Talk:Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations

move proposal

I propose to move this article to Breakaway and non-aligned Scouting organisations to make it less cumbersome and more idiomatic English. Chris 10:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds all right with me, however, some of the terminology used in this article is not explained sufficiently for the reader. Examples are the word "independent", "non-aligned", and "breakaway". Two of these words are in the title of the article. --Jagz 01:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't move the article until we have a clear definition of its content... --jergen 09:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to "Non-aligned Scouting organisations" since breakaway organisations are just a subset of non-aligned organisations. --Jagz 05:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the proposed new article name to Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations. --Jagz 01:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved it. --Jagz 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting organizations

See the following links:

• International Scouting Organizations
• Non-aligned Scouting Associations
• Unaffiliated Single Groups of Scouts
• Adult-only Scouting Associations
• Scout-like Organizations
• All Scouting Associations in Every Country
  

--Jagz 04:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Independent Scouts and Scout organisations

In the subject section, what does the word "independent" mean? It is not clear to me. Also, where it says:
"Other independent multinational Scout organisations include: Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme, Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe, and World Federation of Independent Scouts."
Should the word be "multinational" or supranational? --Jagz 05:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Breakaway, non-aligned and independent should be always read in relation to WAGGGS and WOSM. This surely needs a better explanation in the article.
2. There are two differing models how Scouting is organized in the "non-aligned" movements:
   • Some organizations are international like the Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme and the World Federation of Independent Scouts as well as WAGGGS and WOSM: the members are widely independent and must only adhere to a common standard.
   • Others are supranational like the Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe and the Baden-Powell Scouts Association: these two have a program which must be followed by all national sub-organizations (including uniforms, ranks etc.); there is nearly no difference in the way Scouting is conducted - except for the language.

I hope this helps, but I can't include it in the article in the way I'd like to read it. This should be done by a native speaker of English. --jergen 09:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Political and military youth organisations

In the subject section there is a sentence:
"Thus, some of the former Soviet allies and other countries still have their own youth movements that are not considered part of the Scouting movement; whereas some of them totally banned Scouting."
This sentence does not make sense to me. Does this mean that some of the countries banned Scouting and did not replace it with another youth movement? --Jagz 10:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should read the other way round:

Some countries banned Scouting totally, others replaced it by organizations not considered part of the Scouting movement - even if these were named Scouts of ... as in Poland or in Yugoslavia.

Would this be clearer? --jergen 09:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Jagz 18:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the article. Does Vietnam currently have Scouting? --Jagz 21:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Kind of, there is an article for it at Vietnamese Scout Association-Hội Huớng Đạo. Chris 22:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Growth of non-aligned/independent Scouting organizations

Jergen commented that the Scouting controversy and conflict article could discuss the growth of non-aligned/independent Scouting organizations (mainly in Europe and the Americas). I assume that he meant the recent growth of them. I think that topic should be discussed in this article though. --Jagz 23:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

I've attempted to define the terms non-aligned, breakaway, and Scout-like in the article introduction. --Jagz 17:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Pathfinder Scouts Association

Pathfinder Scouts Association is an Association that has only a single group, and as such really isn't notable in its own right. Suggest that we merge it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayalld (talk • contribs) 14:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• support merge as nothing in the stub says what makes it unique or noteworthy, gives membership statistics or history, until it does, this would be a good place for it to germinate. Alternately, and perhaps more appropriately, it should go into Traditional Scouting. Chris 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
• oppose move to it to Traditional Scouting.Rlevse 11:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal: List of non-aligned Scouting organizations

I looked at a preview of a merger with "List of non-aligned Scouting organizations" and it looked kind of awkward to me. --Jagz 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it just looks somehow, off, to me. Perhaps we could put it in table format like List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. Many of the organizations for emerging countries are listed from there. Chris 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That may work I guess. --Jagz 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream Scout Movement"

I realise that this is not something that can really be tackled on Wikipedia- but feel that the use of these terms ought to be noted. I assume that this refers to those organisations that are not members of the club of associations formed by the associations that are part of WoSM? Does that mean, maybe, that supermarkets that are not part of the Walmart Group should be considered non-mainstream supermarkets or break-away? DiverScout (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it refers to both WOSM and WAGGGS (like stated in the lead), but I think we should use a better wording. Instead or "The mainstream Scout movement" I'd write: "Most members of the Scout movement" od "The majority of the SM".

The whole section on "Terminology used in this article" leaves me quite confused. --jergen (talk) 12:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad it's not just me! DiverScout (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

POV terminology, contrived definitions and lack of references

This article has serious problems as it lacks verified substance and, IF it can't be improved, it should be deleted.

The article contents and terminology have always had problems noted in Talk page discussions (above) of January 2007 and December 2013. The problem is that the terminology only has relevance from the point of view (POV) of the WOSM and WAGGGS or their member organizations. That makes the whole article merely POV.

Much of the content about organizations would be better in other articles, mainly one on International Scouting Organizations indicating that they belong to particular international groupings or are not associated with any international body. This would avoid the need for any POV terminology.

Tags have been inserted to encourage verifiable content and references but the tags have been repeatedly reverted without any improvement to the article to justify removal of the tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.222 (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yawn. This article went through a lot of wrestling in 2007 as we were all aware of potential POV concerns and the wording as is was agreed opon between various factions. I'm not going to lose any sleep about some dynamic IP editor who can't be assed to sign in, doesn't know to sign his own comments and doesn't know new comments go to the bottom of talkpages.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the heinous offences of never being bothered to sign etc. I'm not seeking to be a name on Wikipedia and the content of my edits stand by themselves. You have previously copied content of my edits and even continued their line, so you don't disapprove entirely. Your comment, "WE were all aware of potential POV concerns" and the comments of other editors above clearly suggest re-edit has been needed and that constructive consideration of edits might be appropriate.1.129.96.183 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted a rewrite to clarify the perspective nature of the terminology. The organizations labelled as "non-aligned", "non-mainstream" or "breakaway" are not necessarily such or any more so than any organization in the Scout Movement but they are referred to as such by WOSM, WAGGGS and their member organizations. This article shouldn't state something as a fact simply because WOSM or someone says such. The strictly factual position is to clearly state that the terminology is that used by WOSM. I would have preferred that editors more closely associated with the creation of the article or previously responsible for its content had taken-up the task of rewriting it when challenged. References to uses of the terminology by WOSM, WAGGGS and member organizations would complete the task. I suggest that the List of non-aligned Scouting organizations page be merged with this article.1.129.96.183 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)