Talk:Non-aligned Scouting and Scout-like organisations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scouting organizations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Growth of non-aligned/independent Scouting organizations 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger proposal:  Pathfinder Scouts Association 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That may work I guess. --Jagz 23:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal:  List of non-aligned Scouting organizations  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV terminology, contrived definitions and lack of references