Talk:Boys' Brigade

Girls' Brigade

There's no article for the Girls' Brigade! I am scandalised! Helen.

- Well... write one!  That's what it's all about!

Just a note: I altered the description of the Staff Sergeant's stripes based on personal experience and my copy of the Brigade Uniform Regulations. Staff Sergeants wear their stripes point up level with the bottom of their right shirt sleeve, in distinction to other non-commissioned ranks who wear theirs pointing down on the upper right arm. Killiedaft 01:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Article tidy-up

I've done a fairly thorough proof-read and edit of the whole article - some grammar fixes and sentence structure improvements. Also started trying to split the article into sections but I think more work is needed on the "History" part. As a Junior section leader, I've also updated the description of the awards scheme. Halsteadk 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

The external links list is getting rather too long - Wikipedia is not supposed to be a links repository! I'm afraid this probably means removing the links for individual companies, on the basis that there is no reason to provide links for these companies and not others, and it would be unfeasible to provide links to all companies. (It is perhaps also worth noting that the vast majority, if not all, of these links has been added by anonymous users.) I'd suggest that links are only provided to the national BB organisations and that there is then no need to have country sub-headings. Halsteadk 22:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

izes and ises

This old chestnut is a perennial discussion. the suffix "ize" is not an American trait. Most words in British English that end with this suffix can be "ise" or "ize" (there are some exceptions as there are words that should end in "ise" in American English. In fact the OED prefers the use of "ize" as do many accademic sources. [1]. "ise" in British/commonwealth English seems to have crept into use more over the course of the latter twentieth century (find any old English dictionary and you will srtuggle to find "ise"). It has reached such ubiquity outside accademic circles that many British/Commonwealth readers often mistake the "ize" as Ameircan. Most dictionaries now list both suffixes as acceptable in British English, but if we are writning an international project and we have a choive it makes sense to use the spelling that would be usiversally acceptable to all English Speakers and matches other existing links (IMO the rule should also apply to examples such as Gaol and Jail in British English and Ketchup and Catsup in American English). Dainamo 13:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Above all, consistency within an article is most important. Whether -ise or -ize is used, one variant should be used throughout, and if that is already the case, anyone unnecessarily changing between them could legitimately be reverted. See WP:ENGVAR for guidance. Halsteadk (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Part of scouting discussion?

I think that the Boys' Brigade stands strong enough in its own right with its own past present and future and thusly should not be labled as just part of the history of scouting.

No

Im sorry, the BB is not part of the scouts, because it is older than the scouts and therefore should have its own WikiProgect for the Brigades as it is known to members of it. --Joshuarooney2006 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is lack of members, but great idea and I would be happy to help.  <font="center" color="#FFFFFF"> theKeith  Talk!  15:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Baden Powell was inspired by his friend William Smith's creation of the Boys' Brigade and was involved at ealry stage (I need citations here and will find some) Hence the Boy's Brigade is integral to the creation of scouting. In the early part of the twentieth century there were boy;s brigade scouts, although they were a parrallel development to Baden-powell's scouts not a precursor. Dainamo 11:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As the boys' brigade pre-dates the Scout movement, it should have its own wikiproject, with the scouts also having its own with both crosslinked.

If we can organise this I am happy to assist. --sy278 08:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just viewed Scouting in the United Kingdom and Boys Brigade is listed as a Scouting Organisation. I believe this is incorrect. I'm unsure as to why Boys and Girls Brigade are included in this list. As far as I know Boys Brigade don't consider themselves Scouts - indeed the movement predates Scouting. As far as I know they are not WOSM affiliated. They have a different founder who they are very proud of. They may be a youth organisation that is organised in a very similar way to Scouts and share many aims and objectives but as far as I know they shouldn't be on this list.

Any feedback? Benjym (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)(current scout leader)

As the Scout Movement was formed from the Boys' Brigade (Baden Powell was a Vice President of the Boys' Brigade, being invited by his friend Sir William A. Smith) and indeed as Baden Powell's book Scouting for Boys was first published by the BB and for the use of the BB Scout units, I feel that it would be a great injustice to consider that the BB is classed as a Scouting Organisation. Shouldn't the Scouts be classed as a Boys' Brigade organisation?(current BB Officer) Bob the Bandy (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

National Articles

Seeing as the BB is an global movement with different rules, structures, etc. in different countries, wouldn't it make sense to have national articles?

Someone has started a page for the Boys' Brigade in Malaysia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axfangli (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

External Links (Jan 2007)

Pleased to see that someone has removed all of the company links from this article. If you are thinking of adding such a link please DO NOT - if one company is linked then potentially ALL must be linked and it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a links repository. Links I have removed a link to a New Zealand company that had been re-added and added some hidden comments relating to what should not be added, and put a note in the section about where to find links to companies. Halsteadk 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why remove the links ? They could (probably should) be removed into a seperate article that lists companies, either with external links or with stubs. If every little hamlet in the world and youth team footballer is worth a stud then surely most BB companies are also ? Hackerjack 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the links and avoiding a collection of stubs makes sense. Our primary reason for publishing on Wikipedia is to let others -- especially non-Brigadiers -- know what the BB is. Presentation is important in helping them efficiently understand the history and nature of the BB.

Sure, we can make a stub for each company, but I think readers would likely get frustrated by the countless times they're presented with an article stating only, "The n-th Somewhere Company was founded in this year at this place by this person." Of course, if someone has "special" information about a company (e.g. Company X started a tradition which is now observed worldwide), then that should certainly be made known.

The BB Directory maintains a list of companies; We can point this out on the articles. I think maintaining a huge list in Wikipedia would be overwhelming... A casual reader would not click on all of them, and a person who's looking for a specific company would be better off searching the Directory. What do you think? Axfangli 11:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Global differences

The global nature of the BB movement makes it extremely difficult to have a unified system. I think this should be kept in mind when adding to the article.

My last edit to the Leadership section is based on what I know about the Malaysian, Australian and British BB hierarchy. From my (limited) research, Colour Sergeant and Drum Major are not NCO ranks (see http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/leaders/library/regs/regs.htm) so I have removed them.

I am aware of the possibility that other countries might have adopted their own system though. If this is the case, please indicate this in your edit.

Another possibility to consider is that a company might have made their own changes which are not in accordance to their national regulations. It's happened before (see paragraph 8 in http://members.aol.com/bbashhton/spelt.html) so please be careful!

Axfangli 06:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The cross and the BB logo

In my last edit, I removed the mentions of the Geneva cross and the Red Cross to simplify the sentences. Does anyone think this might be an issue?

I have a hunch that the Boys' Life Brigade derived its emblem from that of the Red Cross movement, but have no proof or disproof. Does anyone have any info on this? Axfangli 13:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

World's First Uniformed Youth Organisation

I'm a BB Officer, but even I don't try to kid myself on that we are the World's First Uniformed Youth Organisation!!! After all, while we celebrate our 125th Anniversary in 2008, the Combined Cadet Force and Army Cadet Force celebrate their 150th in 2010. The Sea Cadet Corps is even older. So I wish people wouldn't keep going on about the BB being "older than everyone else"!!! Bob Cowan 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty nuanced. The BB does seem to be the oldest non-governmental uniformed organisation set up specifically for young people that has essentially remained without a broken history to date. Maybe that's what was originally meant when the tagline "First for Boys" was originally mooted for the Centenary celebrations in 1983. -- Bob K 22:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The exact terminology used in the book; Sure & Stedfast : A history of the Boys' Brigade, 1883-1983; published by Collins in 1983, is:

.. the world's first successful voluntary uniformed youth organization .. (emphasis theirs)

That probably explains why it isn't technically incorrect to refer to the BB as the World's First Uniformed Youth Organisation per se. - Bob K 12:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be "the world's oldest uniformed youth organisation". The Working Boys' Brigades of the 1860s and the Foundry Boys' Religious Society of 1865 were both non-governmental uniformed youth organisations (see Sure & Stedfast pp36-7), so the BB can't claim to be first. However, it is the oldest such organisation still in existence. --Prh47bridge (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bob Cowan; regardless of what we all may wish the truth to be, the fact is that there are older youth groups. The claim made in the opening sentence and in the history section (earliest of all youth organizations) is simply not encyclopaedic and should be removed. Obscurasky (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The claim should certainly not be presented as fact if it is disputable, but it should not be removed altogether as it is a commonly made claim, albeit clearly with some qualifications. It needs to be clear that "it is claimed by the BB" with an up to date reference to the claim. The fact that they have made the claim is encyclopedic. Halsteadk (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Obscurasky (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Halsteadk, would you like to propose a revised wording here? Obscurasky (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's well over two years since the problem with the opening sentence was first raised. Isn't it about time we dealt with it? The claim of being the world's oldest (or oldest uniformed) youth organisation doesn't even appear to be made any more, and there's no mention of it on the official BB website. I propose the opening two sentences be changed to read;

"The Boys' Brigade (BB) is an interdenominational Christian youth organisation, conceived by William Alexander Smith to combine drill and fun activities with Christian values."

It might lack the 'impact' of the current opening, but it is encyclopaedic - and it is verifiable.

With regard to the reference in the history section, I suggest "Being the earliest of all youth organizations" be replaced with "Initially". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. I feel awkward making this change, but it has been over two years since the issue was first pointed out and no one has objected to my proposed alteration. Obscurasky (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Boys' Brigade Wikiproject

Bob K 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC) If I can get some folks who are willing to give this a go, I'll start a new Wikiproject for the Boys' Brigade. I think the size and diversity of the movement worldwide justifies this move.

t·e » 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC) Great idea, we've been in the shadow of the Scouting WikiProject for too long now! I'll help out where I can. « Keith 

sy278 09:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC) I am willing to assist in this, it's time for us to stand alone, especially in our 125th year.

Fair use rationale for Image:Discover logo RGB.jpg

Image:Discover logo RGB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Discoverybadge.jpg

Image:Discoverybadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Communitylevel1.jpg

Image:Communitylevel1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Compassbadge.jpg

Image:Compassbadge.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Challenge plus logo.jpg

Image:Challenge plus logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The boy's brigade in Northern Ireland is pretty much exclusively a protestant unionist organisation. Usually ran in Orange halls or presbyterian halls and not inclusive of the catholic youth. The runners habitually fly union jacks and other loyalist flags especially when taking formal group photographs. To be honest up until reading this article I was unaware of the Boy's Brigade being anything other than an organisation for the loyalist youth. It is almost completely viewed by the catholic community as an organisation for forming good little unionists on their way to being good orange men, and not as an inclusive christian organisation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.253.16 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment from a former Boys'Brigade member, and father of a current member - in other words not from an "official" BB source. Boys' Brigade companies are church based. I can not think of any which meet in Orange halls. I can't see what is sinister about Presbyterian (or Methodist or Baptist) church halls that they should be singled out by this author. Boys from any denomination should be welcome - but we live in a province where social and activity segregation have become deeply ingrained. BB flags are simple and obvious - the Union flag and effectively a blue ensign, with the BB crest added - hardly "loyalist flags". Perhaps the BB should be viewed for what it is - an organisation to encourage young men to retain a church connection. Mpd64 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Boys as Non-Commissioned Officers

With reference to this section; 'Private' is listed as an NCO rank. Surely this is incorrect? Obscurasky (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a rank within the system in that a Private isn't an NCO and vice versa. So I think it needs to be mentioned here, but should be made clear. Halsteadk (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand this response. I was a BB officer, 25 years ago, so maybe things have changed since then? Obscurasky (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent advancements with the Boys' Brigade

Recent advancements with the Boys' Brigade

In the last 3-4 years, an agreement was passed that girls can now enroll into the Boys' Brigade, now with the organisations name differing to Boys' Brigade and the Girls Assoiciation. This recent agreement was brought about by 1st Kinross Company Captain David Munro who has said quite openly "If us leaders are here to teach young people in obedience, knowledge and give them skill sets why not include all genders." Slowly through the following years girls were then given the opportunity to take part in Battalion Competitions. History has been changed by this small company in Scotland, but yet they made history again with having the first ever girl in the UK to gain the Queens' Badge, Staff Sergeant Alice Eade. Since 1st Kinross bringing in this change, it has been welcomed by all companies and there are more and more girls enrolling every year.

I've moved the above section here because is has multiple issues which need addressing before it's reinserted. The information seems important, but is completely unsourced. It's poorly written and has POV issues running right through it. Even the section title is POV.Obscurasky (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, it is UK-centric and does not reflect the movement worldwide. Some Brigade territories have been accepting Girls into their membership for quite a few decades. - Bob K | Talk 16:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Anchor, website and worldwide view

Firstly, I just changed infobox logo on this article from File:Boysbrigade anchor redesign copy small.jpg to File:Boys' Brigade Anchor (traditional colour version).svg on the basis that although The Boys' Brigade in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland tend to use the modern ('slanted') Anchor for most uses (but not all, e.g. badges), the BB in most other countries generally appear to use this more traditional form of the Anchor, or something more closely based upon it. Therefore I think it's more appropriate given that this article is supposed to cover the BB in a worldwide manner. (It's also an SVG, rather than a bitmap). It might be too tall right now though?

Secondly, whilst I've made no change yet, I'd ask whether the www.boys-brigade.org.uk link (to the website the BB in UK and RoI) should really be in the info-box for this article, given that it's supposed to represent a worldwide view?

Finally regarding the worldwide view topic again, would other agree that much of the UK/RoI-centric content in this article should be migrated to The Boys' Brigade in the United Kingdom (which surely should be 'The Boys' Brigade in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland'?), whilst for this article perhaps cover these different topics in terms of what's common and what's different about the BB around the world?

In the interest of disclosure, I am involved with The Boys' Brigade, by way of being a leader in a local UK Company as noted on my user page. However I do not seek to make any changes to BB-related articles that would make them promotional; that said if anyone sees any changes they think are problematic, please do feel free to challenge/remove them. Rfdparker (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boys' Brigade. 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/20060517031003/http://badges.boys-brigade.org.uk:80/Advanced.html to http://badges.boys-brigade.org.uk/Advanced.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070522013244/http://www.bbasia.org:80/MemberCountries.htm to http://www.bbasia.org/MemberCountries.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070427215754/http://www.bb.org.sg:80/aboutus/bbfact.htm to http://www.bb.org.sg/aboutus/bbfact.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://behindtourism.boys-brigade.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Boys' Brigade. 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/20130522140601/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/whoweare.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/whoweare.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926000822/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/aboutus/ffb-motto.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/aboutus/ffb-motto.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060926000932/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/aboutus/ffb-camp.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/aboutus/ffb-camp.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120907215721/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/amicus.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/amicus.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004212914/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/kgvi.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/kgvi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031072021/http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/leaders/resources/discover/resources.htm to http://www.boys-brigade.org.uk/leaders/resources/discover/resources.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160105003136/http://kairosgracia.sch.id/ to http://kairosgracia.sch.id/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Internationalisation of the article

The current article is still somewhat UK-centric. The BB as a movement was fairly uniform worldwide until 1967 when major changes in BBUK encouraged other countries to start implementing some localisation which has since evolved to the unique blend of BB programmes that we have today in the various BB jurisdictions. Perhaps the article can be re-written to reflect the pre-1967 uniformity as well as other standard features that are shared by the BB across the world with the localisations linked to the individual national and sub-national BB Wiki pages. - Bob K | Talk 10:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)