Talk:British Boy Scouts and British Girl Scouts Association

Untitled

First, let me say that the few (? single) editors here have done a great job. With others adding to it, it could become a Good Article at least.

I do however have a few concerns about the sources, which perhaps "gild the lily" a bit. I will just take one example that I have some background knowledge about. The statement "The Oxford University Rover Crew led by Michael Foster joined the BBS in 1979" is supported by this from the sources: "In 1978 a further Group joined the BBS, 30th Oxford (St Stephen's House) which became in 1979 the Oxford University Rover Crew. The Rover Scout Leader was Michael Foster". At that time, St Stephen's House, Oxford was not officially part of Oxford University. The Oxford University Rover Crew was founded early in the life of the Oxford University Scout and Guide Group and was the 13th Oxford Scout Group of the Scout Association. Rovers were abolished by the Advance Party report in the 1960s, so the Oxford University Rover Crew ceased to exist. As far as I can see, Michael Foster had no right to call what was really the St Stephen's House Rover Crew, the Oxford University Rover Crew. I have no knowledge however of the status of the 30th Oxford Scout Group. St Stephen's House did not have a Rover Crew around 1960. The article should not mention the Oxford University Rover Crew, but just say the 30th Oxford (St Stephen's House) joined the BBS. However, that is not my main point, which is that this is just one example of how the sources push the BBS POV a little too much. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction to the above - St Stephen's House was a private Hall of Residence within the University. Candidates for the Ministry all read for the Oxford University Certificate in Theology. Whatever previous history an institution known as the Oxford University Rover Crew had, it is plain and evidenced history that there was an Oxford University Rover Crew listed in The Oxford Handbook 1979-80 under Outdoor Societies page 201. This was created from the St Stephen’s House Rover Crew. By 1980 the St Stephen’s House Rover Crew had a University wide membership. Listed in the Handbook is Michael Wigney (Magdalen) as secretary and Patricia Wick (Lady Margaret Hall) as President. There were also members from other University Colleges and this necessitated the change of title which gain Proctoral assent. The Senior member was Dr David Hope, sometime later the Archbishop of York. Also to contradict the above, in the Library at St Stephen's House is the Rover Crew Log Book, with photographs of the Crew during the early 1960s!!!! Dr Michael Foster (sometime a member of St Stephen's House).

Fantastic to see this. I'd been planning to try to write something for the BBS for a long time, but could never find enough material. Well done on this. Another important part of Scouting history recorded on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about all the nomancalture vis a via British Troops, but there is a longer explaination at The Independent Scout Movement 1970s onwards. in the final section: The Brotherhood of British Scouts from the 1970s-1990s. As far as a BBS POV, the boy-scout.net site has list of source from outside the BBS here. I wish there were more outside source on the web, too. Spshu (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Chums Scout Patrols

Chums Scout Patrols is a precursor or even early form of the British Boy Scouts. It would be best merged into this article. Otherwise it would likely remain a stub. It fits in with discussion at the Scouting WikiProject about our ability to watch so many articles and the need to merge in very small articles that have a close link with another article. Please add your views below. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support merge. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
• support merge per nom. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• support merge reduces stubs and retains content, per nom. DiverScout (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• support merge per nom.-Phips (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• 'Not sure. The BBS was clear a brake away from the Boy Scout Assoc. while Chum Scouts was an independent attempt at start an organization. But on the other hand there is little history to the Chum Scouts and they do merge with the BBS.Spshu (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• oppose merge after more study I've got to agree with Spshu, and think that this makes it very notable provided more information can be gathered. DiverScout (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• If more information can be gathered, maybe you are right. I suggest we leave it for a week. If no material is found, we do the merge. It can always be forked out later if material is found. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have done the merge and some cleanup. Nothing had been added to the article since the above discussion. This main article still needs a lot more cleanup. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Order of World Scouts membership badge.png

The image File:Order of World Scouts membership badge.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Claimed "split from the main Scouting organisation, the Boy Scouts Association, in 1909"

There is a significant inconsistency in this claim. The article on The Boy Scouts Association indicates that it was not formed until 1910. How could the BBS split from an organization in 1909 that did not at that time exist? These sections of this article need to be re-written with proper citiations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.152 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is a challenge there. As facts state, the Boy Scouts Association did not exist as an actual body until after the BBS had split away from the "main" part of the Movement (such as there was a "main part" or a Movement that early in the game. However, it certainly came from the same place - so how else can we phrase it? DiverScout (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: The Boy Scouts Association received its Royal Charter in 1910, which made it a corporation, which means it began a new legal identity. The Boy Scouts Assocation existed as an Association in common law before that time. It is from this latter body that the Battersea Scouts withdrew. Dr Michael Foster.

Mike, The Boy Scouts Association was incorporated by Royal Charter in 1912 not 1910. The unincorporated body that was incorporated was Baden-Powell's council. The council was formed only in 1910. The Battersea Boy Scouts were formed well over a year earlier, around September 1908 when they are recorded in C. Arthur Pearson Limited's magazine and also in Eric Walker’s diary. Baden Powell's organization did not exist at this time. Walker was employed by Pearson’s. Pearson's scout office was not a scout organization but a magazine office. The Battersea Boy Scouts were an association of boy scout troops managed by a committee, hence it was a “local association”. That the Battersea Boy Scouts as a body later registered with Baden-Powell but then withdrew evidences their independence as an association as does their correspondence conducted, as a body, through their secretary. The correspondence also indicates that the Battersea Boy Scouts withdrew as a body. The Battersea Boy Scouts referred to themselves as “the Boy Scouts Movement in Battersea” and, more significantly refer to Baden-Powell’s organization as the Baden Powell Boy Scouts organization, not the Boy Scouts or The Boy Scouts Association. You don’t name your organization the British Boy Scouts and intend to stay local in Battersea. In such circumstance, the quote “Should our movement never spread beyond Battersea we shall not trouble ourselves” was quite apparently understatement. An examination of these documents has been published previously. Mike, check your copies. Please don’t remove or edit quotes. 141 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.42.161 (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Baden Powell's Boy Scouts had their own offices and secretary (James Archibald Kyle) from 1909 (Jeal says April, but I have seen contemporary documents that say late March, and describe Kyle as the secretary). Sovykruji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Claiming a start date is of course a moot point. It is well documented that Scout troops from all parts of the country were being registered by Baden Powell's Boy Scouts from early 1908 (albeit from Pearson's Offices). The Battersea Boy Scouts were also not the only local organisation around at that time, so if the BBS can claim their 1908 origins from them, then the Boy Scout Association could claim it's origins from the other local organisations. Sovykruji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. This is about the official registration of the specific associations. These guys did it first. DiverScout (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

But the founded box says 1908, what is the justification for this? Different to what could equally be applied to the Baden Powell Boy Scouts, or local organisations of this, founded on exactly the same basis as the Battersea Boy Scouts at that time? In 1908, what made the Battersea Boy Scouts any different? Sovykruji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article starts by saying that the Battersea Boy Scouts briefly registered with Baden Powell's Boy Scouts Headquarters, which implies that Baden Powell's Boy Scouts already had a (national) registration process and a headquarters, they also had a defined programme (published in SfB and The Scout), these are certainly some of the prerequisites of a national organisation. Sovykruji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the earlier comments. These guys officially registered before the Pearson's sponsored Scouts did. There were Scouts before 1907 too - so who do they count as belonging to? DiverScout (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sovykruji still doesn't get it - there was no Baden-Powell scout organization in 1908. Sovykruji suggests "Baden-Powell's Boy Scouts Headquarters... had a defined programme (pubished in SfB and The Scout)" but Scouting for Boys (1908) was a not the handbook of an organization, it was merely a suggestion published in the public domain for anyone or any organization to adopt or adapt. Sovykruji might benefit from looking at the differences between the 1908, 1909 and 1910 editions of Scouting for Boys. As for The Scout magazine, it was entirely the property of C. Arthur Pearson Limited. The difference between the Baden-Powell organization claiming a 1908 or 1907 origin through one or more of its registered scout patrols or troops and the BBS which was actually formed in 1908 and renamed and constituted itself in 1909 is enormous.

The BBS Law

I find it interesting that a point is made about the original BBS Law having 10 clauses, whilst the original Boy Scout Law had only 9. However, the modern BBS Law that is quoted owes more to the original Boy Scout Law than the original BBS one.

The original BBS Law

1. A scout must be honourable, truthful, and reliable.

2. A scout must not use bad or indecent language.

3. A scout must not smoke until he is eighteen years of age.

4. A scout must not quarrel or give offence.

5. A scout must help others freely whenever he can, and be a brother to all other scouts.

6. A scout must be polite and obliging to all.

7. A scout must be a friend to animals.

8. A scout must obey all orders from his officers at once.

9. A scout must always be cheerful, and never grumble.

10. A scout must always be self-reliant and thrifty.

—Chums 1910

Sovykruji (talk)

I've noticed that a lot of the revived BBS is much closer to the pre-APR Boy Scout Association than the original BBS. However, that is the route that they have chosen to take - and as a living organisation rather than a historical recreation society I don't see that it is a concern (especially in relation to a Wikipedia article). DiverScout (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the BBS Law is quoted in the history section and gives the impression that it has always been the same, when it hasn't. I propose that the Law as quoted above should be in the history section, with the current one placed outside the history section. As you say, it is quite notable that the current BBS has moved away from it's original programme, towards the pre-APR Boy Scout Assoc programme. This would reflect the reality you describe. Sovykruji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that that would be a very good amendment to the article. Go for it! :) DiverScout (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Done it! Needs some more citations about current BBS practice, but it's a start. It would be good to have some more info on why they changed and when (I suspect 1980s or 1990s), and current numbers (I think maybe 3 groups, making them currently not particularly notable). Sovykruji (talk)

Some of this talk and edit is mis-directed to a particular POV. Sovykruji tries to distinguish an "original BBS Law" and the "original Boy Scout Law" but between 1908 and 1909, the BBS, like most early scout organizations, would probably have used the "original Boy Scout Law" as did the Baden-Powell organization when it later stated. Even more distorting is the suggestion that "the current BBS has moved away from it's original programme, towards the pre-APR Boy Scout Assoc programme". The Scout Association spent a century masquerading behind the Boy Scouts and trying to claim the scouts were its program and copied the "original" scout law for sixty years until the 1967 Advance Party Report. The BBS has always been a scout organization and its program and law reflect such. The 1910 version of the BBS scout law was not the only version. In one of the brief reconciliations of the BBS and Baden-Powell organization, they assimilated their programs right down to award requirements. The problem is we have lots of materials on the 1910s BBS, less on the 1920s and 1930s and almost nothing on the 1940s, 50s and 60s. What do we know of the 1940s to 1960s BBS scout law? The current BBS scout law bears no greater resemblance to any scout law used by The Scout Association than it does to the 1910 BBS scout law in Chums or the scout law in the 1908 Scouting for Boys.

I suggest moving the current BBS pledge and law above the history section.

Trying to work out your post (and please sign as shown below when editing). Not sure what POV you are worried about, but I'm guessing that you are coming from a BBS background? If so, great. Please add the missing detail you mention, with appropriate references. Knowing one of the revived BBS leaders, however, he told me that when they set up they chose the pre-APR Boy Scouts systems as the old BBS material was unavailable. Can't add this, of course, as it is not referenced - but if you can show when they abandoned their own programme in favour of the Boy Scouts Association one that would really help. DiverScout (talk) 10:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Only trouble now is that this is not the Law and Promise quoted on UK BBS Group sites ... http://2ndgoringandstreatley.org.uk/scouts.php#Promise DiverScout (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The 2nd Goring and Streatley Scouts are registered with the BBS but they are not the BBS. It seems the BBS may allow flexibility in the scout pledge and law. For the current BBS scout pledge and law you would have to go to the BBS website or BBS documents.101.171.85.60 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The BBS programme including the Law and Promise I posted, was published in Chums magazine around 1910. It is different to the Boy Scout Law and Promise published by Baden Powell at or before that time. These are published facts, and it is interesting that they wanted to diverge from BP's organization so early on. The fact that the Scout Association also changed their Scout law has little to do with this article and is already documented in another article.

If the BBS used other words for their Law and Promise at different dates, and you have a published reference, then add them to the article.

Later, the Boy Scouts Association actively prevented the BBS and others from using their badges (this is well documented). Current BBS groups (there aren't that many) seem to follow quite closely the pre APR Boy Scouts Association programme. I have no problem with that, it is just a fact, which is apparently acknowledged by current BBS members. They did not start to use these badges and programme until the 1970s at the earliest (after the Boy Scouts Association had abandoned it). I have some of their badges (and have seen others) from before the 1970s, although this might be difficult to 'prove' to everyones satisfaction.

Note that I differentiate between an organisation and an association. An association has a governing committee of more than one person and a constitution. Baden Powell's Scout Organisation was privately owned by him until he formed the Boy Scouts Association. Hence the Battersea Boy Scouts felt compelled to write to James Kyle (employed by BP as manager of his organization), informing him that they wanted to resign from it. Hence the BBS might claim to be the first national association (almost certainly not the first local association), but not the first national organization.

Sovykruji (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read and take part in the discussion before removing constructive edits, thanks. Sovykruji (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Class B ?

This topic is certainly of high importance but, with a tag that the entire article may need to be re-written to meet quality standards, can we really say it's of B quality? Something is amiss here... I noticed a change, and an undo, and can understand both sides so thought I should ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yokohama1 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that nobody has seen fit to make any major changes in 3 years suggests that the tag is not really appropriate and ought to be removed. I will do so later unless someone demonstrates an intention to act on it. DiverScout (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)