Jump to content

Talk:Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Missing

[edit]

These organizations are missing:

  • American Boy Scouts, formed 1910, renamed to United States Boy Scouts in 1913— well documented by several reliable sources
  • Woodcraft Indians; formed 1902, merged 1910 BSA, reorganized 1915
  • Sons of Daniel Boone; formed 1905, merged 1910 BSA
  • YMCA Boy Scouts; formed 1909, merged 1910 BSA; Macleod
  • Boy Scouts of the United States; merged 1910 BSA; Peterson, p. 52; Macleod, p. 147; Scouting
  • National Scouts of America; merged 1910 BSA; Peterson, p. 52; Macleod, p. 147; Scouting
  • Leatherstocking Scouts; merged 1910 BSA; Peterson, p. 52
  • Peace Scouts; merged 1910 BSA; Peterson, p. 52; Scouting
  • California Boy Scouts[1]
  • YMMIA Scouts of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; formed 1910, merged 1913 BSA; [2]
  • Boy Rangers of America; formed 1913, merged 1930 BSA; Peterson, p. 108
  • Lone Scouts of America; formed 1915, merged 1930 BSA; Peterson, p. 85
  • Polish National Alliance Scouts; existed in 1914 through at least 1933; Macleod, p. 215; Scouting
  • Rhode Island Boy Scouts; formed 1910, merged 1917 BSA; Scouting
  • New England Boy Scouts; formed 1910, merged 1916 BSA; Scouting
  • United Boys' Brigade of America

--  Gadget850 talk 22:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are American Boy Scouts, Woodcraft Indians, Sons of Daniel Boone, Boy Rangers of America, Lone Scouts of America, [[:Rhode Island Boy Scouts] (and still exists), New England Boy Scouts missing? They have their own article. Boy Scouts of the United States has its own section in the article as is. Peace Scouts and California Boy Scouts are covered in Scouting in California right now. This article was more started to remove the defunct organizations that I found information on working on the Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States article and was original to have been with that article. Spshu (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Cadet Corps

[edit]

How is the Medical Cadet Corps Scout-like? --  Gadget850 talk 22:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was included as a Pathfinder affiliate, plus it seems like a huge first aid merit badge rover-age (college age) group. Military style (uniforms, etc.) but not militaristic (guns, etc.). It seemed like a small stretch at the time. Spshu (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the junior members of my local rescue squad. I still find it dubious. --  Gadget850 talk 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of which, the Boy Scouts of America have such a program, Explorers. My other option that I though of at the time was a request for deletion. Spshu (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IBID-type citations

[edit]

I have fixed the IBID-type, i.e., page numbers without any direct context. if there is a problem, please discuss here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo, as a scouting editor, any comments? Frietjes (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gadget850, any comments? Frietjes (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The problem is that it is not IBID. Do you see that term in those references? No, so you making up a problem that does not exist. I have started a post at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#IBID and ref group. Group names keep them together with the direct context that is directly above in the reference section. You have to expressly work to break the group reference by removing the tag, removing the cite in the reference section or removing the "references group=hd7a".
Please stop Wikipedia:Canvassing as that is inappropriate. --Spshu (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it (this principle is known as WP:CITEVAR)." So, you failed to seek consensus to change it before changing and even after having pointed out to you that it was not IBID: "again not IBID type to the point that they can be broken". And you reverted also against BRD, since you were the bold editor and were reverted it was up to you to leave it alone and start the discussion and allow them time to respond. Spshu (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spshu you need to relax, @Frietjes is not canvassing, she's asking experienced editors on the topic if what she's doing is correct. This is not my article so I have no idea whether it is or not, but we should not bite those trying to fix problems they see. She _is_ an expert on coding, so I trust her judgement on that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She was informed via the edit summary that she was fixing absolutely nothing. She is not an expert on coding if she is fixing a problem that doesn't exist and instead is edit warring at 1RR per CITEVAR. Canvassing is what she is expressly doing in requesting you to comment here. She has show no judgement in this case, so there is nothing to trust. Considering how much the WP:Scouting bunch has repeatedly attack me with no one stopping them, calling on members of that project is basically asking assistance in attack me. Spshu (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, deep breath, inhale, exhale. @Frietjes has been helping fix code on Scouting articles for a week now, her help is much appreciated. Spshu, you are the last person to talk about edit-warring, your block log is longer than mine and I've worked really hard for my blocks. If she was canvassing, she wouldn't have called on an editor who retired a year ago. Nobody has attacked you, the last Scouting issue on your talkpage dates from 2008, that's 8 years ago. Stop being paranoid and get to the issue at hand.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See, you are bring up my blocks, which you are not suppose to do, many of which were do to administrators not making sound judgements which is recommend that you take it instead of appealing. The first of which was a block given because another wikiproject decided that they did not like me working in their area to deal with notability issues. If she such an expert then she should be aware of CITVAR, which is relevant in this issue, not my block log. And the attacks took place more recent then 2008 and occur for about a year (2014) at this article's companion article (Talk:Youth organizations in the United States), which even included an attempt to get that article deleted. So, yes I have been attack as incompetent with other attacks with many of WP:Scouting Project including an administrator standing by. Then they just partially trash that article with out dealing with their legitimate issues. And you as a canvassed Scouting project editor just jump here and proclaim "Good job! Thanks!" that does not really addressing the issue. Thus seemingly presuming I am in the wrong, not getting to the issue at hand and continues WP:Scouting's lack of good faith.
She framed the question as if it was IBID, which it was not, as it literally doesn't use "IBID" or any similar term. And has direct context as the reference group keeps them together thus does not have the problem that IBID has. Her first solution was to separate to the point of not having direct context. My method is a Shortened footnotes using group referencing instead of harvtxt or harvnb used in the example. Spshu (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing on that talkpage nor in the deletion discussion that even remotely resembles an attack. Admins do what they are supposed to do, else they are recalled, therefore the blocks must have been earned, mine sure were. @Frietjes (whose block log by the way is almost snow white) didn't "trash" anything. If you're arguing over semantics, that is a bad case of WP:OWN, and in that case we should get an admin. If this turns into an edit war, again we should get an admin. In fact, you've "trashed" 3RR, that's where I will look next.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not talk about OWN as that is what a good lot of the WP:Scouting did through their attacks. The deletion discussion was the attack because they did not like the article what so ever and attack before and after as being total false even though it was fully sourced, that I was making personal attacks (for discussing content):
  • "This page is looking to me like a POV attempt to marginalize all non-Boy Scouts of America associations." DiverScout (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC) -- Notability is neutral not a POV and is an attack to discredit me.
  • "If you wish to create personal attacks, and post POV incorrect information under misleading article titles, ..." DiverScout (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC) -- from Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack"
  • Forgot his 3RR report for a single edit to attempt to get me to go away
  • "Clearly you are incapable of reason. A shame." DiverScout (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "So continues your history of abusing editing. There is little point in discussing anything further with you, and I will not bother. I will work with more aware editors and simply remove your POV when required. You have had your chance to show any ability to reason." DiverScout (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • also at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2014#minor organizations: "...here you chose to summarize the article to a tiny and ridiculous section of sheer laziness." (translation) Hallel (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC) -- commenting on the editor instead of realizing that the editor (me) did search (work, ie. not lazy) and could not find them notable sources.
Just about every post of DiverScout includes some sort of attack against me. I would have posted this at your talk page but you just seem angry their with all your rules, so we can focus on the topic here. Second, Admin only personally voluntarily place themselves up for recall. Other wise, it takes a Bureaucrat to bust them. Administrators can do what they like. One administrator block me on the collusion of two socks. Ping, him and several other admin, they could not figure out what happened even though the block administrator IDing the reporting editor as a sock. Even when they could, no apology or removal of the block and they wanted me to report the socks (while blocked).
Also, I did not say Frietjes trashed any thing, please reread. I suggest you drop it as I will too. And since you reported her, her block log with not be lily white any more. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frietjes. They look a lot better with that change. meamemg (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meamemg, The issue isn't whether or not it looks better. The issue is does it match the original citation method, which it did not as the original format was a Shortened footnotes format although unique per Izno at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources as they use it on the German WP.
Kintetsubuffalo, is an Arbitration Committee ruling (CITEVAR) semantics or OWN? Not sure what it is these days in making basically unnecessary edits for no marginal increase in information. I had a movie page edited for an increase in 1 additional review with no change in percentage of "Liked" reviews to "disliked" (or what ever terms is used there). And several editors decide that is good even though it waste WP resources in tracking said edit. Spshu (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the question is always is it an improvement to the article. If there is consensus that we should switch, as seems to be developing, than having previously used a different method does not stand in our way. meamemg (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see say it "looks good" as the same as that it is an improvement. (And it seem close to "good job" that seem to approve of her behavior, sorry I miss understood.) Also, I don't understand this need to make marginal edits (and seemly support at other discussions) that does not address an error (not just here) or increase any understanding of the subject. It seem to be a waste of WP resources that CITEVAR implies (along the lines of why edit warring is bad). Second, she did it about two different ways, so which version do you want: Notes § with no direct context that you need to refer to References § or harvnb? Spshu (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kintetsubuffalo, Meamemg, Frietjes, this discussion is a hopeless cause. This kind of retaliatory "discussion" has unfortunately become the norm for Spshu, and it appears as if there's no intention of changing on their part. Given how long this behavior has been going on, I suggest we get this over with and have the case at WP:3RR be decided on by an admin. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought Spshu's behavior at this article to WP:ANI, as this appears to be a long-term issue with him. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no justification for multiple images

[edit]

I have removed the extraneous images from the Medical Cadet Corps section, it has its own article and there no justification for multiple images when the other sections have none. Documenting my reasoning here in expectation of another stupid edit war by Spshu, who has already reverted once, apparently in the belief that article shouldn't exist.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you on target launch a personal attack as usual. Yes, the Scouting Project had launch multiple edit wars and other harassing activities defending multiple unsourced or poorly sourced articles contrary to WP notability rules. I incorrectly assumed this was another defense of such an article. I do go and see that some had did a most great job in whipping the article into shape. The whole section has been remove in deference to the article. Spshu (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mysterious El Willstro's edit warring

[edit]

The Mysterious El Willstro My removing your crap from my talkpage has nothing to do with your edit-warring on this article. I clearly spell out what I will remove from my talkpage. Don't conflate the two. I'll be here long after you've gotten bored and moved on. Clearly your edit isn't agreed upon here. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not crap. I gave you a verbatim quote from the Style Guide, and it doesn't say what you assert. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Top of that, your own userpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Mysterious_El_Willstro is filled with miscaps. Long past time for you to stop.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bee-Hive Girls defunct?

[edit]

The section on the Bee-Hive Girls doesn't list a date that it went out of existence or was merged into another LDS organization. As of 2016 it appears to have still been operating as shown here. Blue Riband► 16:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&oldid=1201261601"