that title out in case someone else wants to check her library. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question the accuracy of these sources. Do the books themselves actually contain sources? Otherwise, it's simply one or two person's opinions about a largely undocumented group. I noticed the word "patriotic" in the article, and I that's possibly disputable. The bottom line is that what sources there are actually need to be quoted in order to legitimately inform others. —Resound (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Google Books search yourself- this group is mentioned in a lot of sources, though none of them go into much detail about them. I don't have any doubt that they existed, but I'm not convinced that they're particularly important in comparison with other volunteer spying groups of the time. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used "patriotic organization" because that's how several of the history books described them- I think based on how they organized and thought of themselves, and not making any particular judgment on the merits of the patriotism. I'm open to discussion of what phrase would be an accurate, neutral description for these groups- feel free to look at some of the history books and make a suggestion. I don't own this article; I'm just here to help keep it neutral and sourced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, then we can work together. :) Could you possibly cite the history book quotations that you found, rather than just listing the book's names, etc? Sorry, I'm lazy, and it's been a long time since I've been an editor at WikiMedia sites. I always remember screwing up reference sections. EDIT: Oh, and I wasn't talking about for myself; I've already done some research. I was indicating that it should be done for the readers.—Resound (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Beck Discussion

This topic should be deleted and locked. Propaganda from Glenn Beck's May 27th show. Other topics which should be carefully watched for accuracy are "National Security League", and "The American Defense Society". I wouldn't be surprised to see these articles greatly expanded with dubious information in the next few days.

His exact quote on the subject: "this history has become so cannibalized, we couldn't find anything but I know you can. This history has been ERASED. Search everything you can. try to find anything you can on The Boy Spies. We couldn't find anything." He later asserted "All this happened in America". Without any evidence whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhess126 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AFD for instructions on how to open a deletion discussion on this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed uncited information from the article; Beck is not always a reliable source of information, and I'm concerned that some of the facts in here were distorted by a contemporary political agenda. All I can find so far is that the organization existed, but the source I found indicated that it was not government-sponsored- in fact, the interviewer and author seemed to emphasize that point. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google books cites lots of history texts about World War I that mention the Boy Spies, but they all seem to say pretty much the same thing- they identify them as one of a long list of organizations that volunteered to watch out for spies, and who exemplified the uglier side of patriotism through activities such as vilifying certain ethnic groups, harassing people who weren't fighting in the army, reinforcing a very specific flavor of nationalism... the more I read about the group, the more I'm chuckling at Glenn Beck for mentioning them as a bad organization, because they sound like they share a lot of his opinions. In any case, although they're mentioned as part of this national trend (the patriotic organization/ volunteer spy group), none of the books seems to actually single them out, or discuss them as a separate organization rather than simply as part of this trend. The organization that seems to be the significant one is the American Protective League, which rated a separate paragraph in several of the books. This group just appeared on lists- my favorite name on the lists is the Terrible Threateners, which seems to be precisely as notable. I'm not sure that this organization is notable enough to need an article of its own, since the books that mention it really do just mention it in their discussion of a much larger concept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt a few people with a bias or two. Heh heh. Anyway, the statement implied that this is a part of America's history that seems to have disappeared. Glenn Beck specifically asked people to look into it themselves, and said that they couldn't find much about it, nor decipher what was there. I love all of the 'Noobs' who are screaming about the deletion of this article just because Glenn Back made it common knowledge. You're all putting words in his mouth. I can't stand people who have to bend and distort the truth to make a point... regardless, this page will be self-deserving due to the upcoming controversy that's about to hit. I'd suggest that it be monitored, as no doubt there will bee a lot of questionable information popping up in the next few days. —Resound (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that the disturbing political atmosphere of the WWI area is history that has been made to disappear; I found it discussed in lots of history books, and even found a few whole books on the subject. This specific group, though... we don't even know how large it was. Are we talking about a large, nationwide group? Or five boys in a church basement in Peoria? The sources are not very specific. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This group is what I'm referring to. I'm sorry if I failed to make that clear. Regardless, a 'missed mess' has been brought to the front by Glenn Beck, and I highly doubt that we'll ever find out much about this group. Now is the key time to educate ourselves, as the only new sources that will be found are those that will be made-up, likely in order to support various parties political viewpoints. By the way, I changed the section title to a more accurate name, as well as to hopefully tone down the controversy. (I mean, calling someone a hoax-maker isn't going to do anything other than inflame his fans, and drive both sides to war.) —Resound (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax? ha

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods92.html referenced in this book

Who Killed the Constitution? by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.40.82 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jcs-group.com/military/war1917/surveillance.html

ever hear of bing/google/yahoo/library? get out of your basement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.40.82 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've established that the organization existed, and with much better sources than these. It would be nice if we could learn more details about it; do you have any better sources? Those are opinion columnists; I found real history books, but they didn't have any more details than yours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Glenn Beck viewers

If you're taking Beck up on his challenge to find information, I applaud you, and Wikipedia welcomes your help! If you're new to Wikipedia, you might want to familiarize yourself with some relevant rules: just write the facts, without any political slant, verify everything from sources, make sure your sources are reliable. I've done what I could with the sources I could find, but I know some of you are highly motivated enough to go to libraries and historical archives to find information. Here are some questions we could really use sourced answers to:

How many members did the Boy Spies of America have?
Who founded the organization?
When did it begin?
When did it end?
Where was it headquartered?
Did it have any publications?
Was it praised or criticized in the press?
Did it have any significant effect on the country (for example, did it cause arrests, or changes in laws?)

If you find answers to any of those questions, feel free to add them to the article- don't forget to cite your sources, because unsourced or poorly sourced information is likely to be removed from the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a month. This organization *may* have existed, but is there any reason it warrants a wikipedia page? Many organizations more notable than this lack their own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.148.160 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True- but the solution to that is to create articles about those organizations. If you think this article should be deleted because this organization does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, there are instructions at WP:AFD on how to nominate it for deletion. Unless I'm mistaken, I think you'll need to create an account and log in in order to complete the nomination for deletion process, but assuming you don't mind doing that, you're more than welcome to. I'd be curious to see how such a discussion ended. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It always perplexes me as to why people try to remove pages that are "non-notable". In the end, it doesn't hurt at all to have them (obviously to a certain point), and articles like this are frequently searched for due to comments made by people such as Glenn Beck. The only reason someone wouldn't want this page to exist would be for the same issues that were debated above; they don't buy that it existed -even against undeniable proof- because Glenn Beck brought it to the forefront. —Resound (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because at its heart, the rules for 'non-notable' equal to 'not enough verifiable sources available to be sure we're publishing useful, true information on the subject.' Wikipedia wants to be reliable, so the rules are meant to try to avoid having articles that aren't useful and accurate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]