DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Scouting America

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good articleScouting America was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 30, 2006WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
February 17, 2007Good article nomineeListed
June 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
July 26, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2010WikiProject A-class reviewDemoted
August 29, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 22, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
July 5, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 15, 2004, February 8, 2010, February 8, 2011, February 8, 2014, February 8, 2019, February 8, 2022, and February 8, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

"about 130 million Americans have participated in its programs..."

[edit]

I'm having a hard time with what this means. Does it mean since the founding? Is it referencing only living current and former members? Or those of eligible age? I think clarity is necessary here. Dflovett (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is clear. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank God for your opinion. Can we add that as a source? ~2025-31859-35 (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In normal English, "have participated in" clearly means since it began in the US. Can there be another meaning? HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boy Scouts of America has been nominated for renaming

[edit]

Category:Boy Scouts of America has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've updated the nomination to recommend the categories follow the consensus of the RM discussion below, whether I agree with that outcome or not. The point of WP:C2D is to keep both article and category naming in sync, not to have dueling discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Dustinscottc: I had assumed that, since this was a seemingly uncontroversial edit to correct a factual error, this content dispute could be quickly resolved in edit summaries without necessitating a talk-page discussion, but it appears it is not the case. I am not sure why you say [you] have explained the revert when your previous revert contained no such explanation; I would also ask that you clarify what you mean by The article is about an organization, which is not synonymous with one of its legal entities. As I noted in both of my edit summaries, the fact that "Boy Scouts of America" remains the legal name of the organization — with "Scouting America" being its DBA trade name — is not disputed; in fact, even editors who believed this article should be moved to "Scouting America" have acknowledged this in the past. You can verify this with a quick Google search; here are some sources: [1] [2]. This is because, similar to the ongoing political sparring over the Kennedy Center and Department of Defense, an official name change would require action by Congress, whereas no such action has been taken. The website footer of the BSA continues to say "© 2025 Boy Scouts of America". This approach to DBAs is consistent with the leads of other articles such as Amazon (company), Sam's Club, Xfinity, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler is also a good example. This article should be kept under the common name until we have a consensus otherwise. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you believe is the common name? HiLo48 (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize; it looks like the explanation to one of my reversions did not save.
The article is about an organization that exists in the real world, not a specific juridical entity. While the juridical entity is often more or less synonymous with the organization when it comes to publicly traded for-profit companies, that is less true of privately held companies and, as relevant here, nonprofit organizations. Scouting America/BSA is a collection of juridical entities, consisting of the national entity together with its regional councils and individual troops, some of which hold their assets as separate juridical entities. That real-world organization has chosen to call itself “Scouting America”, and so I believe it is worth leading with that, regardless of the article title.
I have not surveyed Wikipedia articles for to see how the lede is written for similarly-situated organizations, but I am familiar with a number of articles that do not list the juridical entity in the lede at all, much less first, e.g. Verizon (primary juridical entity is Cellco Partnership), IKEA, the Salvation Army (multiple affiliated juridical entities; this is also true of most churches); the American Cancer Society (primary coordinating juridical entity includes “Inc.” in its name); etc. Dustinscottc (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the national entity and does not appear to make a distinction between the "organization" and "juridicial entity". Legal nuances/technicalities such as these are probably not noteworthy to the average reader anyway, so unless separate articles are created for the "organization" and "juridicial entity", they should probably continue to be treated as one and the same. This structure of a collection of juridical entities is analogous to a holding/parent company being a collection of subsidiaries, or better yet, a franchisor being a collection of franchises; we don't usually treat these as separate entities. Under the standard DBA lead structure, the public-facing name would still be in the first sentence, so it's not like we would be burying it deep in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting there should be an article on the juridical entity. That would be a very boring article. I'm saying the name of a juridical entity does not control how we frame the lede. I don't know that in these circumstances, "X, dba Y" is in fact standard. Dustinscottc (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the reason we should treat these as separate entities? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not suggesting treating them as separate entities. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 December 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boy Scouts of America → Scouting America – This organization is called Scouting America, with over a million youth. IdanST (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 13:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. This request should have been made with more explanation, but I've done a brief review of how reliable sources are referring to the organization. News organizations, at least, generally refer to "Scouting America" when discussing the present organization, sometimes providing additional clarification that the organization was previously "Boy Scouts of America". As provided in WP:NAMECHANGE, if reliable sources routinely use the new name, the article title should reflect that change.
Recent examples of such usage from news organizations include an ABC affiliate (no reference to prior name); NPR (referring to the “Boy Scouts of America” only in a historical context); The Hill (same); and a Fox affiliate (no reference to prior name in body of article, but referring to “Boy Scouts of America” in a caption of file image from 2013 that discussed an event in 2021).
I’d request that anyone opposed to the move provide evidence that reliable sources have not adopted the new name. Dustinscottc (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were just telling me the other day that 'BSA' and 'Boy Scouts of America' [have] much longer histories than Twitter and [...] I'm sure if you polled a random sample of Americans, most who are familiar with the organization would refer to it as 'BSA' or 'Boy Scouts', while a substantial number of people would be unaware of the official name change at all. So you yourself acknowledged last week that an article title change would be confusing to most readers and ultimately do a disservice to them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and my point was that if this article (and others) cleared a lower threshold, then the X name change surely also clears it. At no point did I claim that the move was inappropriate. I also did not “acknowledge[…] that an article title change would be confusing to most readers.” A redirect and a reference to the old name in the lede is sufficient to avoid confusion. The standard for Wikipedia:NAMECHANGE is: “If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.” If you have evidence that “reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day”, then you should present that evidence here so that it can be evaluated. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping this article at "Boy Scouts of America" would do no harm to readers, the vast majority of which are familiar with this name; on the other hand, renaming to "Scouting America" less than a year after this name was introduced is bound to confuse, WP:ASTONISH, and make it more difficult for readers to locate this article. Wikipedia article titles strive for recognizability (and the other four WP:CRITERIA) over accuracy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that someone going to a Wikipedia article and finding that the article carries a now-deprecated name would cause more confusion than entering the old name and immediately learning (through a redirect) that the organization has changed its name. Policies provide for what happens when the subject of an article changes its name, which is that the article title should change when reliable sources routinely use the new name. There's no need to re-weigh the naming criteria. Dustinscottc (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To your point on WP:ASTONISH, I don’t believe it would be an issue if the rest of the article is formatted carefully. When the page was first moved I changed the lead to clearly mention 1) BSA as a former name and 2) that the organization started using a DBA in 2025. Compass128 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The first point of WP:CRITERIA states: The title [should be] a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. This organization has been known as the "Boy Scouts of America" for 115 years, compared to less than a year as "Scouting America". Given this extensive history, it is far too early to tell whether the latter has overtaken the former as the new most commonly recognizable name. For starters, we cannot assume that most readers will be aware of this rebranding, and it remains to be seen whether the name change will even stick, as was not the case for the failed rebrandings of Business Insider and HBO Max. We are not the BSA's publicity or marketing department, so we are not obligated to align with their brand strategy or help them spread awareness of their name change. Remember, WP:COMMONNAME reminds us that: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used.
    The practice of using a former name that continues to be commonly recognizable is widespread on Wikipedia, as seen with the cases of Twitter ("X"), Kanye West ("Ye"), Turkey ("Türkiye"), Dunkin' Donuts ("Dunkin'"), Blackwater (company) ("Constellis"), Grauman's Chinese Theatre ("TCL Chinese Theatre"), etc. This situation is also comparable to the ongoing political sparring over the self-proclaimed name changes of the Department of Defense and Kennedy Center; similar to those organizations (though not exactly the same), the BSA is a federally chartered organization, so an official name change would require formal action by Congress, whereas no such action has been taken. Thus, it is not inaccurate and perfectly acceptable to use the legal name of the organization, similar to what we do for Meta Platforms (d/b/a Meta). The footer of the organization's website, as well as its flagship program — "Scouts BSA" — also continue to use this widely recognizable name. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am someone heavily involved in Scouting outside the USA. Almost universally outside the USA, the word Boy disappeared from the name for the local organisation many decades ago for the obvious reason hat it was no longer only for boys.. In some cases there was some rearguard action from conservatives in those countries who seemed to hope that refusing to stop using the word Boy would stop the change in Scouting happening. It never did. It won't in America. To me the common name MUST be Scouting America, because that's the accurate name, in more ways than one. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not just one for conservative Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Article titles do not need to be perfectly accurate or neutral so long as they are commonly recognizable. Previously, I gave the examples of the Spanish flu (which did not actually come from Spain) and the Silk Road (which actually consisted of many roads), both of which have alternative names that are more "accurate" but nonetheless less recognizable. Wikipedia is also not the place to promote social change, and continuing to use the older and more commonly recognizable name in no way condones the alleged efforts to stop the change in Scouting [from] happening. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we decide what the more commonly recognisable name? It is NOT automatically the older name. Should we just ask Americans with long involvement with the Boy Scouts? Or do we take a more global approach? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or do we take a more global approach? The global approach is taken with the global article, which is simply called Scouting. This article is not about the global movement, it is only about the American organization, so the only issue of relevance is what the American organization is known as. Ladtrack (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to remind everyone that WP:MODERNPLACENAME may apply here. Given that, why not use Scouting America, which is the organization’s modern name? IdanST (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline is located on the page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names); it does not apply here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I looked at the Scouts BSA precedent very differently: the long-standing name "Boy Scouts" was changed to be more inclusive for girls (source), reliable sources made the change, so the Wikipedia article moved. To me that seems very similar to this proposal. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I personally am involved in scouting and in almost all conversations with current and former scouts, leaders, camp counselors, council board members, council employees, and council executives, the name Scouting America is used. Since women have been in the main scouts program since 2019 there has already been a large natural change in language towards gender-neutral terms. When people talk about scouting it is referred to as Scouting America. This is the language used in day to day conversations and as such we should adopt it as the title of the article.
MiddleMac (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that your anecdotal evidence is true, you have merely established that this is the common name within the scouting community, not within the general population, i.e. most of our readers. Again, WP:CRITERIA states (emphasis added): The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. The principles of WP:TECHNICAL apply as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following organizations use something like "Scouting America, formerly known as the Boy Scouts of America" on first use and then primarily use the official name: NPR, The Independent, CNN, CBS News, NBC News.
The following just use Boy Scouts of America: New York Times, Reuters, BBC, LA Times, Time magazine.
And the Associated Press uses both.
This is excluding sources that are about the name change, which would obviously not be reflective of standard operating protocol.
At best, this indicates mixed usage, which would mean we default to the longstanding name, which is Boy Scouts of America. But, critically, it is interesting that even the sources that use Scouting America always have to start out with "formerly the Boy Scouts of America", because it is a strong indicator that the new name fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, which is one of the central title criteria. The only reason the news organizations put that is because readers wouldn't know what "Scouting America" is, because "Boy Scouts of America", the longstanding name for the iconic organization, is much, much more recognizable. Ladtrack (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times corrected the article, and it now reads, “The scouts were part of Jackson Cub Scout Pack 204, a group affiliated with Scouting America, the organization formally known as the Boy Scouts of America.”
The pieces from Reuters, BBC, and the AP all use (although perhaps not perfectly consistently) the old name in a historical context, referencing things that occurred while the organization called itself the Boy Scouts of America.
the LA Times and Time both refer to “Boy Scouts” generally, but the emphasis does not seem to be on the organization itself. While I agree that these articles help demonstrate that adoption of the new name is not universal, a few sources holding onto the old name does not typically delay a name change.
Article names are typically updated before “formerly known as” drops out of use. For example, articles still refer to MS NOW as “formerly MSNBC”, and WP:NAMECHANGE refers to routine use, not complete supplanting of the old name. If an article introduces the topic by the new name, clarifies with respect to the old name, then goes on to use the new name, I’d say the use of the new name is routine. Dustinscottc (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually checked the MS NOW thing, and I gotta disagree. Here's CNN, the New York Times, CBS, and the BBC all using MS NOW, and none of them say "formerly MSNBC" or anything like that. I'm not doing a full search because it's not super relevant here, but it does indicate the name change has strongly stuck, unlike with the Boy Scouts. I would compare it to the company everyone still calls the History Channel, even though the name has been just "History" since 2008. Ladtrack (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Iran formally changed their name in 1935 but the Wikipedia article still gives the alternate name of "Persia" in bold in the first sentence. Myanmar does likewise with "Burma" because readers might not be aware of that 1989 change. Those are clearly very different than this example, but I mention them because they show that having more than one name that is recognizable does not mean the older one is automatically chosen. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that when the news talks about Iran, they always call it Iran and not Persia, and they don't say "formerly known as Persia" because most people know it is called Iran. Most people would not realize what Scouting America is, hence it is not recognizable. Ladtrack (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any evidence at all that "Most people would not realize what Scouting America is", noting that this is a global encyclopaedia? HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it does not matter what the rest of the world does with their scouting groups because this is about the American organization specifically, but as I have said about three times now, the fact that news organizations have to state at the top of every article about the organization that it used to be called the Boy Scouts of America is a very strong indicator that the current title is not recognizable. If it was, they would just use Scouting America and not bother with the old name. Ladtrack (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are just making things clearer to their more ignorant and conservative readers. It's certainly NOT any kind of indicator that the current title is not recognizable. That really is a ridiculous thing to say. I'm not even American , and I know what Scoring America is. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your bio states that you graduated from a scouting program. You're a Wikipedian interested in editing scouts-related pages. I would highly doubt that you didn't know what Scouting America was. Those factors would also make you a member of a very, very small minority, so you probably aren't a good sample. BobSmithME (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't graduate from any scouting program. We don't do that where I live. Your perspective sems very American. This is a global encyclopaedia. Look wider. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really cheap trick. Your bio says that you were a Scout, and that you've achieved the rank of Queen's Scout, which is the highest rank achievable in youth scouting in Australia. That's what graduating colloquially means, regardless of whatever the exact terminology used by the Australian scouting program happens to be. Don't pull some "stupid American" crap on him just because the lingo he used was slightly wrong. Ladtrack (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If you do a Google search for "Boy Scouts," as opposed to "Scouting America," there is an overwhelming number of local journalism sites that still refer to the organization as "Boy Scouts of America." Additionally, "boy scout" as a term for a member of the organization is even more commonly used than "Boy Scouts of America" as a term for the organization. Even major media outlets appear to be well aware that "Boy Scouts" is the more commonly known name: this article from NPR uses the term "Boy Scout" in the title, and only refers to "Scouting America" in the body. "Scouting America" clearly fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY in this regard, and there's no reason to use that title when it can be put front and center in the lead paragraph. BobSmithME (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see the “overwhelming number of local journalism sites that still refer to the organization as ‘Boy Scouts of America.” Others here have gone to the effort of collecting examples; I’d suggest that if you’re going to make the claim, it should be backed up with something evidencing its truth. The use of a former or informal name in headlines or in clarifying language in the body of an article does not indicate that the official name is not recognizable. Otherwise, the article for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be entitled “Mormon Church”, since news and other websites frequently use the nickname in both headlines and clarifying language. Dustinscottc (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not difficult to find, but here you go. And that Mormon Church comparison doesn't even make sense. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is the name, "Mormon" is the name of an adherent. "Mormon church" isn't a more commonly known former name that journalists are being forced to use because it makes more sense, it's shorthand.
Also, if you look at most articles that mention Scouting America, they will almost always mention "formerly known as Boy Scouts." That actually counters your claim. Some articles actually say "Boy Scouts of America" regardless and follow it up with "which recently changed its name." It's quite clear that Boy Scouts is the more commonly known term. BobSmithME (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few things. First, no one is obligated to believe your claim if you don’t provide evidence, even if the evidence is “easy” to find. Second, while this is better evidence than anyone else opposing the name change has pointed to, the vast majority of these articles are not references to the organization—they are references to individual troops—and quite a few of them seem to be hastily put together and posted to websites of questionable reliability. Like your reference to “Mormons” being adherents, “Boy Scouts” can be descriptive of participants without indicating what the name ought to be. Third, you pointed out that clarifying language indicates that the official name is not the commonly known term, and my “Mormon Church” example is to address that point. I don’t see how the name being an older name versus a nickname makes any difference with respect to recognizability. In either event, WP:NAMECHANGE says that the article name should change if the new name is routinely used by reliable sources. It does not require that routine use occur without reference to the old name. Dustinscottc (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The fact that the majority of these articles aren't references to the organization is by far the best argument for not changing the title.
First, none of these are websites of questionable reliability. The vast majority of them are local American news stations. Most of America is serviced by this format of news channel. Also, reliability is not exactly the point of the argument. The point is whether or not most readers would recognize the new name, and whether most of America uses the new name. That's why I mixed in high-readership tabloids such as the Daily Mail and People, a national cross-section of local media sources, and even several reliable sources (CBS, the Independent, STL Post-Dispatch, Boston.com, etc).
Your comparison of Mormons and Boy Scouts is once again incorrect. Mormon is objectively what you call a member of the LDS Church. Boy Scout is not what you call a member of Scouting America, and hasn't been for the last six years. The program has been called Scouts BSA (another example of a name that didn't stick), and a member was simply called a "scout." For the last six years, not a single national media outlet has referred to the Boy Scouts by their correct name, simply because Boy Scout is the more commonly known name. If we had a specifically different page titled "Boy Scout (US)," dedicated entirely to an individual member of the organization, I think it would be acceptable to make that distinction on that page, but we don't.
"Mormon Church" is by far not the most commonly used name for the LDS Church. The most common name is usually "the LDS Church."
And the statement that references to individual troops has nothing to do with the organization doesn't make much sense either. Troops are organized by the organization. That's how that works. In situations where they say "today, local boy scouts....", you would be correct (although again, that would also prove the new name has no notability), but most of these articles say something along the lines of "today, boy scout troop 111 engaged did..", which is a direct reference to the organization and not a member of the organization. BobSmithME (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mormon" is not objectively what you call a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That term has always been a nickname that the church and its members have alternately embraced and distanced themselves from, while the preferred term has always been Latter-day Saint. In part, that's because "Mormon can also apply to members of other churches tied to Joseph Smith. Similarly, "Boy Scout" was never a term used exclusively by the BSA. "Boy Scout" can refer to any participant in a boys' Scouting troop, not just a Scouting America troop. This is already reflected in how Wikipedia redirects: "Boy Scout" redirects to Scout (Scouting), which lists "Scout", "Boy Scout", and "Girl Scout" as other terms described in the article.
The references to troops also don't clearly implicate the name of the organization. As I mentioned in another thread, Scouting America is the national organization, but an organization may employ or be made up of multiple entities, in this case, local troops and counsels. I'm not sure what the official naming convention is supposed to be, but my own experience is that people refer to boy-only troops as "Boy Scout troops" as short hand, but girl troops or mixed troops are just "Scout troops". The usage in these articles is consistent with that informal convention, which would not be indicative of references to the entire national organization (which is what this article is about). Dustinscottc (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Mormon" is not objectively what you call a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That term has always been a nickname that the church and its members have alternately embraced and distanced themselves from, while the preferred term has always been Latter-day Saint. In part, that's because "Mormon can also apply to members of other churches tied to Joseph Smith. Similarly, "Boy Scout" was never a term used exclusively by the BSA. "Boy Scout" can refer to any participant in a boys' Scouting troop, not just a Scouting America troop. This is already reflected in how Wikipedia redirects: "Boy Scout" redirects to Scout (Scouting), which lists "Scout", "Boy Scout", and "Girl Scout" as other terms described in the article. A member of the LDS Church is a Mormon, but not all Mormons are members of the LDS Church. It's like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. This used to be how Boy Scouts worked too; not all Boy Scouts were members of the Boy Scouts of America's flagship program, Boy Scouting, but members of that program were called Boy Scouts. This has not, however, been true since 2019, when the program name changed to Scouts BSA; since then the official term for a member has been just "Scout". Judging by these sources, would you say that change has stuck? Ladtrack (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BobSmithME, did you limit your Google Search to only the past year?
"Boy Scouts of America" - 234K results
"Scouting America" - 257K results. IdanST (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. All sources were published after the organization's name change. BobSmithME (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't weight in on the main question but I wanted to correct an error. The name of the ORGANIZATION changed in 2025. What changed some years before that was the name of the flagship PROGRAM. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now, primarily because of limited recognizability per the WP:CRITERIA part of the titling policy. The argument to move now has some merit (grounded in the WP:NAMECHANGES subsection of WP:COMMONNAME part of the titling policy), but from a reading of the above discussion, there is still ambiguity over the main supporting point - whether the preponderance of reliable sources (with extra weight to recent sources) consistently use "Scouting America" to the general exclusion of "Boy Scouts of America". Barring that, I lean to the side of defaulting to the longstanding name. HenryMP02 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the ambiguity? Dustinscottc in the first !vote above, has provided evidence that sources are predominantly using the new name now, and I haven't seen any evidence to counter that. The rationales for opposing seem to be based on an unsubstantiated assertion that nobody will WP:RECOGNIZE the new name, which seems rather baseless given that "Scouting America" is a rather self-evident name anyway, and it's been shown that sources are using it. If anything, as time goes by, and new members join the organisation who weren't there under the "Boy Scouts of America" name, it's that one that will fail recognition. But either way, it's not our place to attempt to second-guess that, and again the sources already assume people do recognize the new name.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Scouting and WikiProject Organizations have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 13:48, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I've been a regular here. I understand the arguments for using the previous name. But having an article titled by the previous (now wrong) name of the organization instead of the correct current name is not a good idea. Plus any current source specifying the organization will inevitably be using the current correct name. North8000 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It has been clearly demonstrated that the conditions for WP:NAMECHANGES has been met – the organisation is much more commonly referred to in recent sources by the new name than the old name, and "Scouting America" has supplanted the previous title as WP:COMMONNAME. Per policy, that means we don't really need to consider any other arguments. Other points do seem to be in its favour too though — @MiddleMac:'s anecdotal point that those within the organisation use the new name routinely, coupled with the fact that "Boy Scouts" is now a misnomer, given that they have been admitting girls for some time now, are additional points in favour of this move.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.