Talk:Scouting Ireland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge The National Scout Show

Merge, other article too short and not likely to grow, merge and turn it into a redirect. Rlevse 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

merge, agree. Chris 23:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

13/14th Dublin

13th Dublin is a substantial article in its own right and charts its development as a Scout Group rather than the development of Scouting in general. The same cannot be said for 14th Dublin. I suggest that 14th Dublin be merged into 13th Dublin--Stevecull 14:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would Agree with that idea. The 13th Dublin is a pretty big article, and i don't think it belongs in the Scouting Ireland Article. Merge the 13th and 14th. --Ablaze (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggest merging 13th and 14th into an article with a different name, and have a link in Scouting Ireland back to that article and vice versa. Rlevse 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Note creation of Scouting in Rathfarnham article to try to solve this dispute as User:Jorgenpfhartogs reverted my previous effort to merge the two articles Stevecull 15:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The 14th and 13th units are two complete separate units. They are both based in Rathfarnham and the 14th was established by leaders of the 13th but since then they have very different histories. There are 4 more units in Rathfarnham so an article about Scouting in Rathfarnham should not include the history of the 13th and the 14th but should be a more general artical. Merging 14th Dublin and 13th Dublin would insinuate they are thesame unit, which they clearly are not. I'm an active leader in the 13th Dublin unit and therefore do not know anything of the history of the 14th Dublin since it was established. I also can't tell you more about the other 3 units, but I've requested info from them as to write an article about Scouting in Rathfarnham. Jorgenpfhartogs 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the articles 13th Dublin, 14th Dublin and Scouting in Rathfarnham in a way that (I hope) all of us can live with.Jorgenpfhartogs 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the page about Scouting in Rathfarnham a bit since the history of the 13th Dublin is not the sole history of Scouting in that area. I'm looking for more info on the other troops. By my knowledge there were/are 6 troops: 13th Dublin, 14th Dublin, 31st Dublin, 68th Dublin, Rathfarnham Girl Guides and a troop in Ballyboden that no longer exists. I've contacted the leaders I know of all troops in the area (Mountpellier Scout County and Three Rock Scout County) to enlighten me with any info they might posses. I beg all of you to leave the 13th Dublin and 14th Dublin articles intact.I will receive more info about the 14th soon so I'll be able to continuee their history from the moment they became a separate unit.I also started articles on the Scout Provinces in Ireland. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Jorgenpfhartogs

I've rewritten the articles 13th Dublin, 14th Dublin and Scouting in Rathfarnham in a way that (I hope) all of us can live with.Jorgenpfhartogs 06:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I'd rate this a weak B-class right now. What it needs to be a solid B-class is a beefed up "Sections and RAP" section; with a summary of each program with a link (now there's only one to Cubs) to a main article.Rlevse 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. Section specific articles are short but expanding. All help with Scouting Ireland Beaver Scouts and Scouting Ireland Scouts welcome. Stevecull 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Section Pages

I'm wondering if the names of the Sections: Scouting Ireland Beaver Scouts, Scouting Ireland Scouts, Scouting Ireland Venture Scouts should be renamed. The whole Scouting Ireland at the start of it takes from the actual name of the article. Maybe Beaver Scouts (Ireland), Scouts (Ireland) and Venture Scouts (Ireland) would be better? What do ya think? --Ablaze (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In respect to the other associations for Scouting in Ireland, although they will never have the number of members Scouting Ireland has, I think we should maintain [Scouting Ireland Beaver Scouts]], etc. Maybe a member of the Scouting Association Northern Ireland, the Baden Powell scouts, the Catholic Girl Guides or any other association can write something about their sections? I'll try to contact them to gather more info. Jorgenpfhartogs 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the Scouting Association Northern Ireland could have Scouts (Northern Ireland) etc.. and the IGG and CGI dont have Beaver, Scout and Venture Sections. I just thought that Scouting Ireland Scouts was too much considering scouts is mentioned twice in the title of the article --Ablaze (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be with Jorgenpfhartogs here I think, if we run into problem we can reassess though. Even though they dont have articles yet, best to be politically correct Stevecull 21:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

With you all the way there. As with so many things in Ireland it is better to be OVERcautious than to offend other movements in Scouting. Organisatiosn like Na Fianna Eireann do not recognise the Scouting Association Northern Ireland for obvious reasons and the attitude of Scouting Association Northern Ireland towards the former CSI is still very cold. Whereas SAI was concentrated in the Republic, CSI was the Catholic movement in the North where Scouting Association Northern Ireland was the protestant. Of course, this is putting it very black and white but we should watch for offending people. Jorgenpfhartogs 03:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rap process

I have reverted the inclusion of "The RAP process is causing a lot of trouble in Scouting Ireland. It's basically destroying the Patrol System and watering down Scouting.". I have no idea what the RAP process is. If someone can expand the initials, maybe it has a place in the article. Until then, it does not. --Bduke 21:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Its just a new controversial system for the new programme. It is yet to be put in place and only just started the pilot phase. Basically people don't like any idea of change to what they are used to, thru going around saying it doesn't work before they even see it in action! --Ablaze (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

World War II

When war came again in 1939, Scouts carried on under the direction of their patrol leaders. They undertook many national service tasks: messengers, fire watchers, stretcher bearers, salvage collectors and so on. Their success was directly attributed to their good organization and training.

The Republic of Ireland was neutral in WWII, so I find this very confusing. Perhaps it refers to scouting in the North?--Malcohol 10:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference is correct. CBSI First Aid Section in Dublin formed the Headquarters Division of the new Irish Red Cross. Local Troops aided the Air Raid Precautions in their areas and all were involved in salvage, particularly of paper. 977mountains 15:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Centenary

Perhaps a section about the Centenary year with Museum Exhibition, Jamboree, People of the Year award etc etc..? Bogger (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The lede

The lede currently reads "Scouting Ireland is the national scouting association of Ireland, which is ambiguous as it is not clear, without clicking, whether it is the national scouting association of the Republic, or of Ireland as a whole. There is no reason - other than the irrational desire to avoid using the term - that this sentence should not be upfront and just say it is the national scouting association of the Republic of Ireland. This is one example where the ambiguity cannot be disputed, given the overlap in the organisation's roles - a national association for the Republic, but has branches across all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll compromise, but just out of good faith to the process that is being done to sort out the Ireland naming issue. I still think its fine with its current wording but I'll let you have what you want so we can move on from this.MITH 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why have you not used a capital R in Republic? Mooretwin (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that we're all happy, lets leave the lead of this article alone shall we?MITH 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was happy, until you removed "national" - why do you wish to remove it? Mooretwin (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

May I step in and suggest:

"Scouting Ireland is the World Organization of the Scout Movement recognised Scouting association in the Republic of Ireland."

This is in line with similar articles, and obliquely acknowledges that there are other Scouting associations, notably the BPSA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Mooretwin (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As a total lay person to this subject (sorry! followed this from the Ireland Naming thingy) -- I don't quite follow the nature of the partnership between Scouting Ireland and the Scout Association in Northern Ireland as described in the lede. When the lede says this partnership "enable[s] the association to cover the entire island of Ireland" does that mean that members of Scouting Ireland in Northern Ireland are actually members of the NI Scout Association and they are simply connected to Scouting Ireland through the partnership of these two associations, or are some people in NI directly members of Scouting Ireland? Later, the article does give a number of members for Scouting Ireland which includes NI, so I get the impression it's more the later (ie, direct membership in NI of SI?), but is that accurate? I follow the issues of one organization recognized by the world org. per independent country, but I don't quite get what that means in practical terms about the existence of Scouting Ireland in NI: The "enable" part of the lede--does that mean SI needed the Scout Association in NI's permission to have members from NI? Or??... Nuclare (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason Scouting Ireland has units in Northern Ireland is because the Catholic Scouts of Ireland (which was all-Ireland) disbanded and its units joined Scouting Ireland. Therefore it is direct membership of SI by some people in NI. Mooretwin (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But then the (current as of typing this) first sentence doesn't seem the best possible opening: "Scouting Ireland is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association in the Republic of Ireland, although it also operates alongside the Scout Association in Northern Ireland." Why even mention the SA in the first sentence, if that's not the organization SI people in NI are members of? It makes it sound like the membership in NI of SI is tied up with the SA. Nuclare (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess there's really no need to mention the SA in NI. It would be sufficient to mention that SI has units in NI as well as the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

And TFZ,k's version doesn't sound any better as it makes it sound like the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different places. Nuclare (talk) 10:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've restored the agreed version, but maybe it should be altered to remove reference to the SA as there is no citation to explain what the "partnership" is. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If the organisation is based in Ireland, then why is there any need to mention Northern Ireland in the lede paragraph? The organisation is affiliated to the World Scouting Movement, and that's what matters. Mention of connections with Northern Ireland could be down the body of the article. Anything to get the 'Republic of Ireland' into the name, which of course is not the name of Ireland. Tfz 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand that Scouting Ireland is the national scouting association of ROI, but it also happens to have units in NI. It's recognised by the World Scouting Movement as such: not as an all-Ireland scouting association. It has never been an all-Ireland scouting association. The Scout Association is the national scouting association for NI (as part of the UK). The current text now reflects this. Mooretwin (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the agreed version, following some overnight disruption. Mooretwin (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I had to read a bit to find that this is covered in Scouting in Northern Ireland. This could use a bit of expansion here. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no right to preempt Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration, as it has not reached a conclusion as yet. You also changed a good number of other articles last evening, pleas do not, to use your words, disrupt. Tfz 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, then I am confused. Thanks for the link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It was directed at me. Tfz has no right to overturn consensus on this article because of an irrational dislike of the perfectly-valid term Republic of Ireland. What we want here is to provide an article for readers that is clear and does not raise more questions than it answers. Tfz's ideological objections to the term Republic of Ireland should not be our primary consideration here. Mooretwin (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There isn't consensus for anything. How could there be considering the discussion is only two days old? I am not going to get into a debate of what should be there, but Mooretwin your text does not have consensus, otherwise other editors would be defending your POV on this matter.MITH 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus of three editors - including yourself - in favour of an agreed version. Tfz is nonetheless reverting that text. Without consensus, we are left with an edit war. Mooretwin (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

All I know is the comment about SA's official jurisdiction should go. SA isn't a govt with lawmaking/enforcing powers! 'Official' and especially 'jurisdiction' are just poor wording. Unless something that isn't misleading can be said about SA in the lede, all mention of it should be removed. Nuclare (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Scouting is organised along national lines: the Scout Association is the recognised association for the UK and organises in NI accordingly. I see nothing wrong with the words "official" and "jurisdiction" in this context. Nonetheless, I'll remove them as the stuff on NI isn't really that relevant to this article anyway. Mooretwin (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction is about law. It and 'offial' imply something that doesn't exist for any scouting association anywhere. Being recognized by a world scout organization doesn't give a group anything but recognition by a world scout organization. Thank you for removing it. Nuclare (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. An analogy might be sport - say football. ROI is in the jurisdiction of the FAI and NI is in the jurisdiction of the IFA. Nothing wrong with the word "jurisdiction" there, is there? Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction isn't the word I'd use. In some limited, informal sense, if worded properly, 'jurisdiction' might work for some sport/leisure contexts, but the particular wording in this context was OTT and read like a great overstatement of any scouting association's power. Nuclare (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the ROI issue in the lead. I have no problem with it being there as long as other editors also involved with this page also agree. If some editors aren't happy with it then I think the stable text has to remain.MITH 11:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring and respect the consensus to which you have already assented. Mooretwin (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. I have requested page protection so that an agreement can be made here. Clearly if there was consensus an edit war would be taking place. Discussion is needed.MITH 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider consensus and unanimity to be the same thing? You have agreed to the change, yet continue to revert it. That is why there has been an edit war. Mooretwin (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2009

(UTC)

I agreed to it on condition that other editors felt the same way. However other editors have reverted the initial change to ROI and said they do not agree with the change here on the talk page. Therefore no consensus exists, so more discussion needs to take place before the text is changed.MITH 12:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

One editor does not agree (Tfz) - all others are agreed. So I ask again: do you consider consensus and unanimity to be the same thing. Does one editor have a veto on the text of an article? Mooretwin (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see other editors mentioning the ROI issue. You are pro ROI, Tfz is pro use of Ireland and I can see the benefits of both in this article. No one else specifically mentions its use on the talk page. There isn't a consensus either way.MITH 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion. Gadget850 actually proposed wording that includes Republic of Ireland and Nuclare said that TFZ,k's version makes it sound like the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland are two different places. If you can see the benefits of the majority-agreed version, why edit-war, if not to be disruptive? Mooretwin (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadget was concerned with something else he/she used ROI as it was in the text at the time. It is not the majority agreed version, (its only really you talking about it) and as it is because I see the benefits of both sides, I will wait until a consensus is agreed before going either way.MITH 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadget's concerns were with clarity and his/her suggested text included ROI. You've no basis for saying that he/she only said ROI because it was in the text at the time. And I note your failure to acknowledge Nuclare's comments. You are choosing to prevent a consensus edit for no good reason. Mooretwin (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadget's concerns were about other associations not whether ROI or Ireland were used. The text has changed since Nuclare's comments and he/she has ceased in any discussion here.MITH 14:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Gadget proposed text that included ROI, knowing that there had been a dispute about it. You have no basis for claiming that he/she did not accept the change to ROI. The changes made since Nuclare's intervention are not relevant to his/her point about "Ireland" being unclear. You are behaving in a disruptive manner in order to stymie a change that I made. Your contributions have provided no constructive input. Mooretwin (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack me. What editors have said on this talk page is there for all to see.MITH 14:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attack you. You are right that what editors have said is there for all to see. Mooretwin (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that Mooretwin's disruptive behaviour has been reverted we can go back to discussing the issue. Can editors who have given notes so far please return to this talk page so that consensus can be reached? So far there is none and we could really do with discussing if this is to move forward.MITH 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kindly stop putting threatening messages on my talk page. A consensus here was achieved. You decided to renege on your consent, but the consensus had already been achieved. It is your behaviour that is disruptive, as you are actively working against both common sense and consensus. You haven't even explained why you object to the text stating that the organisation is the WOSM recognised ROI one. Mooretwin (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

See below, read WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS.MITH 22:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASSING. Mooretwin (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? You really are attacking me now, I was answering your questions while you just seem intent on putting me down calling me disingenuous etc.MITH 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You canvassed tfz to get him to return to the article and revert the edit. I'm not attacking you. Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Bduke who helped out a previous edit war, to see if he can come back and help again. Mooretwin (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The history of this article is interesting. It originally wrongly stated that Scouting Ireland was the national scouting movemement for all Ireland, and explicitly stated "both Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland". So even at that stage there no problem had arisen with the term Republic of Ireland. I corrected this in January 2009 and other editors reverted, under the wrong assumption that it was, in fact the scouting association for all Ireland. This edit war was resolved with the intervention of editors with reliable sources. Unfortunately this edit by an anon on 24 February went against consensus, and so I reverted when it came to my attention on 20 March. Unfortunately, User:MusicintheHouse reverted the consensus text immediately, and this is the origin of the current edit war. Mooretwin (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus text? There is no consensus text that is the point. You can't show me something: I suggested this and User X suggested this slight change. Editor Y agreed etc. There is no consensus. Consensus is not about numbers (not that ROI has majority approval anyway), it is about editors agreeing on points made. The Scouting Ireland (and the rest of the world) use one way, with no obvious reason to do anything else give.MITH 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, consensus text. There was an edit war. It was resolved. The resolution meant the text had consensus. An anon reverted it, I restored it, and then you weighed in, causing the edit war that continues now. Mooretwin (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? No anon ip has edited the page in weeks. No text was stable for more than a few hours. It was revert after revert. Where on earth are you getting the concept of consensus from that?MITH 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read my history of the article. An anon IP reversed the consensus on 24 February, which is 15 weeks ago. I restored it and you started an edit war on 20 March. The same edit war continues to this day. Just because I didn't engage in the edit war for several weeks doesn't mean that the same conflict is not continuing now. I'm getting "the concept of consensus" from the consensus that was achieved in January. You might like to read the discussion above on this talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring over Ireland/Republic of Ireland

I've restored the article to the last version by User:Gadget850. My rationale for doing so is because he/she appears to be the last person to have edited the who has an actual interest in the article itself (and is not just hung up on what to call the Irish state).

Can MusicInTheHouse, Tfz and Mooretwin please take their discussion either to this talk page (if it is this article that they are concerned about) - or keep it on WP:IECOLL (if it is only the name of the Irish state that is your concern).

Either way, please stop edit warring. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Adds: acutally I've just noticed the above and that you have. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The text was stable while we were discussing things. Please stop trying to stir things up. Gadget has made a proposal. Please put forward your opinions there.MITH 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Have faith, brother. I've explained already that it was my bad. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)In fairness, he was trying to calm things down and hadn't noticed the proposal above. I hope editors don't miss the proposal with this section now at the bottom... --HighKing (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WOSM

The edit war on this article has to stop. I have fully protected the article and removed all reference to WOSM until such a time that the affiliation with WOSM is fully clarified by reference to reliable sources. Since WOSM recognises national associations, the bottom line has to be that Scouting Ireland is the WOSM approved association in the Republic and the Scout Association is the WOSM approved association in the UK, including Northern Ireland. If this is incorrect, we need a source and with that reference the article can be edited to add back reference to WOSM and then be unprotected. Please find such a source. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bduke. Mooretwin (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Good call Bduke. This is very unscoutlike behavior by those involved. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I really would have hoped that at least in Scouting, and in an environment where the religious partition of Scouting in Ireland has ended, we could avoid such point of view pushing.

Regardless of the view that one takes as to whether Northern Ireland should be a part of the Republic of Ireland, or part of the United Kingdom, the reality is that the legal position recognised by the entire world (including the Republic of Ireland, after it amended its constitution) is that NI is currently a part of the UK. That doesn't seek to decry any aspiration that the ROI may have to change this, merely to recognise the facts as they are.

Given WOSM rules on one association per country, the situation of Scouting Ireland (and CBSI before it) operating in Northern Ireland has often been cited as a situation that doesn't fit within the rules.

The actual explanation, from the viewpoint of compliance with WOSM rules is that whilst there may be only a single association per country, associations may establish units outside their own country, to allow there overseas citizens to remain a member of the "home" association.

So, the UK SA has BSWE and BGA, BSA has its Transatlantic Council, all admitting citizens who live abroad.

Scouting Ireland operates units in Northern Ireland admitting citizens of the Republic of Ireland, just as BSA operates units in the UK admitting US citizens.

This can work, because the ROI grants citizenship to all those from NI who want it.

It needs sourcing, but these are the facts of the case. Mayalld (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that - I agree with your analysis. (On a point of information, unfortunately, the religious partition has NOT ended. The Catholic Scouts of Ireland in NI chose to affiliate with the ROI Scouts rather than the NI Scouts, therefore there is still partition in NI.) Mooretwin (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say that I think the WOSM reference should be restored, but clarified that it relates only to the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please reinsert the simple fact of WOSM membership (or alternatively remove all mentions of WOSM, including the categories)? The fact of WOSM membership was not contested, the edit-war was about the scope of the membership.

Unfortunately, at least one of the edit-warriors did not read the history section of the article; I'll cite:

In 1965, CBSI joined with the Scout Association of Ireland to form the Federation of Irish Scout Associations, FISA. Through FISA, Irish Scouts were able to play a full part in international Scouting. Prior to this, because the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) traditionally recognises only one Scouting body in each country, only SAI had been recognised by WOSM (since 1949). Similarly, the Northern Irish Scout Council (NISC) only had observer status in the Federation, as CBSI's membership extended across the 32 counties on the island of Ireland and WOSM usually only recognises associations that observe political frontiers.

Isn't that clear enough? WOSM membership was first granted for SAI, which did never run groups in NI. This membership was transferred to FISA, with the explicit non-admission of the CBSI units in NI. It was transferred again to SI, again only covering the Republic of Ireland (see WOSM Circular N° 9 / May 2004). --jergen (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a no-brainer, really. Mooretwin (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I do think that is the situation but your source merely says "The WSC welcomed the new that the two constituent associations of Scouting Ireland had merged into a single Member Organization". It does not say it covers only the Republic. We need a good source, then we can clear up this article and remove the protection. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The circular proves that SI is the successor of the FISA in WOSM membership. FISA only covered the ROI. --jergen (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is the constitution of the WOSM:

Article 5(1) - Membership in the World Organization is open to all National Scout Organizations which fulfil the requirements for membership. Authority to confer such membership is vested in the World Scout Conference.

Article 5(2) - Only one National Scout Organization from any one country can be recognized for membership in the World Organization. A National Scout Organization may consist of more than one Scout Association participating in a Federation based on the common Scout purpose. It is the responsibility of each Federation to ensure that all its constituent Associations meet the requirements of this Constitution.

The Appendix states, in relation to "accredited national scout organizations", that (a) In exercising its responsibility under Article VI of the Constitution of the World Organization, the World Scout Committee shall additionally satisfy itself that the National Scout Organization is in a politically independent country and that, by the quality of its leadership, the organization of its leader training, the size of its membership and its resources, it is self-sufficient and capable of providing adequate services to its members and assuming all duties and responsibilities of a Member Organization. These conditions will ordinarily require a membership of the order of 1,000 or more.

Mooretwin (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now unprotected the article. It is clear from the above what has to be done. I have edited the lead to add reference to WOSM. Feel free to edit that as long as it is in the spirit of the discussion above. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention in this. Mooretwin (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add to the misguided interpretation and reasoning based on quotes from the constitution. Only one National Scout Organization from any one country can be recognized for membership in the World Organization and that the National Scout Organization is in a politically independent country is still being correctly and properly observed. Only one National Scout Organization from Ireland (state) is recognized (probably one of the underlying reasons why two associations merged), and Scouting Ireland is in a politically independent country (Ireland). There is nothing in the constitution to say that membership is restricted to the citizens of a politically independent country, which is the mistaken and incorrect interpretation being given here. In fact, there are many example of scouting organizations from one country running across boundaries, and even running scouting organizations in different countries. The Scout Association for the UK, for example, runs scouting in Antigua and Barbuda and even Vanuatu. Denmark runs the Faroe Islands and Greenland. There's tons of other examples. --HighKing (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the confusion: WOSM recognizes only one NSO per country, where the NSO can be an individual organization or a federation of organizations. Scouting Ireland is currently the WOSM recognized NSO if the country of Ireland; before SI, the Federation of Irish Scout Associations— a federation of Scouting Ireland (CSI) and Scouting Ireland S.A.I. —was the WOSM recognized NSO. Operating units in other countries is not uncommon, but that does not mean that WOSM extends recognition as the NSO of that country. For example: I was the Scoutmaster of a BSA troop in Germany, but WOSM does not recognize the Boy Scouts of America as the NSO of Germany. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring mostly to the various interpretations of above, who were saying that Given WOSM rules on one association per country, the situation of Scouting Ireland (and CBSI before it) operating in Northern Ireland has often been cited as a situation that doesn't fit within the rules. --HighKing (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where it was an exception. WOSM recognizes Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände in Germany, which is a federation of organizations; In France, Scoutisme Français is a federation of organizations recognized by both WOSM and WAGGS. The only "exception" I am aware of is Association des Scouts du Canada, which is not part of Scouts Canada, but gets its WOSM recognition through an affiliation with Scouts Canada. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing with each other, and that the interpretation of the other posters was incorrect. Thanks. --HighKing (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Official Source

Does Scout Ireland have a website describing their organization? That should be the preferred reference point for any article. --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Their website says "Scouting Ireland is the National Scout Association for Ireland and a member of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement. "

In this statement it is clear they are not referring to the island as a whole as they also say " Scouting Ireland works in partnership with the Scout Association Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom Scout Association.", so they acknowledge they run it only for the sovereign state and that the UK SA has control over NI.MITH 22:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. So the text of the article should refer to Republic of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No the name of the sovereign state it covers is called Ireland. It's what they use in their website. After seeing that I'm fully decided that we should follow what the actual website says. Otherwise we're just looking for issues which don't exist in the real world.MITH 22:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't be disingenuous. You are aware that "Ireland" is ambiguous. The fact that you had to go hunting to find out whether this organisation was all-Ireland or ROI proves that the current text is ambiguous. Mooretwin (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I just raised the point as I knew you would try to argue it otherwise.MITH 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So how would the reader know whether Ireland referred to ROI or all of Ireland? Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that scouting organisations are organised by country rather than geographic areas, the link, the infobox and the fact that no text suggests it has control over the whole island makes it clear it is referring to the sovereign state known as Ireland.MITH 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The infobox says "Ireland" and how would readers know that "scouting organisations are organised by country rather than geographic areas"? Indeed, until I corrected the text in January, editors were under the impression that it was all-Ireland. Clearly, then, there is potential confusion. Do you not agree that it would be much clearer if we just said Republic of Ireland? Mooretwin (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I was undecided until recently but now that I see the organisation never use the term ROI in describing the remit of the area they control I don't see why anyone should change that. A reliable source ranks higher than original research and POV.MITH 23:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this issue a matter of Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland? Are there any other issues being addressed in all of this? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently its about whether to use the correct name of the country used worldwide by the organisation themselves or whether we as editors think the text misleads the reader into thinking it has control over the whole island.MITH 23:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The pertinent question at last. The evidence suggests that it's nothing to do with the article itself. That said, Mooretwin has a point and *perhaps* his argument is being coloured by what may be perceived as an attempt (have there been others I wonder?) to insert "Republic of Ireland" into articles that may not necessarily need them (or INMO at least not in the lede). I would suggest that the lede uses the primary source of the official website of the organization, and that somewhere else in the text, if disambiguation is required for clarification, then that is the proper place to put it. Equally I would urge editors to wait until the taskforce is finished it's deliberations before taking upon themselves to .....correct.... articles. --HighKing (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would you suggest that the lede refers to Ireland? Surely the lede is the most important part of the article to ensure clarity? Mooretwin (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The lede is the most important part, and that is why we shouldn't deviate from primary sources without good reason. I've just taken a perusal of your recent edit history, and I think it would be fair to say that you appear to be devoting an inordinate amount of time on similar topics - all with the intent of trying to introduce the text "Republic of Ireland" into articles. I suggest that if you don't stop, and quickly, your edits will all become coloured with the idea that you are on something of a crusade. Why don't you wait until the taskforce has finished first, and there will be clear guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article referred to ROI until February, which was during the time of the taskforce, therefore - if that is a rationale for no change - it should be restored to ROI. Mooretwin (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On January 1st of this year the text said and I quote: "Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is a member of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) and the national Scouting association of Ireland". It was then changed to only say ROI by yourself in February.MITH 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

That is untrue. Please be careful about what you say: you wouldn't want to mislead.

1. On 1st January, the text said (my emphasis) "Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is a member of the World Organisation of the Scout Movement (WOSM) and the national Scouting association of Ireland (both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland)."
2. my first intervention was to correct a statement referring to "both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland" merely to "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(ui)Glad you proved my point that the text back then was completely different to anything we have now. Use of Ireland was stable for two months (March to now)so no text you were involved in is "the consensus text".MITH 00:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

1. That wasn't your point: You attempted to imply that it merely said Ireland. That was misleading.
2. I never said that the text was exactly the same as it is now.
3. I was involved in the consensus text. You really should read the above discussion.
4. Ireland may have been "stable for two months" but that is only because I didn't engage in edit-warring during that period. Mooretwin (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Two of you have asked me on my talk page to comment on this issue. Let me start by reminding you of two things:-

1. that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still continuing in an effort to resolve several issues, including the name of the article for the state, currently Republic of Ireland. We should not try to resolve that issue here.
2. whether the editors here are members of a Scout organisation or not (and I am not, even though I am very active in the Scouting WikiProject), we should act here in the spirit of Scouting. Scouts in Scouting Ireland, whether in Dublin or Belfast, and Scout in the Scout Association in Belfast are still Scouting brothers or sisters. They should, and I believe they do, work in harmony within the Scouting movement. We should do so also, leave politics out of it, and describe what is taking place on the ground supported by sources.

I think the present wording:-

"Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association in Ireland, although it also has units in Northern Ireland."

does that. "Ireland" links to the article on the state. The source does use the term "Ireland" and not "Republic of Ireland". I strongly urge you to keep the first sentence as is, and stop this edit war. Let us leave it until the broader discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is resolved. Unless real arguments are presented here for changing the wording, then I will revert any changes and protect the article until a consensus for change is reached. The present wording is the best compromise for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Very strange logic. You say leave things as they are until Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is resolved, yet - in doing so - you are actually standing over a revert that was made before Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was resolved, and which broke the consensus that you brokered above. The lesson here, therefore, is to keep edit-warring. If I hadn't walked away from the edit war in March, the original consensus wording would still stand. Music in the House - by being a more determined edit-warrior than me - has succeeded in forcing his chosen wording into the article. Confrontational and belligerent tactics appear to pay off. Mooretwin (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Mooretwin is getting too worked up over the Lede in this article, and I agree with Bduke to maintain the Lede until the present ArbCom closes the naming discussion. If it's "Scouting Ireland" today, it will be "xxx Ireland" tomorrow, and just end in wasted edit-warring, and blocks. Tfz 02:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you agree that there should be no changes while Arbcom is still ongoing, why are you supporting the current text, which originates from a change while Arbcom was ongoing? (It wouldn't, by any chance, be because you personally support the current text? Maybe your personal preference for the text is actually the real reason why you want to keep it, and not the stated reason in relation to Arbcom?) Mooretwin (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, In terms of how my 'intervention' was described above: when I said TFZ's version made it sound like the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland were two different places, I was talking about one specific wording that lasted for probably just a few hours. It started with something like "SI is a scouting assoc. on the island of Ireland. Its membership also extends to Northern Ireland...." That may not be the exact wording (and I don't want to search the edit warring to find it), but THAT was what I was referring to. I wasn't actually taking a stand on the ROI/Ireland issue, since I can sort of see it both ways.

I'm not suggesting any changes, but, out of curiousity, MITH, what language at the SI website acknowledges that SA "has control over NI"? I see the site saying they work in partnership with the UK SA in NI; is that SI acknowledging SA "has control over NI"? Nuclare (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

afaik this is the official website. It appears to be non-political, and covers the whole nation of Ireland. http://www.scouts.ie/about-us/ Tfz 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is a good reason why the lede should say Republic of Ireland, because your above interpretation clearly demonstrates confusion as to whether Ireland means the island or the 26-county state. Mooretwin (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, please calm down. Whether Ireland means the island or the 26-county state is what the Arbcom will have in the end to decide. In the meantime, the current wordings is as close to the wording of the SI source as it can be. The word "Ireland" links to an article called "Republic of Ireland". That seems a reasonable compromise for now. There is no need to fight over this article or bring politics into it. Please, all of you, leave your POV, at the door before you enter here. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am calm, thank you. If you say that changes to Ireland/Republic of Ireland should not be made while the Arbcom case is ongoing, why are you intervening in support of such a change? That makes no sense, and merely rewards the most belligerent and determined editors. Linking (via disguised piping) is unhelpful as it assumes the reader will click that link. Mooretwin (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The key point I made was "describe what is taking place on the ground supported by sources" (my words), and was not "changes to Ireland/Republic of Ireland should not be made while the Arbcom case is ongoing" (your words). On the latter I am stressing that we should not fight the general battles about names of Ireland on this Scouting article. The key point is that what we have now is reasonably neutral and simple, and matches the SI source. I do not care what it was earlier or what happened during the edit war. I am not rewarding or attacking anyone. It just seems to be a reasonable place to freeze it for a while. I do not see you having support for your approach. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You said: "the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is still continuing in an effort to resolve several issues, including the name of the article for the state, currently Republic of Ireland. We should not try to resolve that issue here". If that is the case, then the revert of consensus in February in relation to the term used in this article should not be allowed to stand, yet you are standing over it. You say that "we should not fight the general battles about names of Ireland on this Scouting article", yet you are supporting a change to the Ireland-name used in the wording of this article, which involves coming down on one side of the "battle".

What we have now is not "neutral and simple", because it is misleading, implying as it does that SI is the WOSM-recognised all-Ireland scouting organisation. That is wrong, as you yourself verified with sources in January. The SI source itself is ambiguous. We even have evidence on this discussion of readers not understanding whether the "Ireland" mentioned is the 26 counties or all of Ireland. Mooretwin (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems fine with me. Its nearly exactly whats on the Scouts website. It would be non-neutral to change it to anything else. What gives you the right to tell the scouts what they should say? Qaziphone (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

How can it be fine, when it is misleading? The Scouting Ireland web site uses the word "Ireland" actually to mean the Republic. We need here to avoid such ambiguity and be clear by stating that it is the National Scout Association for the Republic of Ireland. Why hide the link? Why are people afraid of the term Republic of Ireland. This is irrational. Mooretwin (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin, you are just using this article to make a WP:POINT. The flaw with Wikipedia is that the State should be at the 'Ireland' page, and the Island should be at 'Ireland (island)' page. My rational is that 85% of the island of Ireland is owned by the State called Ireland. 90% of the time Wikipedia is talking about the State called Ireland, and that's another reason. We are not going to solve naming dispute by using this article as a "test case". Please give over. Tfz 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No. I seek common sense and clarity. You've already demonstrated the need for it by revealing a misunderstanding of what is meant by "Ireland" in this article. Your rationale is odd, since 100% Ireland is Ireland, therefore why give precedence to only 85% which is the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Scouting Ireland web site uses the word "Ireland" actually to mean the Republic. Not really. The SI website's home page--right after saying 'Welcome'--says: "Scouting Ireland is a multi-denominational, co-educational, youth based association with a membership close to 40,000 across the island of Ireland." That's what is forefronted by SI on its website. In "About us" the site does say SI is the "National Scout Association for Ireland," which pressumably could mean the ROI, but the point isn't clarified with reference to "ROI" or clarified at all, for that matter. A paragraph later, the "About Us" section says "Scouting Ireland has over 40,000 members across Ireland, including Northern Ireland..." Again, clearly "Ireland" being used at the SI website to mean the island. The question isn't whether WOSM recognizes it in relation to "Ireland"'s existence as a sovereign state, which I've no reason to doubt, but I don't think we should misrepresent the site by saying it uses "Ireland" to mean ROI. Nuclare (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"National Scout Association for Ireland" is what I was referring to. By "Ireland" in this statement they mean "Republic of IReland", and that is the relevant reference for the lead, because SI is the WOSM-recognised scout association for ROI: not Ireland as a whole. Mooretwin (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Just to clarify - I think there is much confusion between "Scouting Ireland" and membership of WOSM. The constitution of WOSM makes no references to "politicial boundaries" and appears to merely state that it will only recognize one organization per country. So if (as can frequently happen) more than one scouting organization exists in a country, only one of those can join WOSM in order to represent the country as the National Association. In the case of Scouting Ireland, this organization has members across all of the island of Ireland, and is the National Association representing the Irish state. Here is the list of countries from the international scouts website, and here is the section on Scouts Ireland website. --HighKing (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is the national organisation representing the "Irish state" (in everyday language: the Republic of Ireland). Mooretwin (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Draft

Lets try this:

Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association of the country of Ireland, with a significant presence in Northern Ireland Scouting Ireland is a voluntary, non-formal educational movement for young people. It is independent, non-political, open to all without distinction of origin, race, creed or gender, in accordance with the purpose, principles and method conceived by Robert Baden-Powell and as stated by WOSM.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning

The governing guideline here is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles). While "country of Ireland" is not one variations listed, I chose it because of its close inclusion with Northern Ireland in the sentence. While many national Scouting organizations (NSO) have units outside their recognized country, Scouting Ireland is unusual in the number of units in Northern Ireland. Scouting Ireland is recognized by WOSM as the NSO of the country of Ireland; since Northern Ireland is a political region of the UK, the WOSM recognized NSO is The Scout Association. That particular distinction can be made in the body of the the article, after we resolve this issue.

Discuss

Fine by me.MITH 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Tfz 04:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree --HighKing (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "country of Ireland" is a bit "wobbly" (it reads funny an there is the issue again with what is "country" in "Ireland"). I'd split it into two sentences and play on the ambiguity of "Ireland" (an ambiguity, which, as the scouts themselves demonstrate, is the reality of the situation when it comes to "Ireland") E.g.: "Scouting Ireland is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association of Ireland. It operates in Northern Ireland in partnership with the Scout Association of Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom Scout Association The Scout Association."

But that's just how I would do it. Gadget850's proposal is fine. (BTW should it not be "...World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised scouting association in..."?) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that proposal. It's a bit more informative.MITH 15:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In what way is "country of Ireland" any more informative than "Republic of Ireland"? Mooretwin (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you saw comment move but I prefer Rannpháirtí anaithnid's version. It lets the facts speak for themselves.MITH 21:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, in that case: In what way is "Ireland" any more informative than "Republic of Ireland" Mooretwin (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, because Ireland is the name of the country, and it only has one name. This is an encyclopedia whose aim is to educate, not to confuse. We could also use Six counties in the lead if you find it so confusing. Tfz 22:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This article should be educating about Scouting Ireland, not the legal and constitutional question about the state's name. Referring ambiguously to Ireland does not educate: it confuses. Mooretwin (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because in Rannpháirtí anaithnid's version it uses the correct common name without causing any ambiguity. Everything is very clear and accurate.MITH 21:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, it does cause ambiguity: he resorts to the piping disguise, so it says "Ireland", but really means "Republic of Ireland". Mooretwin (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Piping disguise? What kind of POV are you trying to push? Ireland is the official and common name of the country it is very clear from the wording what everything means. To suggest otherwise could be viewed as you trying to make a point just for the sake of it.MITH 12:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, piping disguise: piping is used to disguise the fact that the word in question is linked to Republic of Ireland and not to Ireland. I'm not trying to push any kind of POV. What kind of POV are you trying to push? Ireland is the official and common name of the island. It is not clear from the wording what everything means, because the wording refers to "Ireland", the meaning of which is unclear. To suggest otherwise could be viewed as you trying to make a point just for the sake of it. Mooretwin (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing games are we? How is copying and pasting my comments back to me going to achieve anything? Copying my response for your argument is nonsense. The two arguments are not the same. Firstly geographic areas cannot have official names. Secondly, the ROI page is due to be moved and thirdly it is standard practice to pipe per WP:IMOS. It is not unclear - you are the only one saying so. In future please make your own points if you want to get anyone to agree with you. Currently you are trying to fight your own battle, however instead of debating, making good points you are making the same old, tired war cry, trying to push your POV without getting anywhere.MITH 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not playing games. Are you? Responding to your comments in similar vein might achieve the realisation on your part that Ireland is ambiguous. Geographic areas do have official names: they are recognised by these names by official bodies across the world. The ROI page may or may not be due to be moved, and whether it is or not is irrelevant, because it will not resolve the ambiguity issue in this article. It is not standard practice to pipe per WP:IMOS - IMOS merely notes that piping is used in some articles. It is unclear: Ireland has two meanings. In future please make your own points if you want to get anyone to agree with you. Currently you are trying to fight your own battle, however instead of debating, making good points you are making the same old, tired war cry, trying to push your POV.Mooretwin (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise after all this time, when it comes down to it, you're just a troll. I'm going to follow wiki advice and leave you here where you can copy and paste other people's comments back to them instead of mine.MITH 17:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you so lacking in self-awareness that you cannot see the purpose of "copying and pasting" your arguments? It is to demonstrate their lack of worth: everything you "argue" can be argued back at you in the exact same terms. Here's another one: I didn't realise after all this time, when it comes down to it, you're just a troll. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is not in the least ambiguous in the lede. The article is not a geography article, and almost always when a country is mentioned in such a lede, the meaning is the sovereign state. Ireland is the only country in the world called Ireland, and just about everybody knows that. Everybody knows about Northern Ireland too, and knows that it is a territory north of Ireland. Mooretwin intends to keep on saying "ambiguous ambiguous ambiguous", and keep this mantra going until he has everyone confused. Tfz 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is ambiguous in the lede, because it is not clear whether it refers to the state or the island. Most readers will probably wrongly assume it refers to the island. You claim that "almost always when a country is mentioned in such a lede, the meaning is the sovereign state", thus admitting that on some occasions the meaning is not a sovereign state. In respect of Ireland, in particular, the term is very often used to mean the whole island - particular when it comes to, for example, cultural or sporting matters. Ironically, your own comments on this talk page demonstrate that this is also what you thought in relation to Scouting Ireland! When people think of Ireland, they tend not to think only of the 26 counties, but rather the whole island. Statements such as "Northern Ireland is a territory north of Ireland" only serve to emphasise the silliness of your position. Mooretwin (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Scout, Scouting, Guide and Guiding are capitalized in the context of the youth movements. This is sourced from the style guides of several organizations, of which the Boy Scouts of America's Language of Scouting is probably the most comprehensive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - It would be far easier, simpler and obvious just to say:

• Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association for the Republic of Ireland, with a significant presence in Northern Ireland.

You'd almost think the proposed text had been drafted deliberately to avoid using the most obvious and least ambiguous term. Mooretwin (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you also register either "agree" or "disagree" above. Just so we can test for consensus. --HighKing (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no issues with User:Gadget850's draft. It is an improvement. I do however, wonder whether it might be best to avoid the WOSM affiliation in the lede and deal with it later. Maybe the lede should just say that "Scouting Ireland (Irish: Gasóga na hÉireann) is the largest Scouting organisation in Ireland with Scout Groups both in the Republic of Ireland and, along side the Scout Association, in Northern Ireland." I can however see that might raise other problems. I use the term "Republic of Ireland" merely because it is currently the name of the article about the State. I am concerned that we keep political POVs out of this and just describe what the situation is keeping within the Scouting spirit. I would also comment that Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) is not very useful at present, as it is precisely that guideline that is being questioned, with an attempt to resolve it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What problems might this raise? If you want to keep POVs out of this, then we shouldn't be pandering to POV-pushers who want to purge the term "Republic of Ireland" for irrational and visceral reasons. Mooretwin (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"I use the term "Republic of Ireland" merely because it is currently the name of the article about the State." The title of that article is currently under review, so that isn't really a valid reason to use it. I prefer gadget's and Rannpháirtí anaithnid's proposals, with the latter my favourite.MITH 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting using it as being simpler until the review is completed, and I was not making a political point. I had already used the term "Ireland" and thought the current name of the article on the country in the island other than NI was the simplest. I was not suggesting we can get a permanent solution. My main point was to deal with WOSM affiliation separately. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And some editors are trying to preempt Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration and use this article as a Cause celebre. I really think this is a bad idea. Tfz 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems now that Mooretwin's gone that this discussion has died down a bit. Just to finish it off, which version has the most consensus? Gadget's or Rannpháirtí anaithnid's?MITH

I'm not sure either of them best represents the situation, but I slightly prefer Rannpháirtí's.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of them are misleading as they both use "Ireland" when referring to the Republic. Mooretwin (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer Rannpháirtí's. Mooretwin has expressed his disatisfaction with it, do any of the other interested parties share Mooretwin's sentiments or are you happy with?MITH 12:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I support it also. --HighKing (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Mooretwin (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually like rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid's version all that much. It goes back to the issue that I first raised here, which is that it confuses what the nature of SI membership is in Northern Ireland. RA's version makes it sound like the partnership with the UK's SA might be all that defines SI's presence in NI, which isn't true (as best as I now can tell). I think there might be value in Bduke's suggestion that the WOSM mention be delayed--or at the very least it doesn't need to be the very first thing said about this organization. Nuclare (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better version:

Scouting Ireland is a Scouting association, organised on an all-Ireland basis, but recognised by the World Organisation of the Scout Movement as the national association of the Republic of Ireland.

Mooretwin (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I like. Do we want to say something like "It operates in Northern Ireland in association with the Scout Association", or something to that effect, or just leave it at the above? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leave it at the above, I think. Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That version is factually incorrect. The WOSM have never indicated that and the proposal is pure WP:OR. I support the other two proposals along with the other three editors.MITH 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/countries/member_countries_by_region -- seems clear enough to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point. It says Ireland. Nothing more nothing less. Seems very clear to me.MITH 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's precisely because it says "Ireland" that it is NOT clear! The reference in the WOSM link actually means Republic of Ireland (you'll note that the United Kingdom is listed). National scouting organisations are organised by state. Therefore the latest proposed draft is not "factually incorrect". Again, the confusion among editors here merely reinforces the need for clarity in how we refer to Ireland in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It means Republic of Ireland? What are you talking about? Of course the wording is clear. It means Ireland simply and clearly. There's no other sovereign country of that name. You are inventing confusion. If there was some you'd be able to find at least one site which didn't just say "Ireland." If you want to say something about SI doing something across the entire island of Ireland then do so but interpreting what a website says into a completely different wording to suit your POV is OR and wrong.MITH 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

MITH, would you have a problem with that being linked to Ireland (state) instead of Republic of Ireland?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (state) would look badly in prose. IMO there is no need to not use the correct name of the country as used by Scouting Ireland and WSOM themselves. Ireland should be used as name of the sovereign state and if a disambiguator is needed then island of Ireland can be used to differentiate the two. While there is debate about which Ireland is the primary topic generally, in this article it is most definitely the sovereign country as that is how Scouting organisations are run.MITH 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SO you accept that scouting organisations are run along the lines of sovereign countries, yet you suggest that the WSOM reference to Ireland ISN'T to the Republic? Mooretwin (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The WOSM page clearly states "Member countries listed by Region", so it refers to the country of Ireland. As another example, the page refers to countries of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, not to the island of Hispaniola that they share. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Ireland (state) looks bad, but Ireland looks just fine. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland (state) is not the title of the page yet though, that'll just create a redirect. If you agree to it being piped, it should be to the current title and then changed as soon as the ROI page is moved to the new title.MITH 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure changing the name in this article is the right thing to do (yet), but at least we've established which article should be pointed at, I think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Another example of confusion demonstrating the need for clarity

Two recent edits by an IP here and here show why we need clarity in this article. The IP clearly thinks SI is the national scouting association for Ireland (as a whole) and not the Republic of Ireland, just as Tfz and others have already demonstrated. Why should the POV of a certain committed group of editors, who for some reason have a visceral opposition to the commonly-used term "Republic of Ireland", prevent us from clearly stating in the lede that SI is the national scouting organisation for the Republic of Ireland? Mooretwin (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually see what is incorrect about the first statement. It *is* organized on an all-island basis. Scouting, in general, may not be all-island, but Scouting Ireland is. The first thing it says about itself is that it has members across the island. And its not just some 'remote units' kind of thing; its Northern province straddles the border. What WOSM recognizes it as on paper isn't irrelevant, but it doesn't change the practical organization of the group on the ground. Nuclare (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

But you accept that the second one is incorrect, therefore demonstrating the confusion that abounds and the need for clarity. Mooretwin (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But the second one actually uses the phrase 'RoI'. Whoever posted that seems to know that SI is not THE one Scout Association on the island of Ireland, based on this sentence: "The Scout Association of Northern Ireland also operates in Northern Ireland which is an entity of the Scouting Association (UK)." The incorrectness of that second version derives from the 'island of Ireland' phrase in the first sentence. It's possible this person was confused by the SI site not using the phrase RoI to clarify, but, again, they also seem to know that their first sentence isn't fully correct...soo????. I don't personally object to any use of RoI here, but I do wonder if the issue of WOSM-recognition needs to be that which is first mentioned. What they first say about themselves is "island of Ireland" related. Emphasizing the WOSM recognizing based on international borders doesn't need to be the first thing mentioned. Nuclare (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The second one is incorrect because it says Scouting Ireland is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association on the island of Ireland. It's not: it's only the WOSM-recognised Scouting association for the Republic. The second one demonstrates the confusion here which requires clarity in the lede, and hence reference to Republic of Ireland. Clarity should trump doctrinaire opposition to "Republic of Ireland" every time. Mooretwin (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You said: "The second one is incorrect because it says Scouting Ireland is the World Organization of the Scout Movement-recognised Scouting association on the island of Ireland.". That's precisely what I just said. Nuclare (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So where is the disagreement? Mooretwin (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I don't know! :-) I just don't think your examples were good illustrations, I suppose. Whoever wrote that second version put (or left) the phrase ROI in there, so they pressumably do not have the 'visceral opposition' to ROI that you were referring to, and I get the sense they knew there was another WOSM recognized group on the island of Ireland, so you got me as to why they worded the first sentence the way they did, but it isn't necessarily because they didn't understand the Ireland/ROI difference. Nuclare (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scouting Ireland. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scouts.ie/news/article/scouting_ireland_reaches_a_membership_of_50000-1229.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008032223/http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/Rain-stops-play-for-scouts.4372530.jp to http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/Rain-stops-play-for-scouts.4372530.jp

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) 06:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)