Wikipedia

Talk:Gilwell Park/Archive 1

< Talk:Gilwell Park
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)
Archive 1

Who can camp at Gilwell?

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
  • What do you suggest with this bozo anon on the Gilwell article? We can just keep reverting him but there are better things to do, but we also shouldn't give in.Sumoeagle179 19:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • We'll just do that: in the end we'll win out, surely: there are too many of us. At last a wikifight we'll win, as a nice change from all those battles recently where we can't win (FU debates, non-notable declarations, and GAR the other day). No, we won't give in here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

in the end we'll win out, surely

  • I am afraid that you are mistaken. I take offence at the 'bozo' comment above. I find your views very sexist that you keep on refering to Scouts as 'Boy Scouts'. Hopefully one day the BSA will join the 21st centuary.--82.20.30.137 23:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Wim, our anon editor who likes to hide behind an anon account and not ID-themself misses the whole point, it's not about gender, it's about keeping an international non-country specific focus to the movement when an international, highly visible topic is at hand, which is what Gilwell Park is. Coed Scouting is mainly limited to Europe. I find the anon editor very sexist and xenophobic. If said anon editor would read the Boy Scout article, they would find we discuss the coed aspect of quite readily, just as the GG/GS article covers both names, as not all girl Scouting organizations are Girl Guides.Sumoeagle179 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Much obliged as I am that you apparently take interest in my personal discussion page, I do hope you also take note of the common nettiquette and register for Wikipedia if you want to continue contributing. Smmultaneously, I hope you will see that unfriendly edit summaries to controversial edits have not gained you anything else than negative comments. And since your contribution to wikipedia have only been these last couple of days these for us unwanted changes, I can assure you that we'll win out this time: we are many more than you. Positively, may I recommend that you also take note of the structure on Scouting articles as has been well discussed and defined in the Scouting wikiproject? If you will have read that, I hope that you future contributions can be more in this line, and then will be highly appreciated after all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

  • Gilwell Park is a UK Scout Association owned campsite. Beaver Scouts, Cub Scouts, Scouts, Explorer Scouts, Scout Network members, Scout Fellowship members, Tiger Cubs, Joeys etc can all camp at Gilwell. To list all these would make the sentance far to long, therefore a word which summarises all these groups is needed. I think Scout is the best word as it is common to all sections, ages and genders within Scouting - the article Scouting explains this. The article Boy Scout (not helped by the inclusion of the word boy) refers to only those aged between 11 and 17. This is a specific grouping, and does not include those that are younger or older - Scouts does. It also does not help because 'Boy Scouts' does not exsist in the UK - it is therefore a confusing term.--82.20.30.137 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Latitude and Longitude

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The decimal version of Gilwell's lat/long is: Latidute 51.6503 N Longitude: 0.002296 E, see Gilwell lat long. I found a converter to put it in deg/min/sec to use the plugin that appears at the top right of the article. Rlevse 14:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilwell Troop 1 (First Gilwell Park Scout Group) & M. Chinnery

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Two Points:

  • "Leaders from all over the world receive automatic membership in Gilwell Troop 1 (First Gilwell Park Scout Group)"

I have never heard the 1st Gilwell refered to as "Gilwell Troop 1". It sounds to me like an Americanisation. Can anyone shed any light on this?

  • I haven't seen any reference in the article to the local legend that Margeret Chinnery haunts the area around The Training Ground... I will put it in if there are no objections...

Stevecull 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Troop 1-this maybe should say Wood Badgers receive automatic membership in Gilwell Troop 1 (that troop is on page 22 of my official Gilwell History I have). The book calls it "1st Gilwell Park Scout Group".I've always been told all Wood Badgers are part of Gilwell Troop 1. Is this true elsewhere besides the USA? Or are you referring to the name of the Troop?
There are other ghosts, supposedly, according to my Gilwell history. It's one of those things I chose to leave out to tighten the focus of the article. I was trying to not put everything in, otherwise the article would lose focus, I felt. But I think it'd be okay to add the ghosts.Rlevse 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The name used at Gilwell and throughout the UK is certainly "1st Gilwell Park Scout Group", as that follows the normal naming convention. For example, I was a leader in the 259th Sheffield Scout Group. "Gilwell Troop 1" in never used in UK and certainly sounds like an Americanisation to me. --Bduke 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We should use what a unit calls itself, I'll change it. But is true all over the world that all Wood Badgers are members of this troop? When I got my beads, that's what they told us.Rlevse 00:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I was going to change it myself. I think it is true that all Wood Badgers are members of the 1st Gilwell Park and they are certainly welcome at the Gilwell Reunion. However, Gilwell never communicates directly to Wood Badgers, so the 1st Gilwell Park is more a notion than a real organisation. --Bduke 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it's so there's a bigger sense of brotherhood.Rlevse 00:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the same here in Ireland, Wood Badgers are members of the 1st Larch Hill and the 1st Gilwell, though some members don't know that they are! Stevecull 11:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

FA comments

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Lead-in

The first sentence is a bit of a run-on. How about:

Gilwell Park is a campsite and activity centre for Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, and school groups, as well as a conference and training centre for Scout Leaders. The 44 hectare (109 acre) site is located in Epping Forest, Chingford, London, England.

The tense in the second sentence doesn't agree with the rest of the paragraph:

Over 600 years of recorded history, Gilwell has been a farm and then a wealthy estate that fell into disrepair before becoming a Scout Activity Centre of The Scout Association of the United Kingdom.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Rlevse 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the rational for all of the links in See also. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Philmont and Larch Hill are USA and Irish equivalents. Explorers I've cut. Gilwell Hong Kong is sorta similar. Rlevse 14:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)...Do you think it looks better with the infobox? Rlevse 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)--Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
OK- I didn't get Explorers. On the infobox- how about making the image a bit smaller so it fits more neatly. Is there a logo for Gilwell? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I changed it to their logo at the bottomof the box, tweaked map size. Rlevse 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool logo. Perhaps at the top of the box? --Gadget850 ( Ed)

No connection of B-P's title to Gilwell? --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Huh? what do you mean? Also, put Gilwell logo on top and project one on bottom.Rlevse 15:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference that B-P's title of "1st Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell" is related to Gilwell Park. Logos look good. --Gadget850 ( Ed)
Ah, added it in spot I thought good for it. Move it if you feel there's a better one. Rlevse 15:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I say, Ed, why don't you add your comments to the wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gilwell Park document? As you seem to follow my remarks, I would be pleased to be not the only one with serious comments, other than object or support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Acres

Really? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC).

  • I actually left it in the core text for metrically handicapped people, but since even the UK took hectares as standard (and nowadays even normally used) size of a piece of land, I though it better to delete it in the lead-in. Yet, I'm not going to fight a US/Br measurement fight. Yet, I do recommend a consistency spelling check: In my opinion it should be British English? Agreed? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
Well, I'm not sure about the British, but few Americans know what a hectare is, so that's why I had acre in parens. Also, that way we have a metric and non-metric for people to refer to, which is pretty common on wiki and harms nothing, so I'd prefer to leave the metric in with the US acre in parens. It's a wiki (and I think Scouting project rule) in cases of US vs British spelling, to both be consistent in an article and use the spelling that is indigenous to the locale of the article, which is the case of Gilwell means we should use British spelling of things like colour (vs color, which of course is more correct-;). It's more difficult to decide which spellling variation to use in the case of things like articles on Russia-;). Rlevse 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Glitches

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

I'm currently translating this great article to German (see de:Gilwell Park soon) and I found a minor glitch: In the paragraph Wartime and later development: In the 1980s The Scout Association moved its program staff from London to Gilwell Park in April 2001, where its training staff was already located; what's the correct date here - 1980s or 2001?

--Wirthi 12:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed this. Now two sentences. Thanks for catching this.70.160.188.138 14:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

Please, all of you stop and discuss it here. One of you wants "Scout" to point to Boy Scout. The other wants it to point to Scout which redirects to Scouting. Both are international articles. Neither of you are giving reasons. The former choice limits it to the Scout section. Cubs, Venturers, Explorers and Rovers all use Gilwell. I therefore think the anon editor is correct and that it should point to the general article Scouting. --Bduke 00:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bduke if check the edit summaries, the anon editor was asked to do so and refused. Anon editor is apparently new to wiki (the IP appeared only a few days ago) and is not familiar with wiki. Since said person insists on using reverts, that's about all we have. The edit summaries actally summarize things nicely. Links should go to appropriate articles, not redirects, and text should treat sides equally.Sumoeagle179 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Brian, it is being discussed (somewhat) here: user talk:Wimvandorst. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Brian--you can't have Scouts going to Scouting, saying it includes girls and then also include Guides, then the boys will complain, and if you leave out Guides, the girls will complain. It's best left alone as it was when it made FA. Also, you just violoted your own suggestion by reverting it vice discussing first.Sumoeagle179 00:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • True. Mea culpa. We are actually back to the problem that the article Boy Scout is confusing because it talks about both the "Boy" and the international section called Boy Scouts in the USA and Scouts in the UK with the latter including girls. The anon editor is right but muddled. Boy Scout is the wrong link because it excludes Cubs, Rovers, Explorers, etc as well as girls in the Scout Section. What about "for members of Scouting organisations belonging to WOSM and WAGGGS" but spell out the initials (Note also "s" in organisation because Gilwell is in UK). --Bduke 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would accept this version.82.20.30.137 00:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the wording that Bduke suggests is good, but would lead to a very wordy sentance if WOSM and WAGGS were spelt out. I think Scouts and Guides is adequate - not gender or age specific as said by anon.Phmt 00:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Scouts and Guides" is fine, but what do we link them to? If we leave them unlinked, they will just get linked later and we will be back where we are now. --Bduke 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Mentioning WOSM and WAGGGS leaves out other organizations. The whole problem is rooted in that Scout/Guide organizations are not structured the same around the world. This causes problems here, in the Boy/Girl Scout articles, and elsewhere. I can live with "for members of Scouting organizations from around the world." This is not gender specific, nor organization nor country specific, which is where the problems were before; and avoids the "what is a Scout/Boy Scout/Girl Scout/Girl Guide/etc" issue. All note, User:Phmt was just created, but it is an account at least, welcome. I am now going to take about an 18 hour break from this, we've all spent way too much time on it today.Sumoeagle179 01:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't realise you had to have an account to have a valid point? What organisations does WOSM and WAGGS leave out? 82.20.30.137 01:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You don't have to have an account, it just helps establish credibility, consistency, provides discussion pages, user pages, etc. Most vandalism on wiki is caused by anon editors and when people see anon editors, many are instantly suspicious. Of course, not all anons are vandals by any means, but having an account is good. Besies WOSM/WAGGGS, there are the BP Scouts, WFIS, and a whole list of others. Now I'm really taking a breakf for several hours.Sumoeagle179 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • WOSM and WAGGGS miss out the non-official Scouting organisations such as B-P Scouts. The question is whether non-official organisations can use Gilwell in a privileged way or use it just like Schools. I'm going out now for several hours. Let us all give it a rest and think about it. --Bduke 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New proposal, now we all have slept on it:

  • ... activity centre for [[Scouting]] groups, and a training ...: no discutable mention of gender, Scout section, and moving the much less important school group camping to the last sentence of the lead text (... such as school group camping, wedding receptions and ...). As far as I remember of Gilwell, there aren't any special camping privileges depending on whether the group's national association is or isn't a member of WOSM etc. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
I like Wim's idea. I'm in favor of it. Sumoeagle179 20:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In the break I have looked carefully at the web site for Gilwell. Wim is correct. There are pages of charges for Scouts, Guides and Schools. Nothing is said on the first two that defines what is meant by Scout or Guide. My thoughts on the article were that the current wording of the first sentence should remain but that there should just be one link to the article that covers the whole Scout Movement. It would then read "[[Scouting|Scouts, Guides]], and school groups" The link covers everyone - Scouts, Cubs, Rovers, boy or girl Scouts, Girl Guides, Girl Scouts etc. However, I think Wim's wording would do also. --Bduke 21:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. We should keep the part about "school groups, and a training and conference centre" somehow. How about OPTION A) "...Scouting groups, school groups, and a training and conference centre for Scout Leaders."? OPTION B) "...Scouts, Guides, school groups, and a training and conference centre for Scout Leaders"? Rlevse 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The school groups are retained in my proposal: they are listed in the last sentence of the paragraph. In all documentation/books that I have on Gilwell Park (and my own recollections of my visits there) non-Scouting groups are minor, hence my relegating this topic to the afterthought sentence. And linking two words to one wikilink doesn't feel right to me. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC).
  • The School aspect features strongly on their web page, but you could be right that the response is small. It did not happen in my time but that was the 1960s. All members of Scouting are called either Scouts or Guides. What is wrong with linking two words to one wikilink? However, I think I favour Rlevse's option A. --Bduke 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I vote for option A too.Sumoeagle179 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking What would Tony say?, I'd like to point out that the option A will read awkwardly with all those ands, and the double group/group.

  • Option A: Gilwell Park is a campsite and activity centre for Scouting groups and school groups, and a training and conference centre for Scout Leaders.

Therefore I propose a Scouting-only opening sentence (as Gilwell Park effectively is), with a better cadance:

Followed with the non-Scouting closing sentence:

  • Option C+: Accommodation of Gilwell Park can also be hired for non-Scout activities such as school group camping, wedding receptions and conferences.
I do not have a strong opinion between A and C. Certainly "activity centre" should be linked to the article in A as in C. Perhaps "international" should be added before training in C. However I note that ref 12 (in French) states that Gilwell after 1969 became very much less international under the new Camp Chief. I was last there on a Training Team just after he took over from John Thurman. --Bduke 23:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I really don't care what Tony would say, I care what sounds best and makes the most sense (ooh, did I just make a comma splice-;). If those happen to be the same, fine, if not, I don't care. Just for the record, I do care what SandyGeorgia says. Now off my soapbox...I now vote for C and C+. And note that it made FA with the format as it was before this edit war started.Rlevse 00:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As the consensus has led to this and there's been no discussion for about 48 hours, I made it C & C+. This should settle this issue for a long time. Rlevse 02:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal title

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

The fact that B-P took Gilwell as part of his title for his peerage was mentioned twice in very similar words. I have removed the second mention. I am more concerned about the use of the term "Royal title", linked to Peerage. While the title was given to him by the King, I do not think it is the correct useage. I would prefer "title of peerage". What do others think? --Bduke 02:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Brit peerage titling is so complicated, I stay out of this one.Rlevse 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I have it. The article on peerage talks of "territorial designation" so I have changed the article to read "as the territorial designation in his peerage title of 1st Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell". Let's see how that goes. --Bduke 03:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two things: either B-P is called 'Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell', including the 'of Gilwell' as part of his title, (would incur an article move!!!) or he is called 'Baron Baden-Powell, of Gilwell, in the county of Essex' (not the comma!), where the 'of Gilwell etc' would be the territorial designation. I'm not sure which his really official title is, but the exchange of 'royal' to 'peerage' is correct: B-P wasn't a royal, just a peer. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

This is what peerage says:-

"Often, a territorial designation is added to the main peerage title, especially in the case of barons and viscounts: for instance, Baroness Thatcher, of Kesteven, County Lincoln or Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, of Hindhead, County Surrey. In such cases, any designation following the first comma generally does not form a part of the main title and is dropped, leaving, in the aforementioned cases, Baroness Thatcher and Viscount Montgomery of Alamein."

So the ",of the County of Essex" is not normally used. --Bduke 23:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No, it is not normally used, and the ', of Gilwell' neither. However, B-P chose to style himself differently (he would, wouldn't he) as 'Baden-Powell of Gilwell', suggesting that the 'of Gilwell' is part of the title itself, probably simply because it sounded better. According to Jeal, he was one of the most active children to follow and support his mum's decision to combine the first and the last name of his dad into one surname too. But then again, he was a youngster at the time (no specific date mentioned, but some years after his father died, so he'd be around 10). Interestingly, this double name was only formalized in 1902, decades after he'd been using it.... How's that for a piece of shady naming? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
  • So he should not have been using the "of Gilwell" bit either. Interesting. Does Jeal discuss this? I have Rosenthal out from the library right now but I have not finished it and it is due back today. He does not seem to mention the peerage or indeed Gilwell. Neither are in the index. --Bduke 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Jeal is reasonable extensive of Gilwell Park, and B-P's involvement there with the training. But he is rather limited on the peerage information; just mentioning it without details on the exact wording of the title deed or so. It is often suggested that he was given the title during the 3rd World Scout Jamboree, but there it was only firstly announced to the world (and to B-P as well). B-P's reticence whether the should or should not accept such an honour is mentioned though, IIRC. Jeal is typically very in depth regarding the period before 1910, but less so on the last thirty years of B-P's life, hence relative scarcity of info on the title, which has led me to be doubtful on the exact wording. ps. It never is written out as 'of the county of Essex', atmost as ', of Gilwell, county Essex'. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Featured article on main page

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I live very close to Gilwell and have been there once or twice but have never contributed to this article. It's absolutely great to see this article achieve featured status so well done to all those who've contributed to it. Regards. Escaper2007 10:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Congratulations everyone on geting featured article status. i am due to be part of the OST at Gilwell this summer, which makes the article of special interest to me. Well done team Willow177 18:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

This is starting to look like a list of national Scouting campsites- it might be better served as separate list article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Only camps of international or significant historic interest should be here. Of the current list, Larch Hill and the Hong Kong Gilwell probably don't warrant being here.Rlevse 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree to remove
  • Brownsea as its interest is only historic
  • Larch Hill, with only limited geo-scope
  • One of the two Philmonts, probably the Ranch: Gilwell is important as training centre
I would keep the Hong Kong Gilwell campsite due to name similarity. I don't wan't to list it in the top of the article, but a See Also entry is imho fitting. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Then you also must add Gilwell Park (Victoria) and, I think, several other Gilwell Park sites across the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 00:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
Ok, no problem. I did know of the campsite, but not that we already had an WP article about it. Good call. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Seems like the other Gilwells and Larch HIll are out, still up for talk... Brownsea and Philmonts.Rlevse 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I had a edit conflict with you while editing the same, but doing differently: The Gilwells are IN in my book. And no-one challenged my deletion proposal of one Philmont, did they? I discontinued the edit conflict but please explain how you come to your conclusion so differently from mine. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
        • Adding a scout camp just because it is named "Gilwell"? Where's the standard in that? I think the standard should be a legit claim to international or historical fame in my book. I'll put the HK Gilwell back in for now, but not Larch Hill. I'll also remove the base camp Philmont, leaving the training center.Rlevse 20:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I fail to see why anything named after Gilwell is particularly relevant. taken to the logical extreme, we could add most Scout camps because they have a Gillwell field every couple of years. If someone wants to maintain List of stuff named after Gilwell Park, then great. Ditto for list of national Scout camps. Remember that list of Scouting awards that was stuffed into Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)- we forked that to List of highest awards in Scouting. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • The 'See Also' section is a navigational aid. It lists articles relevant to the this article, and Gilwell Park Campsite in Hong Kong or Australia is definitely relevant to the article Gilwell Park in the UK. To my knowledge these three are the only ones, so we're not talking a list of hundreds. And of course not all Gilwell fields: No-one even thinks of that.
        • And then the See Also should list articles about subjects you'd like to know about after having read this article, and which are not listed as a wikilink in the article body. major international campsites (Kandersteg, Our Chalet?) and IMHO most importantly: major international training centres: Philmont. Perhaps we should be using grouping and a bit of subheads to clarify? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
          • I like the idea of subheads in the See also section, perhaps a training center, girls' section, etc. Our Chalet is the girls equivealent of Gilwell and defnitely belongs here somewhere. Let me ask, what is the difference in the other two Gilwells from Larch Hill? ie, What makes them notable on a international scale, besides their name? Just asking so I understand.Rlevse 01:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Both Gilwell campsites are in they countries significant sites, similar to Larch Hill. The name similarity is the only (but in my humble opinion sufficient) reason to have them listed in this navigational aid section. If I'd be looking for Gilwell Park in Victoria, and should happen to come to a Gilwell Park in North London article, I'd highly appreciate directions to the other article. There are two ways: above the article (very intrusive, certainly not my preference) or in the See Also section. So: no Larch Hill but yes to Gilwell campsites elsewhere. I'll do a copy-edit with subcaptions, as always on WP tentatively by definition. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Wouldn't it be better then to have Gilwell as a disambiguation page instead of a redirect? Most BSA folks would search for Gilwell or Gilwell Field. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilwell Fellow

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"The Gilwell Fellows, named for Scouting's famous camp and international training center in England, was established by The Scout Association of the United Kingdom to recognize those men and women who have exhibited a commitment to Gilwell's role in the history of Scouting and its place in the future of the Scout Movement." [1] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

From Nelson Block himself, via email: In 2002, George Purdy, the Chief Scout of the United Kingdom, named me The Founder Gilwell Fellow, describing me in the Annual Report of The Scout Association as "a renowned Scout historian who has been significantly influential over many years in contributing to the research, analysis and positioning of the history of Gilwell [Park] and UK Scouting in the world of international academic study." George and the Association's Chief Executive, Derek Twine, came to Houston to recognize me at a ceremony we had at our council service center. I guess our British friends are easily impressed.

Since then, I believe there has been only one other person named as a Gilwell Fellow. At my suggestion, there has been no medal or square knot created to recognize the Gilwell Fellows.

The Gilwell Fellows is not widely known, and is not publicized, though my council and the OA put out some information about my being named the first one. It would not be of interest to your readers, so I would suggest that you continue to not make mention of it in the article. The only reason I write you about it is I know how unanswered questions gnaw at a researcher.

end of email from Nelson. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Victoria Gilwell Park

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Rlevse, Do you want the correct URLs for the dead URL you removed? They are Main page and History. --Bduke 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, adding them. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I would have done it myself, but it did not want to confuse your efforts in transferring it to veropedia. --Bduke 04:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Images ofJam Roll and Eccles

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could anyone take a photograph of either car or the caravan and put it up on commons. It would be good for this article, but also for the one on Michael Baden-Powell. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:LordHarris, he's taken photos for me before in England. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gilwell Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilwell Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilwell Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gilwell Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilwell_Park/Archive_1&oldid=1085060278"