Talk:Chief Scout (The Scout Association)

message: United Kingdom implies the entire country.  --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  18:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: I have removed a "citation needed" tag for the fact that all but two served in the armed forces. It is perfectly clear from the articles on the individuals that they served. In the case of Somers and Rowallan, the only mention is their medals. They both received the MC. More on their service needs to be added. The article on Somers currently gives undue weight to his Cricket. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the tag on, and I'm about to put it back. Other wikipedia articles are not acceptable as references, per WP:V. --hippo43 (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You only need to go to this extent if you are challenging the statement. Are you? The wikipedia article is not being used as reference, because there is no need for a reference for something that is not challenged. The Chief Scouts are listed and it is quite clear that all but two did indeed serve in the armed forces. There is no need for a reference here. Articles on individuals are quite reasonable for statements that are not challenged as long as there are references in the individual articles. If there are not, that is the place to put the "citation needed" tag. Yes, the medals for Somers and Rowallan probably do need a source. --Bduke  (Discussion) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am challenging its inclusion, hence the tag. My objection is that while the statement might be true in each case (I don't know either way), it isn't referenced as a general point, and as such isn't notable. It reads like something someone has worked out themselves. While it may be clear (at least to you) that all of them bar two have served in the armed forces, that point has apparently not been published in reliable sources, as it is trivial. Likewise, it would be original research for me to write that all of them except Baden-Powell and Morrison bred cocker spaniels, even if that were true in each case. Moreover, there is no source given which confirms that Purdy and Duncan have not served in the armed forces. --hippo43 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Further, if a statement appears in an individual's article as well as here, and is not referenced in either place, then both articles should be tagged, or the info removed from both. --hippo43 (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand where you are coming from. Your comparison with breeding cocker spaniels explained it. The point is that serving in the armed forces is not like breeding cocker spaniels. Baden-Powell was of course a serving Army Officer when he started Scouting. I am quite sure that for most of the 20th century, the general view in the management of Scouting in the UK was that this experience of having been an officer in the forces was an essential qualification for being Chief Scout, as well of course as having the free time and the money to do the job. You are right it needs a source, because it is not trivial, as breeding cocker spaniels would be. However, we are not going to find an internet source, but I suspect there will be several in older books and magazines. The changing view of what a Chief Scout should be, from a leader of men to a person who can give good publicity to the Scouts, is a fascinating one and needs to be addressed in this article. I think that is where the sentence about serving in the armed forces came from. --Bduke  (Discussion) 08:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service in armed forces 

message: * The section on Chief Scouts Awards is not about the Chief Scout, it's about awards.
* The article is about the Chief Scout of The Scout Association. Baden-Powell's proclamation as "Chief Scout of the World" (ie. not of The Boy Scouts Association) is therefore not relevant to this article (it is included in the article on Baden-Powell where it is relevant).
* Information about the current Chief Scout is repeated in the introduction section and the List of Chief Scouts.
* The same information about the current Chief Scout is in the main article on The Scout Association.
* There are a number of unsupported statements in the section on The Role of the Chief Scout and the first sentence doesn't state anything useful or informative.
* The section on Appointment of the Chief Scout is vague.
Stripped of irrelevant material there is not enough to justify a separate article. Chief Scout (of The Scout Association) could direct to a section in the article on The Scout Association.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.226 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no opposition to the suggestion that this article be merged into the article on The Scout Association. I will commence merging the articles and delete this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.148 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this article be merged into the main The Scout Association article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chief Scout (The Scout Association). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060724153535/http://www.scouts.org.uk/aboutus/fs295306.pdf to http://www.scouts.org.uk/aboutus/fs295306.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: (a) I changed "programs" to "programmes" since this is really about British scouting so British spelling seems more appropriate. Hope that is OK.
(b) What does "nominal and titular" mean in the the opening? Would just "titular" be better since "nominal" means in name only - and there really is a chief scout, it it not just a theoretical position, even if actual power of the role is now limited. I haven't changed this as it may be nominal is relevant some how?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.15.189 (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Comments