Talk:Scouts Canada: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 6 April 2008

Scouting Start‑class High‑importance

	Scouting portal Scouts Canada 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 articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force.
	This article was the project's Portal collaboration of the month (March 2007).

Canada Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

Yes, merge Canadian Scout Jamboree here. Rlevse 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ed in history

I just read that Scouts Canada went co-ed and all-inclusive in 1998.[1] I'm hoping I can find some time to research this, but am puzzled why something so momentous wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. --Habap 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good discussion of this over at Talk:Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America/archive2#Scouts Canada. I'll be adding some of that text to the article to explain more of the history of Scouts Canada. --Habap 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duty to God

Is this statement true? "Scouts Canada defines 'Duty to God' broadly in terms of "adherence to spiritual principles" and does not have a policy excluding non-theists." --Jagz 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look around the Scouts Canada website and they say "Duty to God: Defined as, The responsibility to adhere to spiritual principles, and thus to the religion that expresses them, and to accept the duties therefrom". [2] They also say "Scouting welcomes all cultures and religious denominations to our membership." [3] There is no mention of any particular policy about non-theists (or similar words). Whether such a policy exists, I don't know. Kingbird 16:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. --Jagz 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special Programs

MedVents while becoming quite popular, is organized as a Vocational Venturing effort, much the same as RCMP Venturers and does not constitute a separate section. What we may want to note is that Venturers and Rovers may be organized along standard or vocational structures (for example Medical or RCMP/Police). Opinions?cantis 18:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material

Several paragraphs have been frequently removed by an unregistered user without explanation and have been reverted. Finally the anon editor removed the material with the edit summary "Old Content, no longer relevant". This seems inadequate to me. Parts of that material are old and may need rewriting to update it. Other section such as that on the B-P Scouts should remain. I have reverted and now semi-protected the article in an attempt to force discussion on this matter on this talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)

Some updating of that information would be good. Most certainly, it is relevant and needs to stay. --Lkmorlan (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the Issues stuff is inaccurate, opinion, Violates the NPOV guidelines and/or off topic. Specifically - the information on pension liabilities is the opinion of one accountant that has been challenged by several other accountants, the information on camps cites only a non-recognized (by anyone, including industry canada) source of which the contributor is a founding member of and the Baden Powell Scouts do not exist in Canada (as established by Industry Canada)- their spinoff which cannot use the word Scout represents less than 60 youth members across Canada. The accurate material in this section are the references to market share, though it should include information on the steps being taken to reverse this.

The section on elections does not take in to account the new election procedure, which was designed by a member of the group that has written most of this section. Spicegw 001 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this about the BPSA in Canada? Certainly, this is the discussion that was needed, but more is still needed. --Bduke (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, Spicegw 001, that you had consensus yet to remove all the material that had been restored by me when I semi-protected the article. Certainly you need to add sources for the assertions that you make. I am also not clear that you have the NPOV right. You are removing critical comments about Scouts Canada and just adding pro-Scouts Canada comments. Also note that removing the semi-protected template does not remove the semi-protection. It just means editors will not know it is semi-protected. --Bduke (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the reason why I did not remove all the material that you restored - simply the material that was out of date or supplied by a lobby group. Spicegw 001 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 *What is the status of [http://www.geocities.com/bpsa_canada/ this] about the BPSA in Canada? Certainly, this is the discussion that was needed, but more is still needed. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 06:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 *I am not sure, [[User:Spicegw 001|Spicegw 001]], that you had consensus yet to remove all the material that had been restored by me when I semi-protected the article. Certainly you need to add sources for the assertions that you make. I am also not clear that you have the NPOV right. You are removing critical comments about Scouts Canada and just adding pro-Scouts Canada comments. Also note that removing the semi-protected template does not remove the semi-protection. It just means editors will not know it is semi-protected. --[[User:Bduke|Bduke]] ([[User talk:Bduke|talk]]) 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
+*Hence the reason why I did not remove all the material that you restored - simply the material that was out of date or supplied by a lobby group.  [[User:Spicegw 001|Spicegw 001]] ([[User talk:Spicegw 001|talk]]) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)