Talk:Scouting

message: I corrected a mistake on this page not that long ago about Brownsea Island being called the first Scout Camp. It of course wasn’t the first Scout camp and was actually a Boys Brigade camp used to experiment with the idea of Scouting, because of this I see no reason why it should be featured as the first image that comes up on that tab this in many ways could add to the misconception about Brownsea Island. Pongo774532 (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brownsea Island Camp 

message: A decent part of this article is just plain unsourced. The rest of the sourcing leaves a great deal to be desired. Although there are high quality books and scholarly sources about Scouting, this article relies heavily on websites affiliated with the scouting movement. (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please specify your viewpoint as well as give us the titles of the "high quality books and scholarly sources about Scouting" you mentioned? Living outside the English speaking world, my access to those as well as literature on Scouting in my native language is limited. --jergen (talk) 11:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I think in part this is because the websites are easily verifiable whereas books are less so.  Official scouting websites don't seem to be a bad source imo but I understand the want to include material from sources such as Scouting for Boys or other more modern publications.  JC aka JtheKid15 (Communications) 10:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured articles are expected to be well-researched and cite high-quality reliable sources, which is usually interpreted as foreclosing over reliance on sources that are closely affiliated with the article subject. Just searching "scouting movement" on Google Scholar shows there are an abundance of independent, high quality reliable sources about the article topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement/rewrite or FAR needed 

message: In reference to the final sentence of the History -> Influences section, which says "Worldwide, roughly one in three Scouts are Muslim." The source it gives for this says "it is said that worldwide, roughly one in three Scouts are Muslim", which does not seem to be intended as a factual claim; it does not reference any actual data. Since the scouting tradition is strongest in Anglophone countries with relatively low Muslim populations (e.g. Britain, North America, Australia), and were explicitly Christian historically, I think this is unlikely to be an accurate statistic. It might be better to revise this to say something like "A growing population of Scouts worldwide are Muslim" or "policies of scouting organizations have broadened to be more open to Muslim members" - these would preserve the intent of this sentence while being more factually accurate, and better reflecting what the article cited actually says.
:The country in the world with the largest number of Scouts is Indonesia, a mostly Muslim country. HiLo48 (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not even close to the same claim as the one in the article though? 198.160.139.1 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording/sourcing for statistic on Muslim scouts 

message: , I reverted your edit. There are more than 100 sources. If you think some are bad, please tag those sources rather than slapping a template on the top of the page. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , why would you do a drive-by template removal when there are clearly a whole ton of unacceptable sources, such as http://www.britishbattles.com/great-boer-war/mafeking.htm to start with. The template serves the purpose of notifying others of such issues so others can help along in removal of unacceptable sources as well. By removing it, you removed the trouble flag. I see you have not corrected the issue either. Why? Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, but a general tagging in a drive-by-shooting manner is not helpful and can't be adressed. Please explain in detail which sources are - in your eyes - unacceptable and why. The aforementioned website britishbattles.com has more than 100 usages in article namespace, so your point has to be more specific, since this website seems perfectly acceptable to some (I think numerous) editors. --jergen (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources