Talk:Catholic Scouts of Europe

Source

This article is a translation of de:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas. --jergen 13:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Name change

First, my apologies for messsing up the page history. I have hopefully fixed the mess I made. That being said, I wanted to point out that jergen did not apply the deliberation and consensus he demands from others when he changed the name of thnis article. --evrik ^(talk) 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Evrik, please refrain from personal remarks.

Didn't you even read the history? The move comment (actually at [1]) clearly states "ambigous name, used by several organizations". You can find some of them at UIGSE:

• Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas - Österreich (Austria)
• Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas (Germany)
• Associazione Italiana Guide e Scouts d'Europa Cattolici della FSE (Italy)

Can you please give a source that uses this translation? I just get one Google-hit [2], refferring to none of the above groups but perhaps to the French organization.

Please find a way to restore the original title and the full article history as soon as possible. --jergen 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• ummm Jergen, pointing out an action of yours and referring to your previous stance is not a personal attack. As a matter of fact, I did read the history. I disagree with the changing of the name from an English name to a foreign language on the English wiki. If other organizations shared the name, then a disambig should have been created, or perhaps they should have all been written about under one article. It still remains that you made the cahnge unilaterally, without consulting anyone - which is what you have been railing against. --evrik ^(talk) 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You remember the commonly used thing on WP:UE?

There is no commonly used english translation. But there are lots of translations one can make up - only Katholische has a clear translation with Catholic; Pfadfinderschaft (within a coeducational organization) can be Scouts, Scouts and Guides, Scouting, Scouting and Guiding, Scout Association or Scout and Guide Association; Europas translates as European or of Europe. So there are at least twelve possible and correct translations - which one to choose?

BTW, this org doesn't fall in our mediation's scope: It is not WAGGGS or WOSM and there is no source for any English translation. --jergen 19:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• would you mind detailing for me when it's okay for you to act unilaterally, without consulting anyone? You have rabbited on in the past about the 'process.' I just want to make sure I understand what your rules are. As for the mediation. This whole thing started with the Italian Catholic article. --evrik ^(talk) 20:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the above mentioned Italian organization; it was AGESCI.

I'll put in more details when moving articles before the mediation is closed; promised. But moves do not happen very often. --jergen 21:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "see also" section

I removed this section because none of the listed organizations is in any way connected to the KPE. They are all Catholic organizations, but that's not special. Nearly all members of UIGSE are Catholic based as well as about 15 members of WOSM who form - together with the pastoral commissions of 25 interreligious organizations the CICS. --jergen 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is not NPOV. There is more criticism of the organization based on anecdotal evidence than actual encyclopedic information. The "History" Section does not describe the actual history of the organization but instead when critics had something negative to say about the organization. The article lists proselytism as one main point of criticism, yet notes as a point of criticism that the the KPE does hardly have contact to other movements. As only Catholics are allowed to be members, whom would they proselytize, then? 84.160.17.8 21:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The tagging is unbased:

• Anecdotal evidence: The controversy section gives seven independent sources, two of them pro-KPE.
• History: Except its founding and the external recognitions there is no "internal" history reaching the criteria defined in WP:Notability; the organization's official homepage mentions only changes in leadership and internal events [3]. None of the items mentioned in the history section is POV, and all you may see as "critics" are sourced.
• Prosetytism: There is nowhere stated that only Catholics are admitted as members; proselytation can also occur within one denomination and refers here to traditionalist groups within the Catholic church.

Removed the tag because it is unbased. You are free to add content; please give sources. --jergen 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. It's useless to discuss with people who don't wait for the end of a discussion, but instead revert everything instantly. It is quite obvious how biased you are (internal events are not of Notability, but an internal publication which is not liked, is). It is also obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking (e.g. "it is nowhere stated that only Catholics are admitted", see [1.2.9-1.2.13], but of course you are always correct and can revert everything instantly. Bye. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.75.100 (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The statutes of UIGSE say nothing about admitting solely Catholics: members should be Christians, must be baptised before making their promise and leaders are required to adhere to the same religion as the unit/association (1.2.14). --jergen 09:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The statues say In a country where several Christian confessions exist, scout or guides units belonging to the various Churches or Communities may cohabit within a same association, each group welcoming the young people belonging to the same Church or Community, according to the norms of the Rules. That is why there is the EPE for Protestants. Or to be even more clear: The intangible rule of the International Union is not to gather in the same group youths of different confessions, in order to avoid in their minds any risk of relativism or scepticism. [link]. But this discussion is useless anyway, as you have already decided to revert any changes you don't like. 84.160.12.116 10:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And where does this say something about Catholics only? The rule you quoted proposes to start separate units for non-Catholics (or separate organizations like the EPE if these accept the pope as head of Christianity). And even this rule is not applied through the whole association [4]. Perhaps this unit should be removed from the membership role? --jergen 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to say that, from a fully external point of view (I'm French, and not linked to the UIGSE), this article is clearly not neutral. I came here looking for information about the German part of the UIGSE, and nearly all that I saw was critics of it. The informational part is tiny, and tells nothing apart from the very early history of the organization : nothing about age sections, nothing about pedagogy, nothing about uniform, nothing about groups, patches, etc…

So please, people with information about the KPE, correct this article and put true factual information ! I put the NPOV template on top of the article, hoping it will help people with information to contribute, and readers to realize the article is not neutral - if they cannot see it by themselves, because unfortunately enough it's quite obvious. 90.56.194.66 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tagging. A section on critiscism is acceptable with WP:NPOV. Perhaps you wanted to include {{expand}}?

Informations on individual units or badges are not encouraged in en.wp. Even if they were, there is no information on these, the pedagogics, the sections and so on available from http://www.kpe.de . I'd like to include informations on these aspects of the KPe but I need a reliable source. --jergen (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but an article containing critics may be seen as neutral only if critics and favourable comments were in the same quantity. As I previously told, in its current state, this article is made of critics only (among a few information), and then is not neutral. As you told a section with criticism is acceptable, but there, it is the complete article that goes with criticism. Critics are OK, but to be neutral, you should provide the opinion of the KPE on the points which are criticized. Here, there is nothing to counterbalance the critics - so, how can we know that KPE is either a dangerous bunch of fanatical fundamentalists, or just a traditional scouting organization that likes Latin masses ?

Then, I think we have to put both NPOV and expand templates on the article, in order to help people see it's not complete and fully objective. This, of course, doesn't mean that the work that produced the current article wasn't good work, or that the article is a bad article: it just warns people that, as many other WP articles, it is not yet optimal and should be improved.

Concerning information about age sections, number of groups and so, perhaps could you ask them directly to the KPE ? I saw you were a native German speaker, so it shouldn't be difficult for you. 90.56.194.66 (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit: isn't there "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." on the NPOV template ? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.56.194.66 (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please explain which sentences in the sections "Aims" and "History" contain criticism. A short mention of the controversy in the lead of an article is requested in the WP:MoS. Up until now, the KPE did not react to its critics (with the sole exception of the trial against "Himmel und Hölle").
• I will not ask the KPE for information; this would be a clear violation of WP:NOR. As long as there is no published material, Wikipedia's rules prohibit the inclusion of content. --jergen (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking the KPE would not be violation of NOR, in my opinion: you would not ask directly but ask for publications telling which are their age sections and so. But as I told on the project's talk page, this should not be necessary as I found pages that looks like they are containing the requested informations : [5] & [6]. As a German speaker, I suppose you could use them.

Sentences containing criticism are quite numerous and I won't copy the whole article here :-P More seriously, there are in particular :

Aims

• The quotation seems to be incomplete and is not similar to the given source, which says "Die Pfadfinderin und der Pfadfinder lernen durch das einfache Leben in und mit der Natur die Gr��e der g�ttlichen Sch�pfung kennen. Im Ringen mit den Kr�ften der Natur erfahren sie ihre M�glichkeiten und Grenzen. Sie ert�chtigen so aber auch ihren K�rper und bekommen physische und psychische Ausdauer." Besides that, if there is only the source that is false, nothing says that the quotation reflects the meaning of the full text it comes from.
• "Observers describe the KPE as […] conservative, and traditional […]" → unsourced and may look like a critic, besides that, in contradiction with WP:WEASEL
• "Great emphasis is placed on […]" → unsourced, may look like a critic (a scouting organization is not primarily designed for religious education, here it seems to mean that it is the main goal of the KPE.)

History

• "In 2003 the organization's paper "Pfadfinder Mariens" promoted a book of the far right politician […]" → unsourced. Those are grave accusations, scouting should not mix with politics (especially far right). BTW, which kind of far right ? It goes from conservative to neo-nazis… not the same :-P

I would have put the paragraph before the last in the "controversy" section. ("After press reports on the KPE membership […]")

Controversy

An interesting section, but it's a shame it is so important compared to the size of the article. Some points are problematic:

• "Critics of the KPE focus mainly on […] proselytization" → unsourced + nothing in the rest of the article seems to mean that the KPE attempts to convert people to their religion.
• "[…] isolation of members from the outside world" → unsourced, is it in relation to the last paragraph ? Isolation from other scouting organization is not similar to isolation from the whole outside world.
• "Pro-life manifestations organized by the KPE […]" → unsourced.
• "The isolation of the KPE's members from other, possibly interfering, groups is mainly criticized by German Scouts." → unsourced + possibily weasel ("mainly criticized") ?
• Source n°12 is not available online, while it could be interesting to be able to read it.

I think those are the main problematic points. Besides that, there is perhaps something with the general tone of the article, which sounds like the authors didn't like the KPE, but that's more subjective and will probably be solved if additional information can be added to make the article look more encyclopaedic informational. 88.169.125.50 (talk) == 90.56.194.66, 11:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Aims

• The Quote is correct, but the link misleading, it should point to [7].
• Observers: we can certainly remove this; it was included in the German article by pro-KPE-activists.
• Emphasis: May need a source, but is correct. The UIGSE as well as all affiliates promotes primarily the Roman Catholic faith. Scouting is only a measure for the development of faith.

History

• Far right is very clear and needs no further explanation.
• Press report: Could be moved but as it is very clear dated, it is also part of the history. Comment: Strangely the KPE did not react to the statement of the Conference of the German Bishops.

Controversy

Comment: Part of this was discussed earlier this year on de:Diskussion:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas. Most of it is sourced there, so I will not discuss missing sources. I can update the section but wil wait for the outcame of the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting.

• Proselytization was always a bad translation, the German article speaks of "Glaubensvermittlung" (I cannot translate this, it's about how faith is lived and passed on.).
• Sources #5 and #12 are (or were) availabe online but the website is globally blacklisted on all Wikimedia projects. For #5 see www.kreuz.net/article.479.html, for #12 www.kreuz.net/article.766.html. --jergen (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

I removed the following sentence because it is not backed up by the reference given.
In 2007, there is at least one group holding corporate membership in both the KPE and the Society of St. Pius X.

The statutes of this group nowhere say they are a KPE group. Actually all of the following statements from the cited statutes would be completely senseless if the group did actually belong to the KPE.

• „orientieren sich an denen der KPE“
• „Die Ausbildung wird vorläufig von der KPE übernommen.“
• „Es wird aus Dankbarkeit gegenüber der KPE getragen.“ -- Túrelio 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:UIGSE.svg

The image Image:UIGSE.svg 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. --23:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catholic Scouts of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060927133029/http://www.wdr.de:80/tv/monitor/beitrag.phtml?bid=609&sid=116 to http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/beitrag.phtml?bid=609&sid=116#

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Scouts of Europe. 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/20070323015943/http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=9390 to http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=9390
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070812081547/http://www.netzwerksekten.privat.t-online.de/kpe.htm to http://www.netzwerksekten.privat.t-online.de/kpe.htm

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) 08:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)