Talk:Girl Scouts of Jamaica

Removal of copyrighted material

I removed all material of the history section that was copied from http://girlscoutsjm.freehosting.net/index_1.html. For the necessary procedures for its inclusion please see WP:COPYVIO. --jergen (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am the author of the the GSJ website so it is my copyright and I choose to copy. Are there any other objections?--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to release the content; please see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Also: when you add content, you are agreeing to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, so you cannot put copyright tags in the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I am quite clueless. I was trying to indicate it was my copyright to share. I have no problem with the free license, just can't figure out how to do it. oy vey--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Uploading Pictures

Maybe this should be on a help page but I cannot find it, how do I upload photos to the article?--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
the photo thing is a beast, even with all the helps and tutorials.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

undo edit

again, I don't know where to put this comment, but I did not see the last edit as an improvement so I undid.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You can leave comments like this in the edit summary. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

POV?

I assume that Jergen's tag relates to, "The Girl Scouts of Jamaica were born in 2008, out of concerns about administrative inconsistencies and the changing of the programme of the GGA. The GSJ desire was to have a democratic structure and to embrace the well loved traditions of the eight point programme and camp craft."? I'm not too sure as he gave no explanation, but this seems to be the only potentially POV use of language in the article.

Assuming so, would "The Girl Scouts of Jamaica were established in 2008, out of concerns about administration and the changing of the programme of the GGA. The GSJ desire was to have a democratic structure and to adhere to the traditions of the eight point programme and camp craft." be a satisfactory edit?

Once edited, can that tag then be removed? Most Association's have partisan editors contributing, but there is plenty of oversight through the Project. DiverScout (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have supported this article, but it has problems that need fixing and fixing fast. First, it is original research whether from a conflict of interest or not. Essentially nothing is sourced. Does it have it own web site to source some of the material at least? Second, it is not referenced from anyone outside the organization who has noticed it, except by the Order of World Scouts. Has anyone in Jamaica noticed it? Are there not press reports? To respond to DiverScout, yes, the tag can be removed, but only if there is a reliable source that shows that the conflict of interest is not significant (unless of course the author of the source is editing the article). --Bduke (Discussion) 11:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added sources and links for the history section, and replaced the POV tag with one calling for more sources. Other than the phrasing that I have amended as above, there is no evidence of POV in this article - and the affiliation of the primary author is not justification for POV tagging. DiverScout (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the tag. Some sections (especially the lead and the history) are advertising and there is some really non-relevant content as well (History, Special events, National Service Project).

• Lead: Registration, membership requirements
• History: most of the content does not deal with this organization; launch of website etc is not relevant
• National Service Project: Dealing with a future event
• Special events: non-relevant

I will not delete anything from this since it was me who brougt it up for deletion. --jergen (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you brought it up for deletion three times if I remember correctly?

• Lead seems common in theme and content to most Scout Associations listed on Wikipedia.
• Background history is also included on most Associations - launch of website debatable as notable milestone, but it's inclusion is not POV.
• Other Associations frequently list future events - see World Scout Jamboree. Again, not a POV issue.
• Annual events are hardly POV, although I'd not argue for notability. Please note that "Gimmie 5", an annual event of limited interest outside of TSA, until recently had its own page and is now listed on the Scout Association page - so precedent could be argued. Girl Guiding, for example, has a similar list under Key points.

Although this article needs further work, there is no evidence of POV content in this article, and that tag is not appropriate. Rather than have a pointless edit war over it, though, I would prefer you to recognise this and remove your tag. If you prefer, however, I will refer the matter to a non-Scouting third-party senior editor for an impartial review of your, and my, respective claims. DiverScout (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I take a more middle ground between jergen and DiverScout, but with an additional emphasis. The history section is a best too long. The origins of Scouting are covered in other articles. If other organization articles cover this in the same detail, then perhaps they also should not. I see no problem with mention of future events or annual events. As a side issue "Gimmie 5" is certainly not of limited interest outside of TSA. It replaced "Bob a Job Week" and there was a time when Scouts were noted for that, rather than the good turn which was earlier. Any mention of Scouts on a radio show mentioned Bob a Job Week.

The new references are welcome, but not one supports any information given about the organization. This is why COI is so important, because the information all comes from someone deeply involved with the organization. Everything about the organization is all original research. If this is not fixed, the article should be deleted as being non-notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was TSA for years and never came upon Gimmie 5. Never heard of it until I read about it on here, and neither had the other leaders in my Group, so if people in the Association don't even all know about it, it's not all that notable!

Where history is relevant to an Association, it ought to be included. As Scouting in Jamaica was parented by The Scout Association, there is joint heritage. One paragraph on Scouting in general, one on OWS and one on Scouting coming to Jamaica hardly seems excessive. At a push, though, I guess that it could be reduced. A month old Association is hardly going to be awash with history.

In my opinion, once again, the rules are seemingly not being applied equally. The article is referenced to the Association site - as is the case with *MANY* Associations listed on Wikipedia. The only differences between this and the others appear to be that someone has actually taken the time to add information to this article rather than leave it as a stub! The body of the text may be a direct copy of the Association site, but considering that this was added under the pressure of AfD I don't think that this new user has made that bad a job of this article.

I know that I'll never agree with the deletionist policies of some, and that some will see me as far too inclusionist - but this article has survived two speedy deletes, AfD and deletion by an admin who chose to ignore the keep decision. I think it's time that the deletionists accepted that this article is here and, as I have done despite the fact that I'm about as far removed from a Jamaican Girl Scout as possible, try to sort out the content rather than add unhelpful tags reflecting their own POV. DiverScout (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Gimme 5 may not be notable but Bob a Job Week certainly was in the 1950s. If you mentioned Scouts, people thought of Bob a Job Week. The section on Gimme 5 needs to reflect that, but of course it needs sources.
2. History. I do not disagree with your considered opinion above. It could be reduced. It could also link more to other articles.
3. Apologies. I had not noticed that there was a reference to their web site in the infobox. It really needs to be repeated under references, to make it clear that this is where the information came from. However, if it is "a direct copy of the Association site" then that is likely to be a copyvio as it is unlikely that the web site is in the public domain or released under a proper license for us to use it. If articles on many associations are only referenced by their web sites, then they need to be fixed also. However many of these articles get their information largely from their own site, which is quite OK, but they have links to outside sources that have noticed the association. It is the latter that this article is missing. It is not notable if nobody outside itself has noticed it. So this article still has COI and notability issues. I am all for having the small traditional scout associations have a place on wikipedia, but the problem is that small associations are likely to be less noticed than large associations. New associations are likely to be less noticed than old associations. The policies therefore make it more difficult to write an article.
4. Deletionism v inclusionism. This is not very helpful. I am mostly an inclusionist. We have to follow the policies. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A couple of replies!

1. Talk to people about Scouts and they still talk about Bob-A-Job. That doesn't make Gimmie 5 any more or less notable than any other Association's event! :)
2. I may tinker with their history section later and see what comes out.
3. I think that the website editor has attempted to release the information under a public domain license (see above), but was unsure how to do this. I agree that this is hard, but feel that we ought to be helping the editors of the page rather more than we are. So far the main input from third-parties seems to have been punitive rather than supportive.
4. I'm glad that you agree that the deletionist attitudes displayed to date have not bee helpful. DiverScout (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So after all the talk and revisions and blah blah blah what is the outcome. Not only has this been more punitive than supportive (DiverScout) it has just been stressful. It gives me the feeling everyone here is a member of WAGGGS or WOSM and wishes to punish all who dare to be otherwise. That is the Conflict of Interest if you ask me. I have just been quietly reading this discussion. Sometimes I laugh, sometimes I am disgusted. I am glad Nickmini could give some assitance from the Jamaica end. I don't feel like I'm being beaten up by myself anymore. --Girlscoutsjm (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you do not feel beaten up anymore by anyone. Wikipedia can be tough, because there are a lot of rules that have developed over the years to help us write an encyclopedia. WAGGGS and WOSM are the biggest, but the other groups have an increasing influence on wikipedia articles on Scouting. I'm neutral. I have not been a member of any Scouting organisation for nearly 40 years. Remember that on a wiki there is no outcome. It just carries on being altered. We hope the alterations improve it. Take care. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime we leave it with all the nasty comments at the top of the page? Nice..........--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding References

How is this done? I would like to add Jamaican local links.--Nickmini (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by local links? Give us some examples, please. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Media--Nickmini (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Which media? Newspaper, TV, radio, website, music? --Egel _Reaction? 09:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Give us some specific examples— we will evaluate them and help you format them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the newspapers are also online, but they are not presented the same way so I will have some hunting to do. Will post them here as I find them. I am looking for two references.--Nickmini (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the jamaicans.com directory listing: jamaicans.com --Nickmini (talk) 23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is this something independent of the GSJ? It looks like a directory listing that the GSJ subscribe to. I hope you can get the newspaper references. They might be much better. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To get on Jamaicans.com you apply to be included and they research loaclly and determine whether they will list you. It took about 3 months for this approval.--Nickmini (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Sources and WP:Reliable sources. A website directory sources only the presence of a website, but not the activities of the organization running the website. A tertiary source would be the Daily Gleaner for example, but I could not find anything on the GSJ on their site. --jergen (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the gleaner website: http://www.go-localjamaica.com/readarticle.php?ArticleID=11194 . Hope it helps. There was a previous article but I am not finding it.--Nickmini (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tertiary Sources

I see that Jergen has indicated on the The Girl Guides Association of Jamaica page that listing on the WAGGS page is enough to count as a notable tertiary reference. I assume, therefore, that the mention on the OWS site holds equal standing and all tags can now be removed, allowing the page to develop naturally? DiverScout (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with Jergen in the sense that having the WAGGS reference is sufficient. Ideally we need sources that are from outside the movement. I think your "sources" tag on that article should remain. The OWS article does support that the organisation is affilied with them, but it not outsiders noticing the new organisation and that is what is needed. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is from the gleaner website: http://www.go-localjamaica.com/readarticle.php?ArticleID=11194 . Hope it helps. There was a previous article but I am not finding it.--Nickmini (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a press release, not an article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, so we're now discounting anything originating in a press release? Come on, Ed, it's a third-party reference. Not a great one, but it's a start. DiverScout (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Compare it to the GSJ web page. This has the look and feel of a press release; regardless of where it is published, the content originates with the GSJ. Please remember that I !voted to keep this article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Not forgotten, Ed, but most content published in media relates to press releases from Associations (unless it's negative, which journalists seem to mostly find without help). This is not directed at you, or anyone, but I can't help wonder why this article is getting so much attention when dozens of others have far less tertiary references - eg. Asociación de Guías Scouts de Bolivia, and Asociación Nacional de Muchachas Guías de Honduras as instant examples. Since joining this project I've spent a lot of time looking at Scouting articles and have been repeatedly concerned that WOSM or WAGGS membership seems to be accepted as delivering instant notability, while almost all non-aligned Associations seem to have to find tertiary references for almost every word. I don't think this is usually a conscious thing, but the rules are not being applied equally. DiverScout (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem to get reliable third party sources for both of your examples ([1] and [2]). But we are not discussing these: We discuss GSJ.

So pls stop avoiding the question: Is there third party source on GSJ or not? --jergen (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, limited third-party reference to GSJ has been provided, beyond that given for many Scouting articles, and I think that it seems fair to now allow the editors some time to continue to develop their article. The other articles have been listed to remind editors that there are many other worse researched and worse referenced Scouting articles needing attention - so, unless there is a reason beyond referencing why this particular Association is being targetted, perhaps it is time to add some "easy to get reliable third party sources" to some of these other pages and come back to this one when a few other articles have been improved? DiverScout (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

POV and COI

Are these still an issue or can those tags be removed now? Who removes the tags and when? Everyone has tired of discussion, but I have added as many third party references as I could find right now and I believe the COI has been cleaned up so.............?--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the Go Jamaica! entry certainly counts as third-party and I feel that the tag I added asking for people to help you provide third-party reference could now be removed. I never felt that the COI tag was fair, considering that most contributors to Scouting articles are involved in Scouting and there is no evidence of COI in the revised article.

It would be a good idea to continue to add references (especially links to press articles) whenever you can, though. I would give it a couple of days and see what other people say before "being bold" and removing the tags. DiverScout (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of days is now a couple of weeks and noone else even cares. What now?--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the references tag, as there are now references, and keep the COI tag to let readers know that much of the article has been written by you, Girlscoutsjm, who clearly does have a conflict of interest. I am not implying that you have added material that is inappropriate, but I think it is appropriate to let readers know. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But Brian, where does that line stop? Several, if not the majority, of the Association articles are written by members of those Associations or their parent organisations. This ruling implies that virtually all Scouting content now needs COI tags added. DiverScout (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of degree. This user, User:Girlscoutsjm has a user name that strongly suggests that she speaks for this organisation. I think readers need to be informed that there may be a COI here. It is a little different from you editing articles on BPSA. However, if that guy who was the media officer of the Irish BPSA edited extensively then I think a COI tag on those articles would be appropriate too. Just being a member is not a significant COI. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but I'm still sceptical about it. Were there any content that could be considered COI I'd have no issue, but this article is NPOV and has been edited by several others not associated with the organisation. While noting the link between the original author and the topic is of value, perhaps, within the Scouting Project I don't see it as being of value to the wider users of Wikipedia. The tag could, in fact, be considered misleading.

The Scout Association's page is equally, if not more, POV to this - as are those of the B-PSA, Scouts Canada and several other pages on here because they are generally edited by people with an interest in the Association. If this tag is required on this page it really ought to go on almost every Association page - something that would need to be discussed on the Project page rather than here.

Would it be considered acceptable for the tag to be replaced by an entry on the discussion page where Girlscoutsjm identifies themselves and their relation to the Association, stating their intent to provide good faith NPOV content, and their willingness to work with others (as has already been demonstrated)? This seems to be considered good form on most Projects. I'd rather have people declare who they are, than edit without declaration. DiverScout (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy with that. --Bduke (Discussion) 12:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As would I. After going through a few rounds of accusations of COI over at Order of the Arrow, I have given this some thought. There was some discussion that User:Gadget850/about was bragging about my association with Scouting; this was never my intent, and I have added a message box to show that the page is a disclosure of my occupational and avocational associations and interests in the context of editing Wikipedia and that I pledge to advance the aims of Wikipedia over my own interests. I heartily suggest that Girlscoutsjm and other editors do the same. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give step by step instructions.--Girlscoutsjm (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)