Talk:Boy Scout Handbook

Edition

I realize that many scouts and scouters dislike the 8th edition, but for those of us who had it as our first handbook, it wasn't disasterous. Unless you are saying our involvement in scouting was a disaster somehow. I like the program of the 9th edition better, but the 8th edition dealt with drugs in an honest and explicit manner for the first time ever and it was the first handbook to put pictures that reflected scoutings ethnic diversity front and center.

The 8th edition was my first handbook, and I didn't care for it. As I've gotten to know other editions, I find I like the older editions, especially those from the 30s and 40s from the later ones. Thinner paper allowed for more pages to be packed into a small package, detailed linework that the later broad color artwork can't match. --Emb021 20:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I need a lot of help with this project. Anyone who can lend a hand, would be appreciated. Thank you. --Admiral Roo June 28, 2005 13:18 (UTC)

I'm a bit spread out at the moment, but I have a few constructive comments:

• First, ask is this encylopedic? If you want to do a short highlight of each version, that would probably work. I do think a page for each is too much. The T97 link is a great reference (I've read it before), but not encylopedic.
• Next, is this NPOV? The comment on the 8th edition is presented as a fact, where it really is an opinion (one that I happen to share BTW).
• The article neads a better lead in. What is the handbook? Why is it important?

--Gadget850 12:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag at the same time I changed the opinion on the 8th edition from a declaration of fact to a statement that some consider it such. However, this opinion really needs a source. Who thinks that the 8th edition was a "disasterist" edition? Where did they say it? Is it published? Also... disasterist? Do you mean disasterous? Fieari 01:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the T97 reference. I also started with this handbook. After 32 years in Scouting, I can look back and see where things went wrong. I remember leaders saying "You can't take the outing out of Scouting", but I really did not know why at the time. T97 has another page discussing this in depth [1]. Again, these are opinons, but they are documented. --Gadget850 13:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Worthiness of merging the handbook articles depends on how much work someone wants to put into details of the individual handbooks. If kept separate, they should be their own article, not subpages of the main article (look at their naming paths). Rlevse 01:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge it. This article barely has enough info as it is, it needs all the help it can get. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

While I think of it, another reason to merge is that the branched articles violate wikipedia naming conventions -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely merge it. Unless you can put more info into each individual article, there is no point in keeping them separate

007bond 01:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, merge Radagast83 03:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge. Should a user get enough for a seperate page, then maybe. But not now. Scoutersig 06:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

merge per nom. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 08:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree, merge Ctatkinson 13:14 13 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: May is have gone [May has come and gone?] and though this is the COTM, no one has made a single edit, so there is apparently much interest in expanding this area. I'd say merge them. Rlevse 10:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Ccraig was working on this a while back User:Ccraig/handbook when it popped up in the BSA cat. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the wiki links on the handbook editions as we've merged the info. Rlevse 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Those should be submitted for deletion as they are merged. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They were already redirects, so I left them alone. Rlevse 17:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Cover photos

Is this necessary? I thought it would look good (which is of course subjective and unapplicable to the officiality of the situation) and be a useful reference for those interested in Scouting memorabilia collecting. It is also much shorter than individual articles for each edition. Scoutersig 21:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it. Rlevse 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should incorparte the images found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20070302142100/http://www.scouting.org/media/anniversary/handbooks.html --evrik ^(talk) 01:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.Rlevse 02:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have at least eight of the old handbooks in my collection, including the 1911 reprint. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have clean scans of these editions from my collection: 1st ed 1911, 3rd ed 1927, 5th ed 1949; 6th ed 1959; 8th ed 1972; 9th ed 1979; 11th ed 1998. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Edition

I'm confused by this line: "It had once been thought that there was a ninth variation but that was made by one man who supposedly had seen an interleaved version in the National Scout Headquarters many years ago. The BSA National Archives has no record of that variation ever existing."

Is it necessary? --Jdurbach 13:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It struck me as vague, unnecessary and confusing so I've removed it. You've conveniently recorded a copy here in case someone finds more evidence that warrants adding it back. Jheiss (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Google Books

• The Official Handbook for Boys at Google Books (1912) First Edition, 3rd Printing
• The Official Handbook for Boys at Google Books (1913) First Edition, 2nd Special Printing

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Editions

Wikipedia claims that there were only 14 editions up to 2019. So why is it that a 1920 handbook claims itself as the "twenty-second edition" in the title? Afterwards, it claims the following:

"The Boy Scouts' Handbook was published in 1910 and subsequently the editions and quantities were as follows:

• 1910 - Original editions
• June 13th, 1911 - Advance edition
• August 31st, 1911 - First edition
• November 29th, 1911 - Second edition
• December 30th, 1911 - Third edition
• May 18th, 1912 - Fourth edition
• July 29th, 1912 - Fifth edition

[...]"

etc.

Don't worry, the book is in the public domain so it's free to view for your own reference. But does this mean that we have 14 editions but several revisions within those editions? Or is the book, or our Wikipedia page, dubious? The 1914 version I see here looks pretty different from the 1920 version I mentioned above at a glance. So do archivists have ultimately hundreds of editions to track down and make scans of?

Note: @Gadget850: mentioned something like this above in #Google Books. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)