Talk:List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members/Archive 1

Discrimination against "Infidels" and Bisexual/Gay people:
See Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA. --Mistress Selina Kyle 19:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What is your point by posting this link here? Do you have a suggestion for this article? --jergen 18:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jergen, there is no point to this other than to show your own biases. Rlevse 16:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Role of Scouting at the United Nations
Jergen had a problem with this text.


 * The WOSM is the non-governmental organization (NGO), that represents the Scouting movement at the United Nations.

Discussion of the WOSM role at the United Nations is relevant and appropriate on this page. evrik 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is this quote from a WOSM publication:


 * http://www.scout.org/front/partners/UN_report_e.pdf


 * Since 1947, the year the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) was awarded ECOSOC consultative status, member NSOs and World Scouting itself have been involved in various programmes, initiatives and projects with different bodies within the United Nations System and various Memorandums of Understanding and agreements have been established in order to ensure increased long-term cooperation. With the adoption of the Strategy for Scouting, these relations and partnerships have developed significantly.


 * See notes left on the fact request. The ref you left makes no mention of the WOSM or Scouting.  If you find such a ref saying WOSM represents Scouting at the UN, I'll agree with you, Evrik.  Otherwise, I'll have to agree with Jergen.  If you are interested in Scouting articles, you are welcome to join the project. Rlevse 16:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The search function on the UN site doesn't appear to be working. This website, Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council shows both WOSM and WAGGGS.


 * Also, there is a direct link from the Scouting Page to the UN. It shows the WOSM has signed MOU's with the UN.
 * evrik 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But this is no topic on this List of WOSM members; it may be relevant in World Organization of the Scout Movement, but should be better documented. --jergen 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's appropriate becasue it shows that the WOSM represents Scouting on a world-wide level.evrik 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please remember this article only lists only the member organisations of WOSM. It does not give any information concering the work done in WOSM and the partners of WOSM. You are trying to change this article into a copy of the main article on WOSM by inserting informations on other topics than the WOSM member. --jergen 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed with Jergen it belongs on the article, not on the list of members. Leave it off here. Chris 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd list it there, but I don't want to get into a edit war with Jergen. Jergen went through and reverted all my edits.
 * For the record, I think that in the paragraph where it says, "The World Organization of the Scout Movement recognizes at most one Scouting organization per country. Some countries have several organizations combined as a federation, with different component groups divided on the basis of religions (France, Denmark), ethnic identification (Bosnia, Israel) or language (Canada)." It is appropriate to list the organizations involvement with the U.N.
 * evrik 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * agreed with Jergen it belongs on the article, not on the list of members. Leave it off here. Chris 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, the UN is not a WOSM member and does not belong on a list of such members. Also, WOSM and WAGGGS, contrary to popular belief, do not represent all Scouting organizations. The UN should be mentioned in the WOSM and/or WAGGGS articles, but not a list of their members nor the general Scouting article. Pls documement any such listings and use the ref/note system. Thank you. Rlevse 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a small edit and a small issue. As I said elsewhere. Jergen went through and reveretd my edits to the other pages. While this page may be a listing of WOSM members, lisitng the UN, or Scoutings work with it is an important tool. evrik 18:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Pls see my talk page, everyone. I think we have a consensus agreement.Rlevse 18:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to Merge
Just wanted to note that I tried to find names of Scouting organizations in countries that aren't yet recognized and I found very confusing, contradictory information. Also, I found several different explanations for how Scouting is organized in the British overseas territories. There may be errors in what I did -- feel free to fix them. Tuf-Kat 22:57, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't particularly like this name for two reasons. One, it's kind of an awkward construction, and two, it's inaccurate since a significant part of the list deals with Scouting movements that are not independent members of the WOSM.  I suggest a change to something like List of national Scouting organizations. Tuf-Kat 22:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't use "national" in the title. Too many of the organizations have issues with the "nation" they are in (China vs HK and Macau and by extension, Taiwan.) SchmuckyTheCat 23:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the two should be merged. I like the format of Scouting Round the World.evrik 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note, that this discussion has run dead long ago. --jergen 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, your remark isn't quite clear - do you really want the whole list restyled like Scouting Round the World? This seems impossible to me, the article would have ten or twenty times its actual length. --jergen 15:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree, merge "Scouting around the world" into here and move the individual info into the national articles.Rlevse 16:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rlvese. Making a Scouting Round the World page comprehensive would be way too long for a single article. Tuf-Kat 16:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with all three comments just above. I keep coming across Scoutinbg articles with overlap with others. Let us try to clean them up. --Bduke 20:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Attention tag
With a ref or two, this'd be B-class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) --jergen 07:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Done. --jergen 07:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

rename suggestion
Shouldn't this now be called Table of World Organization of the Scout Movement members, as it contains much more information than a regular list? Chris 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really think so. Many or most of the featured lists would also qualify for a rename under the same principle.  It's still really a list a in table form. Tuf-Kat 02:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tuf-Kat, it's really a list.Rlevse 11:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 09:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

New proposal

 * How about renaming it "List of Scout Movement members" since it contains more than just WOSM members? --Jagz 09:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that wouldn't fit at all; this list shows only the WOSM members and the status of Scouting in non-members as described by WOSM.
 * You are free to start a List of Scouting and Guiding organizations by country including
 * List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members
 * List of World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts members
 * list at Confédération Européenne de Scoutisme
 * list at Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe
 * all members of World Federation of Independent Scouts - unknown number because of unreliable sources, about 50 associations
 * all members of Order of World Scouts
 * all list in Category:Scouting by country
 * I think this describes the scope of your wish. --jergen 10:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I renamed the sections, hope this helps. --jergen 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be quite a job. Here's a list by country. --Jagz 14:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I already knew that site, but it is quite incomplete: It lists only about 100 associations in Germany but there are at least 150; the same with France (12 out of about 80); Argentina (5 out of 33; last count). --jergen 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I already knew that site, but it is quite incomplete: It lists only about 100 associations in Germany but there are at least 150; the same with France (12 out of about 80); Argentina (5 out of 33; last count). --jergen 16:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Scouts
The article introduction says there are 38 million Scouts whereas http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures says 28 million. Does this mean there are 10 million outside of WOSM? --Jagz 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WAGGGS gives 10 million Guides and Scouts, non-aligned Scouting is relative small: UIGSE 55,000 members, WFIS 30,000 members - but large parts of non-aligned Scouting in Germany and France aren't members of these. I estimate the total of non-aligned Scouting world-wide is about 300,000 to 500,000 members. --jergen 07:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Number of Boy Scouts of America members
The number of Scouts for the United States (Boy Scouts of America) on the List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members is 6,239,435; but the number of Boy Scouts of America members is 2,938,698 youth and plus 1,146,130 adults. Can someone explain this for me? Thank you very much. Motthoangwehuong 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Pls see my talk page. --jergen 18:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo
Kosovo is not in any part of this list. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So what? As far as I know, WOSM does not consider Kosovo an indipedent state. There are also no reliable informations on Scouting in Kosovo. --jergen (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Likely it won't be a member for a very long time. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"Potential members"
I feel it would make more sense if we reduce the list of "potential members" by saying that the ten countries listed above as "served by other countries organizations" are considered "potential member". The way we have it now is repetitive and it puts countries together with vastly different status - the Marshal Islands is served by the US, but in Turkmenistan there doesn't appear to be a Scouting movement at all. Putting them in the same category doesn't make any sense.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That is how WOSM classifies them. We could move this into the main table and add a column for membership status. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would make more navigational sense to incorporate "Non-sovereign territories with independent WOSM member organizations" into the main table, as they are full members, then add a column "countries served by a another WOSM member". That would present the information in a more concise and less repetitive manner.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Membership Report 2011
Supporting Growth in Changing Times - Membership Report 2011 ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 16:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The report covers only the European Scout Region. --jergen (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Scouting World Map


I realize their is room for criticism on the map, but could you have informed me on my talk page before unilaterally deleting it? It did take alot of time and, as you say, hard work, completing it. If the nomenclature is the main problem I can work that out editing the description. You obviously know more about this as an Eagle Scout, I only got to Webalo. I was mainly concerned with showing which countries had "regular" organizations in good standing with the WOSM and which countries, for what ever reason, were served by other countries' scout organizations, only had unofficial Scout groups or had no scouting at all.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

All right, what needs to be done with map? I know that the page distinguishes between "potential members", "countries with no Scouting", and "Other". Looking closer at the list and criteria, I realized that the "potential members" list was set up in 2008, and I couldn't really find any sources for it; likewise, I couldn't find much a difference between "countries with no Scouting" and "Other". I figured it would be best to create two classes for countries that did not have any WOSM representation - those with Scouting groups that are not members of WOSM - Central African Republic, Peoples Republic of China, Iraq, Afghanistan - and those where no Scout organizations are reported to exist - North Korea, Laos, Cuba, Burma. There was some difficulty in determining if there were scout groups in some of these areas - the evidence for Western Sahara and Somaliland is particularly sketchy - but I determined if there was RS for scouting of some kind in the areas they would be included in the first, lime green, cat.

As for the areas served by other countries Scout organizations, I concede that with all those little dots in the Caribbean, Oceania and Indian Ocean, it is difficult to determine if one dot is supposed to represent, for instance Reunion or Comoros, Norfolk Island or New Caledonia etc. Hopefully you can determine which dot represents what territory and we can establish the proper color code.

One territory I admittedly forgot was East Timor, so it will have to be colored in the correct color, which I think should be lime green.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed this after reverting your addition of the map back into the article. The map is misleading. Countries join WOSM when there are several Scout organisation by them forming a committee which affiliates, or when there is a single organisation, that organisation affiliates. There is really no essential difference. In both situations there can be organisations that do not affiliate with WOSM, but might affiliate, for example, to the World Federation of Independent Scouts. So why do you distinguish the USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France and Denmark, for example, from all the ones you colour red. Also for France you say that the "Scouts et Guides de France" are the affiliating organisation. They are not. They joint several other organisations in forming Scoutisme Français, a committee that affiliates. Sorry, but the map is just wrong, but I encourage you to get it right and then it can be in the article. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand - red was merely supposed to symbolize that the countries has one or more regularly affiliated organizations. That could be a single group like the Boy Scouts of America, a federation of groups like in Israel, or two groups like in Canada. Like you say, there is no essential difference. USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand, France and Denmark all serve their own countries as well as other states and or non-sovereign areas under their own governments. Ergo Denmark also serves Greenland and Faroe Islands, Australia serves Nauru, US serves Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, the UK serves a bunch of them. Anytime one group served more than one jurisdiction, I thought that it justified indicating that on the map. For "normal" jurisdictions that only served one country I just used red.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I agree that the discussion should be here, but you might care to provide a link at Talk:List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. Second, let us have a link here to the map itself at File:WOSMMembers.png so we know what we are talking about. OK, I did misunderstand you, but the map is still utterly confusing. The text on the image page says "Other areas are served by other National societies", but this focuses on the other areas, which are small and most are difficult to see on the map. The focus of the map shows yellow for the USA, blue for UK, green for France, purple for Australia, and orange for New Zealand. This is distinguishing them from all the countries in red in a quite inappropriate way. They are not really different. I strongly disagree that serving more than one jurisdiction justifies indicating them in different colours on the map. It is as I said utterly confusing. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Alright, should we have one color to distinguish areas served by another countries organization? But should there be a way to distinguish which countries scout organization serves the area? Commonsense would tell the reader that Greenland isn't served by Australia and Gibraltar isn't served by the US, but I think there should be some way to distinguish them. Perhaps different shades of a base color?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that a world map is the place to give information that one territory is served by another. The problem is that places like Gibraltar, Norfolk Island, New Caledonia, etc are too small to really show on the map. The problem with Greenland is that Denmark hardly shows. I suggest you just need three colours; one for countries covered by WOSM, whether directly or indirectly, one for countries that are not covered by WOSM, but may be covered soon as Scouting is known to exist, and finally, one colour for countries where Scouting does not exist. That has a simple visual message which is readily seen. Incidentally Norfolk Island is fully part of the Commonwealth of Australia but I do not think there are currently any Scouts on the Island. I am now going to leave this and hope that, now the discussion has been moved here, others will contribute. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)



Alright, I have listened to the criticisms and have attempted a compromise. Now only four categories, as outlined above. One has to make make some decisions in some areas - ergo the Isle of Man and Jersey and Guernsey are red because they appear to be served the as "regular" parts of the Scout Association (UK), in the same way that Alaska, DC and Hawaii are "normal" parts of the Boy Scouts of America, but the more "external" territories such as Gibraltar, Bermuda, St. Helena etc. are blue, as are Guam, the Northern Marianas, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands for the US. Western Sahara is, as always, an anomaly, as the Moroccan and Spanish Scout organizations have a presence there, but I colored it lime green to indicate that the only "national" Saharoui (I think that's the correct demonym) is current unrecognized by the WOSM. I've left Antarctica grey rather than blue. I know there is a single Scout troop stationed there from Argentina, but that didn't seem enough to color in the whole continent in the name of one Scouting group. (In fact, I don't know if the WOSM has said anything about the jurisdiction over Antarctica, so I guess other countries are free to establish troops there if they want.) I have also colored in East Timor as lime green to indicate the fact that there is a Scout group there that is not, yet, recognized by the WOSM. Whatadya think?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Several issue:
 * The colours are terribly - and the map is nearly unreadable for people suffering from Red–green color blindness.
 * The map does not use independent sources, ie it uses Wikipedie as main source. That should be avoided.
 * The map does not distinguish between those countries where Scouting simply does not exist and those where Scouting is banned.
 * The choice of blue for countries/territorie served by another country gives those optical to much weight.
 * Please don't include the map in the article until a consensus is reached. --jergen (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No one had edited this subsection for over a week, so I thought consensus the issue was concluded.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed your 19 July post above. I accept your compromise of only 4 colours, but I agree with Jergen. Does WOSM itself produce a map? The colour blindness issue is important, so you need to change the 4 colours after seeking expert advice. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Membership
--  Gadget850talk 17:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102192002/https://www.scout.org/satw/index.shtml to http://www.scout.org/satw/index.shtml

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

False member foundation dates
Many of the stated foundation dates of WOSM members organizations are clearly incorrect and inconsistent with dates in the relevant articles on the member organizations. An extensive edit was made correcting many dates. Some dates were missing and some remained questionable and required further editing and referencing. Is this not better than reverting to so many clearly false dates? What justification can there be for an editor to revert to so many clearly false dates?1.144.96.136 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The dates are as published in Scouting 'Round the World by WOSM. You've given no proof of these "clearly false dates". What justification can there be for an anonymous IP editor to remove wholesale part of an article than to provide proof of his/her/its claim?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. 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/20100402025708/http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/national_scout_organisations/some_statistics to http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/national_scout_organisations/some_statistics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605110504/http://www.scout.org/information_events/news/south_sudan to http://www.scout.org/information_events/news/south_sudan
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312052328/http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/scouting_elsewhere to http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/scouting_elsewhere

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members. 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/20140308225554/http://www.scout.org/sites/default/files/library_files/Current%20Census%20%2831%20Dec%202012%29.pdf to http://scout.org/sites/default/files/library_files/Current%20Census%20%2831%20Dec%202012%29.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan vs. ROC
A driveby editor, TaerkastUA, has changed "Republic of China" to "Taiwan (ROC)" in the article, stating "Rvt it needn't be precise. It's simpler and concise, more accurately reflecting the movements foundation, if disagree further, lets take it to the talk page before more reversions.". Whatever that means. It's neither simpler nor more concise, and does not in fact "more accurately reflect... the movements foundation", as the organization was founded at the time the Republic of China meant the whole country, which corresponds to the time of WOSM's founding. So no. It's not the term the NSO uses, and since the country uses different naming when in international settings, vide Chinese Taipei at the 2016 Summer Olympics, the original naming should stand and be left to regular members of the Scouting WikiProject to maintain or change.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's quite lovely to be called a driveby editor. I don't suppose you've read WP:NPA or WP:AGF lately? -- Tærkast (Discuss) 18:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, let's see, an editor not involved with the Scouting WikiProject, who reverts _before_ he uses the talkpage, and the most recent only with "One more rever and we'll both be in violation of WP:3RR. You don't change it back then add it to the talk page." (which in fact you did, and I didn't, if you bothered to check the timeline) but no justification for doing so... Yeah, I suppose "driveby editor" is much nicer than "outright liar" or "edit warrior".--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you appear to indicate this is your page, I'll step aside. (Thank you for pointing out that I did revert after you did, specifically because it the rules say not to restore it to your preferred version then to discuss See also "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. " WP:BOLD. Furthermore, I won't dignify your name calling with a response, especially since there is no indication of compromise on your part. Good day.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all, constructive contributions are most welcome here. Cosmetic ones are not. Apology accepted. You've still got some egg on your face from your lazy incorrect accusation of me reverting before I took it to the talkpage.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And more personal attacks. By the way, the "thank you" was not an apology however you wish to read it as such, but that seems moot given your continuing rude attitude. Not only do you appear to be incapable of assuming good faith, your possessive behaviour over the article suggests a hostile attitude, which is further demonstrated by your comments here. I will not collaborate with someone whose attitude is of such a hostile manner that as to allow no compromises and insistence that their version is the right way. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 11:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Imagine my relief. I thought you were going to belabor your unwelcome, insistent edit here forever. You've been given justification why your edit won't stand. There's no "collaboration" when your edit is unnecessary and changes the intent of use. Walk away already.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)