Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/Archive 4

BP Sympathies

A section of the article states that he was a Nazi sympathizer and admired Mussolini. Is that true or another stupid act of vandalism? Montgomery' 39 (talk)

Read the two sources given. They are very good biographies. Remember that attitudes to Hitler in the UK in the 1930 were complex and difficult to understand in hindsight, as indeed in different ways they were in the USA. Many people admired Hitler then, as we did not fully understand what he represented. The article has it pretty well clear. I tend to agree more with Jeal than Rosenthal, but I will check the latter as I have it here. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

True, but a reader should not have to crack open a reference to understand statements that are out of context. The statement on Mein Kamp references Jeal, so let's take a look at the surrounding text:

It is fortunate for Baden-Powell's reputation that Michael Rosenthal appears not to have read his diary entry for 6 October 1939. The Second World War was in its earliest phase, and Baden-Powell had recently borrowed a copy of Mein Kampf; had he been an admirer of Hitler he would have acquired one many years earlier, but now he wanted to get to know the enemy. He wrote: `Lay up all day. Read "Mein Kampf". A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc. — and ideals which Hitler do not practise himself.'

As the story of an adventurer with a capacity for action unrivalled since the age of Napoleon, Mein Kampf — if not 'wonderful' — is certainly a remarkable document. Writing in his private diary at the age of 82, Baden-Powell would not have seen the need to choose his words carefully. It would be ridiculous to suppose that his use of that exceptionally ill-chosen adjective implied approval of Hitler's territorial ambitions, which had plunged Europe into war and which were so clearly signposted in the book. When Hitler had occupied what was left of the Czech state in March 1939, Baden-Powell had concluded that the dictator had 'developed megalomania'." So Baden-Powell's failure in the diary entry to comment upon the evidence of megalomania in Mein Kampf does not mean that he thought of Hitler in any other light.

— Jeal, Tim (2001). Baden-Powell. Yale University Press. p. 550. ISBN 0-300-09103-6.

WE went through this when this content was first added, but it has been reworked a number of times. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Montgomery39,

On the 11th of August 1936 Baden-Powell was invited by German ambassador Joachim von Ribentrop for tea at the German Embassy in London. Reichsjugendführer Baldur von Schirach was also there (what Baden-Powell did not know at the time of the invitation). The Reichsjugendführer talked about cooperation plans of limited readmitted German Scout association, Hitler-Jugend and the International Bureau. Baden-Powell wrote in his diary that he went home unimpressed from this meeting. (see: Jürgen W.Diener (Umba): Eberhard Plewe (Ebbo) 1905-1986 Die Suche nach Einigkeit und Einheit,puls 16-August 1988, Südmarkverlag, p.26)

The efforts of the Hitler-Jugend to get in contact with the international Scout movement only worked with the Japanese Scouts[1].

The Jamboree 1933 was visited (see the difference between visit and take part) by members of the Hitler-Jugend. (Wilson: Scouting round the World, 1960 p.43). And around the Jamborees 1933 and 1937 the Hitler-Jugend tried to get in contact with Scouts travelling through Germany i.e. in Köln 1933[2]

One cause why the search for contacts and cooperation between Hitler-Jugend and IB did not work was that Emmerich Teuber and Alexander Lion via his friend Teuber informed the IB in London about the repression of the Scout movement in Germany and the attacks of the illegal Hitler-Jugend against Austrian Scouting in Austria. -Phips (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

For the context of the Swatika see: [3]-Phips (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, thanks for that info. Have a nice day and happy editing! Montgomery' 39 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Move Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell → Robert Baden-Powell — Full name is unique w/o title as suffix.--Mytwonickles (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact it's not, see Robert Baden-Powell, 3rd Baron Baden-Powell Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/Archive 2006#1st Baron Baden-Powell. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose move per kintetsbuffalo. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move per kintetsbuffalo. This is proper Brit naming convention, and I'm not even a Brit. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move per kintetsbuffalo. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose move per the consensus reached in the 2006 discussion, that is, because he is commonly referred to as "Lord Baden-Powell", the correct article title should be "Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell" to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles about English peerages. No reason to change it now. Any user typing "Robert Baden Powell", "Lord Baden Powell", "Lord Robert Baden-Powell", or even just "B-P" is redirected to this article anyway.  JGHowes  ^talk 06:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ref to Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century

I added "Jeal's conclusion has never been subjected to a scholarly critique, but may need one" but it was reverted with a request to discuss it here. I used the reference quote "However,in the almost twenty years since he presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, though it begs for one.", from Nelson R. Block, Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, Ed. Nelson R. Block and Tammy M. Proctor, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2009, pg 6. ISBN: 1-4438-0450-9. This book is the result of the first conference of academic scholars on Scouting, so it is an extremely important source. In his contribution, Block looks broadly at historical accounts of Scouting and says that many get it wrong. He gives reasons why Jeal may have got it wrong arising from Jeal's absence of expertise in psychoanalysis, so he gives a reason why a scholarly critique may be needed. In the absence of such a scholarly critique, Jeal's views are clearly notable. Block's statement "Jeal's conclusion has never been subjected to a scholarly critique" is authoritative as he gives a massive reference list of books about Baden-Powell. That the most important independent biography of Baden-Powell has not been refuted by scholars shows that it is the key source for this material. Of course, if there is in future a scholarly critique, then we have to take note of that, but let us not "crystal ball" this. I think a reference to this should be in the article, but I am conscious that my wording could be better. Could someone improve it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to add content that talks about something that hasn't happens, it's needless expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Because this is a valuable source and the absence of a scholarly critique is important and notable. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't add content so as to add a citation, in is talking about something there has not been, we could add a lot of things there have not been, the fact that there has not been a scholarly critique is clear, reputed scholars are not going to waste there time considering something like this which is nothing more actually than Jeals obsession, with absolutely nothing to support it in the way of facts. This is a good reason to restrict any expansion of this content at this article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we clearly just disagree here. If Jeal was not noticed by anyone, then the absences of a scholarly critique would be how you indicate. But Jeal has been noticed massively by non-scholars, so the absence of a scholarly critique is important. I should perhaps have said that Brock's previous sentence is "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, the mainstream press seems to have taken them as fact". It is the latter in a sense that makes Jeal's views notable. BTW, Brock does give a kind of critique but stresses that it is Jeals's absence of expertise in psychoanalysis that is the problem, so it seems he wants someone with that expertise to write the scholarly critique. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't say Jeal's theory wasn't noticed. I found plenty of refs during Kenneth McLaren's AfD: [4], [5], [6] etc. Just search for "Kenneth McLaren" "the Boy". Pcap ping 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course Jeal has been noticed. That is what I said. That is the whole point. Since Jeal has been noticed so much, the absence of a scholarly critique is notable. Scholars have not noticed Jeal in scholarly publications. Your search results are valuable. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The titillation of wondering whether someone from history may have been gay or not because he had a good male friend is not going to attract many scholars. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bduke, in this section alone Jeals name has been mentioned fifteen times, fourteen by you ... in this small discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So? This discussion in this section is about the sexuality section and this new book. It is about whether a quote from the new book about Jeal should be added. What is wrong with that? That book will be a marvelous source for Scouting articles, but only one contribution refers to Jeal and B-P. Jeal is the foremost biography of Baden-Powell. That is why the one chapter that discusses B-P's sexuality is so important. The biography overall is so good. Have you read it? Do you have any broad knowledge of Baden-Powell studies? Your comment above that this will not attract scholars is not, I think, shared by Brock, who appears to be surprised that there is no scholarly critique. He gives a small one himself, but says it is not the main theme of his contribution which is broader and he is looking for a a scholar who has expertise in psychoanalysis. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you say you were a friend of his? Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing with rio.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "Am I a friend of Jeal or Brock?" Of course not. I have never meet either of them. Please assume good faith. I have been around WP for a long time. Jeal's biography is by far the best biography of B-P as the quote, "a balanced, definitive assessment which so far transcends previous treatments as to make them almost meaningless", in the lead of Baden-Powell (book) says. Note that the part about B-P possible homosexuality is only a small part of the book and is the only part of the book that anybody has disputed. I ask again, have either of you read the book? It would really help the discussion if you had, but it is does not appear that you have read it. Brock's collection of conference contributions is recent and seems to be difficult to obtain in some countries. It contains much of value that is quite separate from this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Brook is giving no proof, no facts about his statement, without the possibility to check. If nobody wrote about it, how does he know that scholars does not agree with Jeal? which scholars? are they experts in the field (a complaint against Jeal)? He should at least tell which scholar considers Jail's conclusions speculative. Otherwise you only know that Brooks tells that other people tells... Therefore it is a primary source, not tertiary (a tertiary mentions its secondary source). Why did Brook himself not write the article?. And is Brook a neutral source, related as he is with BSA? I think that most scholars are not interested if Baden-Powell is homo or not. They don't want to spend their time on a minor personal quality, with only much interest from anti-homo's, which they don't like to be connected with. DParlevliet (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a valid published third-party source. Sorry for brevity but I am becoming increasingly bored with replying to nonsensical comments from the above author in their crusade to prevent any criticism of Jeal appearing on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I see no reason why the artciel cannot mention the lack of Scholastic response to the Jeal's (lets see if I can word this in a in a non contencious way) assertions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the Scouting Frontiers cite is best left in the Baden-Powell book article as a response. I don't have Scouting Frontiers, but the content as quoted neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality, it just states that there has been no critical response to Jeal. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Why should an article on robert baden powell have a sentence or two saying that an aspect of one of the biographies of BP has failed to attract academic comment? What on earth does that say about Baden-Powell (the answer is of course "precisely nothing.") That sort of commentary on Jeal and Jeal's book should go into the article on.... jeal's book. What a concept!Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I now notice that Bduke entered a shorter citation as I expected, so my previous comment was about another text, so can be disregarded. But: "may need one" is a personal opinion of Block, which he does not support by evidence. So that should not be in. What is left is true, so I have not removed it in the Book article, but is somewhat redundant. It there would be a later article, it would in wikipedia. And if one starts mentioning from all items how long no new article was written, Wikipedia would grow quite a bit. DParlevliet (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

Current content

Let me deconstruct the current content:

• Tim Jeal has speculated that Baden-Powell was a homosexual as have others.
  • Redundant with the next Jeal statement.

• Eminent Edwardians by Piers Brendon, says that such speculation has focused on his close friendship with Kenneth McLaren, though the books says: "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge".
  • Brendon has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: (regarding McLaren) "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge."

• Michael Rosenthal, in his study of Baden-Powell and the origins of Scouting, also speculated that Baden-Powell and McLaren were lovers.
  • Rosenthal has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: "Whether a physical relationship accompanied the deep affection Baden-Powell had for McLaren, it is impossible to determine, though it is clear that 'The Boy' occupied a very special place emotionally for Baden-Powell."

• Jeal says his research found no evidence of a physical relationship and argues that Baden-Powell was likely a "repressed homosexual."
  • This is at the heart of the issue. Baden-Powell has an entire chapter devoted to B-P's sexuality. Chapter 3 starts off by discussing prior claims by Brendon and Rosenthal and their lack of supporting references. He then discusses B-P's relationship with McLaren and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." (p. 82) The chapter then discusses B-P's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." (p. 103)

• Baden-Powell did not tolerate Scoutmasters who made sexual advances towards their charges.
  • This has no relationship to B-P's sexuality; it neither confirms nor denies his own sexuality.

• Another biographer, Scout movement leader William Hillcourt, who collaborated with Olave Baden-Powell in the writing of Baden-Powell: The Two Lives of a Hero (originally published in 1964), makes no mention of any homosexual tendencies and said of Baden-Powell's courtship of his future wife, "From the moment Baden-Powell met Olave [aboard the ship Arcadia in 1912], his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before."
  • Again, this neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality.
    • Do you possess any reasoning capabilities? Of course the above tells us much about Baden-Powell's sexuality. Please don't be ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamejudd (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I only recently acquired Eminent Edwardians and The Character Factory, as Jeal was recommended as the superior biography. It certainly appears that the recommendation was spot on. Brendon's book of four biographies is just plain eccentric, and has only the one bit of speculation. Rosenthal is much better, but much of his work has been refuted by Jeal; again he has only the one unreferenced statement.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated content

I think this would be a good summary:

Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual."

References as discussed. Details on Jeal's views belong in Baden-Powell. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a mouthpiece for jeals book, there is a article for book reviews, this is not it, his obsession with bp's sexuality is nothing but speculation and his thoughts and opinions should not be given excessive weight here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Confused — I have no clue what you mean by book reviews. There are only three publications dealing with B-P's sexuality. Brendon and Rosenthal are very minor, with one unreferenced statement each, whereas Jeal has an entire chapter with a few other bits scattered throughout— all well referenced. Therefore Jeal is the only author who has actually discussed the issue and the two quotes sum up his conclusions. By using the quotes, we are not interpreting, but stating Jeal's views. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Add the quotes there, Baden-Powell_(book) the book review, there is a link to the article. This article has a mention of Jeal and his book, that is plenty, if anyone else is interested they can click on the link and go there and read all about it, this speculation about BP's sexuality should not be given excessive weight here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Good analysis, good text. Neutral, exact. I would not object if there would be some room for arguments against Jeal. On the other hand no selection of special citations (like the nude photo's) without the rest of the explanation. And I must admit: according Wiki-rules this is what it should be. Has nothing to do with book review. So yes, I vote for Gadget's proposal.DParlevliet (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to keep this a short summary of Jeal's conclusions. The book article can have as much detail as anyone wants to add, as long as it does not become a coatrack for the sexuality issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I see some virtue in Gadget850's text. The current text does not correctly reflect the sources. First, a word about "Eminent Edwardians" and Piers Brendon. It is eccentric in a way, but it is in the tradition of "Eminent Victorians", by Lytton Strachey, which is much earlier and has had a significant impact. For example, it altered how people think about Florence Nightingdale. I have read all four contributions in "Eminent Edwardians" and think it throws real new insight on all four people. It is also significant for our purposes in that it is the first suggestion that B-P might have been homosexual. He put that "out there" and since than it has been difficult to ignore by other writers on B-P. The thrust of what he says before the quote "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge", is that "B-P avoided the distraction of close relationships with men as well as women", but made one "significant exception" with Kenneth McLaren. He follows the quote immediately by "But it did cause B-P to make a fool of himself at Mafeking". He then tells the story of how B-P wanted to visit McLaren in a nearby Boer hospital as a wounded prisoner of war under a white flag and had to be stopped by his officers who argued that the Boers would ignore the while flag and arrest him. That story is covered elsewhere in many places. Second, I want to comment on how Jeal's position fits with the rest of his book. The book is massive, nearly 700 pages. The material on B-P being a latent homosexuality is mostly restricted to one chapter of about 40 pages. I see no evidence of "obsession with bp's sexuality" as Off2riorob says. If anything it is the obsession of the reviewers and newspaper reports who say more about these 40 pages than the rest of the book. Does he add it for titillation? I do not think so. He argues that his latent homosexuality affects his whole character. Jeal believes it gives insight into B-P's attitudes and actions. I tried to add something to that effect, rather badly, but it was removed. The bald statement however that Jeal suggests B-P was a latent homosexual suggests mere titillation and fails to explain why he suggests it. Yes, we should not interpret Jeal, but we should report accurately what his view is and that is not just the bald statement, but what he concludes from it and what he says about why it is important. Third, about Baden-Powell_(book). This is not a book review. We do not add book reviews to wikipedia. It is an article about a book that is notable, because it has been widely noticed. So we tell readers what it is about, and how and why it has been noticed. We have an issue with undue wight, but the notice, as I say above, gives undue weight to these 40 pages out of 700 pages. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with adding details of Jail's story is that you have to add all. Otherwise you get the problem with the previous article with its nude photo's and BP like to see boys naked. The result will also be too dependent on what and how you cite. That is strong about Bduke text. It gives just the final statements of several scholars (not only Jeal). That is also better to defend then edit wars about details (see his simple analysis). If one want more detail, then read the 40 pages. DParlevliet (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[7] "Mr. Jeal is fascinated by whether or not Baden-Powell was a practicing homosexual." The whole thing revolves around this, as a couple of knowledgeable editors have exposed here, this whole issue is jeals opinion, this should not be given undue weight here, it is pure speculation, tedious pov that tires me to reply, this article is the biography of BP, as factual as possible, not a voice piece for the sexual obsessions of jeal and the minority propagation of his opinionated speculation of his supporters. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Every time you write something like the above, it reinforces my opinion that you have not read Jeal's book and that you are looking around for references that support your POV. That reviewer says Jeal is fascinated by whether or not Baden-Powell was a practicing homosexual. The reviewer is totally incorrect. Jeal very quickly and analytically rejects the suggestions of Brendon and Rosenthall that he was a practicing homosexual. He then investigates whether B-P was a latent homosexual. He is interested in that question, because he sees it as helping him to understand B-P better, but he is by no means fascinated by the question. The whole of your comment above is merely a set of assertions, unsupported by a reading of Jeal's book. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert intellectual and we are not supposed or required to write articles in that way, in fact we are required to write them for the general public so as they may be able to glean some easily sourced information from an article, it does not required to be an in depth analytical view of a speculative book.IMO you are in the wrong place attempting to add this content here is undue weight to a minority position, it is well covered na couple of sentences and requires no expansion here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your first comment is correct. We are writing for the general public (although you would not think so reading some mathematics articles!). In this case they may have seen a fuss about all this and want to know what it is about. However, we use sources and we have to read the sources and think about them, otherwise we can accidentally cherry pick sources that give the wrong impression. I do not want this section to be long, but I do not want it as you just left it, bunching all three authors together as "speculated as to whether or not their relationship had homosexual aspects". I want it to differentiate briefly the different views. Brendon lets the cat out of the bag. Brendon and Rosenthall both speculate about a physical relationship. Jeal refutes that argument but suggests latent homosexuality. That is just a set of dot points for what I think should be covered. On the use of the term "speculate", I agree that Brendon and Rosenthall merely speculate. Jeal however makes a lengthy reasoned argument, so "suggest" is better. Of course he could be wrong, but it has not been properly refuted yet. Biographers of course do not stick to facts and even facts are often under dispute. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I welcome alternative versions to be constructed here, so we can discuss the merits, instead of changing the article every few hours. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats the thing, each time someone wants to enlarge this article with a book review , I get the desire to look again at the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• What can I say, I am quite happy now with what I have edited to, and I support it as clean simple cited and informative, it gets the basic message across and provides the links, feel free to offer your version for comparison, or be bold and add it yourself, at the end of the day it is a agreeable consensus that is the wikipedia position. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, Off2riorob, that even if you are right, you are not allowed by Wikipedia to write that in their articles. We are editors, not writers. We are only allowed to write here what scientific scholars wrote in a scientific way. And Jeal and his book are regarded to be that (which does not mean he is right in everything). That is the rule of Wikipedia. The only way is finding good literature against Jeal arguments. Gadget's text is strong because it is simple, it just quotes what scholars told with good reference. Without details which can be charged. What editors wanted has happened: the article is deleted, transferred to the main article, in Gadget's version much shorter so in agreement with its minor importance. DParlevliet (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The sexuality of Baden Powell article was deleted not merged. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination), many comments were to delete and merge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There were a few comments for merge but the general consensus was against merge imo. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no support to merge the whole content to here, but there was a lot of delete comments that argued that the section here would be sufficient to cover this topic properly. That is what we are trying to do, and we most certainly do not want it to get larger than what is was. Currently it is rather shorter, so it could expand a little. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as long term notability for this incident goes, I was looking and thinking to take out the second half and delete what was left and merge with the previous section. 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, shorter is good, less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gadget commented the present version (I agree with his arguments) and suggested a new one. Normally he would have changed it in the article and has the right to do so. But he made a sandbox here. So he has the right that his comments are discussed here. So argue what is wrong in the text, what must be added, comment his earlier argument for not adding, and take into account that whatever you add must really, clear and reliable add to the information. And about the delete: it is strange an administrator does not give reasons for a delete. But most "deletes" at the end used the argument fork with the main article. And look to the wiki rules: that can be the only reason for delete. But in fact a lot of editors had already merged the article her DParlevliet (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to content

Ed suggested above:

Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual."

The current state of the first part of the section is:-

Piers Brendon in his book Eminent Edwardians , Tim Jeal in his book, Baden-Powell and Michael Rosenthal, in his study of Baden-Powell and the origins of Scouting all speculated on Baden-Powell's friendship with Kenneth McLaren regarding Baden Powell's sexuality and opined as to whether or not their relationship had homosexual aspects.

The main difference is that Ed's version starts with B-P relationship to Kenneth McLaren, but then widens it. The current version stays with Kenneth McLaren. Ed's version is better in that respect. Indeed I think the focus entirely on Kenneth McLaren is what the now banned editor who started the sexuality article, now deleted, wanted. The sources do not focus on Kenneth McLaren. Brendon and Rosenthal do focus on him, but both are very short sections. Jeal starts by refuting those sections and moves on to look at wider issues of B-P's character. So if the first sentence in Ed's draft is sourced to both Brendon and Rosenthal, and Jeal of course sourced to the book chapter, then I think Ed's version is pretty close to what we want. I am undecided about the part of the section not included above about Hillcourt's comments. Does this add anything? If it is to remain, then in some way we need to take into account that Lady B-P was a coauthor, that she was extremely jealous of her husband's friendship with McLaren and that she burnt a great deal of B-P's correspondence before she allowed Hillcourt access (all sourceable to Jeal). So Hillcourt does not mention any suggestion of homosexuality. Given,Lady B-P's views and the fact that he published it just before homosexuality stopped being illegal in the UK, one would be amazed if he had mentioned it. I think we should remove the Hillcourt part, but we need to add a source that criticizes Jeal. The best I know is by Block, but he then says in effect that it is not a scholarly critique when he says there has been no scholarly critique, but that one is needed. Maybe for now, Block will do, so we might add something like:-

Nelson Block argues that Jeal's conclusions are questionable, that he is doing amateur psychoanalysis without having expertise in the area, and that even an expert using this methodology 50 years after someone's death would be questionable.

The source is A well where others may drink: 100 years of scouting History, Nelson R. Block, 6-7, in Block, Nelson R. (2009,). Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 1-4438-0450-9. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link). Note that it is his chapter in a book of contrinutions where he was also one of the editors. That is why his name appears twice in the reference.

Does this push the discussion forward? I think we should not touch the section in the article until we reach consensus.--Bduke (Discussion) 03:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid not, because it does not add real content. It is just his personal opinion without facts. Is he qualified for this opinion? Is he a psychoanalyst? You mention that Block himself does not regard his article to be scholarly, so cannot be referred to, and that he is not able to write that (otherwise he would have done that). Then it cannot be use as a strong source. You cannot dispute 40 pages of Jeal with just one sentence. DParlevliet (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not trying to dispute 40 pages of Jeal. I am merely trying to give a source that shows that not everybody agrees with Jeal. Ed's draft suggests that everybody accepts Jeal's conclusion, so for balance we need to add something. Block's objection is one others use, but his is scholarly if not fully expert on psychoanalysis. It is better than a newspaper review. Does the rest of what I wrote progress the discussion - use Ed's draft and also remove the section on Hillcourt? Hillcourt does not give balance because it was written well before Jeal, not after. What wording do you support? --Bduke (Discussion) 11:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We have 3 opines that BP was possibly homosexual and one for the opposite position that he appeared to be very interested and in love with a woman. We don't need anything to balance anything, we are not here to opine about somebodies opining, we have a clear simple statement that needs no commentry or reviewing at all. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your wording does not begin to do justice to the different views of the 3 opinions, in particular on the clear difference between suppressed or latent homosexuality and a physical relationship. I do not support your wording. Ed's wording is much better, but it would be good to have a reference that challenges Jeal after Jeal's publication and not just "not mention it" before Jeal's publication. There is dispute about Jeal's conclusions. We need to say that. That is what NPOV is about. Another problem is that Hillcourt's position is not the opposite position. One can be a suppressed homosexual and in love with a woman. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to do justice to any opinion, at the end of the day, all of them are peoples opinions, as far as I know, none of them even met the guy and all of them wrote books to make money. As the portrayal of their opinions is kept short we have no need to discuss those opinions or rebut them, as I hsave said, the books and the authours have there own articles where these opinions can be enlarged on. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two writers have proposed that Baden-Powell was an active homosexual. A third, Jeal, refutes this but labels him as a repressed homosexual. Most others, and there are others - and ignoring them just because in Jeal's text their accuracy and independence is questioned because they knew him - make no mention of the fact. Hillcourt covers that base pretty well.

I am glad that you reverted the accusation of Bduke acting like Haiduc. Haiduc's modus operandi is best forgotten along with him. Bduke is proposing a valid source for the view that Jeal's opinion is not universal, which seems totally fair to me although I personally agree that ideally all discussion on the text would be on the article about that text. As you know, though, adding anything to that text is a rather unpleasant exercise. DiverScout (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as its clear this is all just opinions then I see no problom with the sugested source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this?

"Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." Jeal then examines some of the other aspects of Baden-Powell's life, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.". Nelson Block argues that Jeal's conclusions are questionable, that he is doing amateur psychoanalysis without having expertise in the area, and that even an expert using this methodology 50 years after someone's death would be questionable."

That sounds perfect to me. DiverScout (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looks good (refering to the graph begining "Early discussion tktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion is full of flowery opinion that comes close to portraying its self as fact, especially .., The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. The section is fine as it is, not flowery, not excessively opinionated, just a simple clear statement that a few people have questioned BP's sexuality and some others have opposed those opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual" is clearly attributed to jeal, hoiwever in order to make it cleaer that this is Jeals opinion.

"Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." Jeal then examines some of the other aspects of Baden-Powell's life, stating that in his opinion "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.". Nelson Block argues that Jeal's conclusions are questionable, that he is doing amateur psychoanalysis without having expertise in the area, and that even an expert using this methodology 50 years after someone's death would be questionable."Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Explaining and expanding on these opinions is unnecessary and actually doesn't belong here, the book has its own page, expanding as to what all these people thought and who agrees with this and who disagrees with his opinion adds nothing to this article, which is the biography of BP, it is not the correct place to expand on the opinions of two or three biographers, it is enough to mention the details and link to the people and the books. Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This ("unnecessary", "not the correct place", "adds nothing", "doesn't belong here") is all assertion. Biographies deal with this kind of issue, so we should deal with them sensibly. It is rather like the discussion of his actions at the Siege of Mafeking. B-P's actions at Mafeking have been questioned. Opinions are expressed in the article with contrary views. That section needs improvement. The criticism of B-P is not just about doing it as the expense of the natives. People have argued that he had a siege mentality and could easily have broken out; that the fake minefields and other tricks did not fool the Boers; and so on. I noted your insult and inability to assume good faith during my night. I trust you will not do that again. The discussion during the Australian night was interesting. We seem to be developing a consensus. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ed's draft suggests that everybody accepts Jeal's conclusion": that is no true, it just mention it. What you could do is adding the sentence "Jeal's conclusion is disputed but not yet refuted by scholars" and then refer to Block without quoting him. That is a true statement. You also don't need to quote Jeal, so then it could be;

Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography discusses the relationship and concludes that there is no evidence that this friendship was physical. Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. Jeal's conclusion is disputed but not yet refuted by scholars.

That is less stronger. I understand some want to go further, but then the article should not have been deleted. I have warned for that. After a lot of editing it consisted half of Jeal's arguments and half arguments against Jeal (mostly from me). That was acceptable and not disputed for quite a while. But that is deleted and now you in a featured article so has to follow strictly Wiki-rules. DParlevliet (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree its less strong, it seems to imply (by the back door) the Jeals conclusion has been proven, which it has not. So if you wish to include the line " not yet refuted by scholars" you should also make it clear that Jeals theory has not been proven beyond doubt either.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The arguments for deletion of the other article mostly suggested that the point could be amply covered here. We are now discussing drafts that are much smaller than what was here while the Afd was going on. Length of this section is not really an issue as we all want to keep it fairly small. The issue is about content and sources, not length. I have no objection to your draft but it needs sources. If we just add that it will be covered with "citation needed" tags in no time. The first sentence needs a source to both Brendon and Rosenthall. The second needs a reference to Jeal and a link to the article on his book. The final sentence needs a source and that is what we were discussing. I think Block is fine as a source for that sentence, particularly the "not yet refuted by scholars" as Block gives an extended bibliography of studies of B-P so indicating that he knows the literature. His view seems reliable. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My proposal was just text as example. It should be Gadget's text including his references adding the last sentence with reference to Brook and Jeal's citation change in explanation.DParlevliet (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As Jeal does not say it's a proven fact, just a possibility, why would we say it has not been refuted? All Jeal says is that he was possibly a repressed Homosexual, not that he was one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeals quote is: "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.". So he not saying it is a possibility. DParlevliet (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The years-long debate over what the sexuality section should say, its length, even if it should be in the article is getting realy old. What caused the separate article to be created was those who wanted to give it massive UNDUE weight here (IIRC up to 25% or so of the whole article back in 2006) and even afterwards people have still been arguing almost non stop over this. The bottom line is this issue can not be proven, has some scholars supporting it with RS refs. That means per standard wiki policies that a NPOV summary of the situation is warranted with refs. One para would do the job, 2 at most. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

References

Email from Nelson Block

Nelson Block, whose book is getting a lot of talk on this page as well as on WT:SCOUT, has sent me an email he'd like me to post in full, including his email address. I've sent the email to three other admins in the Scouting WikiProject (User:JGHowes, User:Bduke, and User:Gadget850), so that should alleviate concerns about its authenticity. I will send it to any other admin who requests it too. If you're wondering why he contacted me, it's because he's helped me with other articles on wiki before, especially William Hillcourt. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the email from Block, Nelson (nblock@winstead.com):

<redact my name>:

I hope all is well with you. Congrats to you and your colleagues for the continued improvements to the quality of the Scouting entries on Wikipedia.

I wonder if you'd do me a favor?

I was looking at the Wikipedia article on B-P. I see in the "Talk" pages there was some discussion about whether to cite my article, "A Well Where Others May Drink: 100 Years of Scouting History," in the recently-published book Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement's First Century. The issue under discussion relates to my one-page outline of the problems with Tim Jeal's amateur psychoanalyis of B-P and his conclusion that B-P was a repressed homosexual.

If you could post this e-mail to those having the discussion on the "Talk" page, I would appreciate it. My other commitments just don't allow me to participate in Wikipedia discussions, but I see the frustration in the postings of some of those in the conversation, and I hate for students of history to spin their wheels (having spent more than my share of time doing so).

I'd like to make the following points:

1. Citing to my article is not as important as making the points in my article.

2. The article is a general discussion of mis-uses of Scout history, and Jeal's amateur psychoanalysis is one of several examples of those who mis-use Scout history.

3. In the article, I say that "a detailed discussion of Jeal's argument is beyond the scope of this article, but an outline of the issues makes the point." The outline is well-founded and footnoted, so no one needs a 25 page article to critique Jeal's couple of pages of amateur psychoanalysis. The points made in my article stand on their own. A more detailed discussion would be interesting and useful, but probably not necessary.

4. One of the correspondents in the discussion questions my statement (made without a footnote) . The statement is made based on discussions with many members of the professional history community. The use of the term "speculative" actually comes from the world's leading Girl Scout historian and the co-chair of the 2008 Scouting History Symposium at Johns Hopkins University, Prof. Tammy Proctor. None of the other historians - and all but a couple of the leading historians on Scout history were in attendance - to whom I spoke on the subject considers Jeal's work on this issue authoritative.

5. It's very curious that some of the correspondents feel justified in discussing the article when they have not read it. I'd be glad to send a copy to anyone who wants to see it. Frankly, I would think that anyone hoping to write about Scouting history would read all fifteen of the essays.

6. Anyone is welcome to contact me at this e-mail address any time. People can always find me if they just Google me - a link to my law firm's website and my e-mail address would be one of the first links to appear.

Thanks very much.

Best (and happy BSA centennial!).

Nelson

• • — Rlevse • Talk • 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is most interesting. Let me start by saying I have received a copy of this email as Rlevse says, and also another direct reply from Nelson Block after Rlevse copied his reply to Block to me. Of course this can not be cited, but in the absence of evidence that historians think it is not speculative, it can only support adding the quote "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, ..". However, Block seems to not fully understand out sourcing policy with his comment that points "stand on their own", although I may have misundersttod him. I fully endorse his point 5 and I am carefully reading the book and making some contributions to many articles. It is not just about B-P. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also contacted Mr Block who confirms that he did send this e-mail.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did comment the reference of Block as they were done. From his email I understand that he disputed Jeal with arguments and references. If Bduke refers to that I trust him and will no object. However that is not what I understood from Bduke. About "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative" that was just wrong because he is quoting anonymous people without reference. From his email I understand he did mean the scouting history community, that is different. Then I would not object, because it is probably true. I expect most scouting historians will not like the idea of a homosexual Baden-Powell. They mostly write about the very good things of Scouting history. Still the argument is weak. Has this community professional knowledge of psychology, as they blame Jeal? If their opinion is quotable, why did they not write the scholarly article? DParlevliet (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple of points. DParlevliet - You say "I expect most scouting historians will not like the idea of a homosexual Baden-Powell. They mostly write about the very good things of Scouting history." Block's email similarly discusses Scouting history. Firstly, this article is not about Scouting history. It's about Baden-Powell. The man was about much more than Scouting. Secondly, rather than "Scouting historians" being concerned about the idea of a homosexual BP, it's mainly going to be BSA historians. It's BSA that makes homosexuality an issue, not Scouting at a global level.—Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

HiLo48— "It's BSA that makes homosexuality an issue." True, but I fail to understand the significance here. I am a volunteer member of the BSA, but my editing advances the aims of Wikipedia over those interests; see User:Gadget850/about. If I wanted to sweep stuff under the rug, there are other outlets. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The significance is that in most cases where you and Block used the term Scouting, it really only means BSA, because homosexuality is not an issue to Scouting in general, just the BSA.. As a member of Scouting, but not a member of BSA, that distinction is important to me, as it should be in an encyclopedia. And the article is actually about Baden-Powell, not Scouting, and especially not BSA. Please note that I agree with what you declare about your own approach to editing here. I have no problems with it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read Blocks article? Besides it not the BSA thats makes it an issue here, its editors who insist on casting apertions as to the integrity and inpartialiy of other editors, and I think it shoulod stop.Slatersteven (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If the BSA had not made homosexuality an issue, it would not be an issue here. The rest of Scouting does not make it an issue. That is the point I want to highlight. This is NOT a Scouting issue. It's a BSA issue. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DParlevliet, I am very busy off-wiki and will be brief. I am finding it difficult to understand your point, but it seems to me that you are complicating matters that are fairly simple. It does not matter that he is quoting anonymous people without reference. He is the organiser of an academic conference on Scouting history and he makes a broad point in his introductory lecture. Of course we can cite it. We do not need his email to say that it likely to be correct as if it was not people at the conference would have disagreed and his co-editor, who would have reviewed his contribution to the book, would have made him change it. That is how academics work. But even without that possible assumption, it is fine. It illustrates that Jeal's views are still being discussed and have neither been rejected or generally accepted. That is the balanced view that this section needs. Also the Scouting historians were a mixed lot from several countries with many from universities. They would not generally have had a pro-BSA view. In fact I believe they would have had a detached academic view. That is how the articles read, although all admire Scouting and I guess that is why this is their academic field. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the main points of the email directly rebuts your conclusion, that Jeal's work has "neither been rejected or generally accepted". He writes: "None of the other historians - and all but a couple of the leading historians on Scout history were in attendance - to whom I spoke on the subject considers Jeal's work on this issue authoritative." I think it's pretty clearly stated - at least according to Block and the historians he has spoken with - that Jeal's work is roundly rejected. Also, no historian of scouting history would be worth his (or her) salt without also being very knowledgeable concerning B-P himself, the two go hand in hand. To quote you, "that is how academics work".

I don't see how, in any way, B-P's sexuality has any place in the article. There is no evidence, no testimony, not even any secondhand assertions to knowledge of said. Frankly, it meets the definition of libel quite accurately. It doesn't bring any fruitful information concerning the man himself. There is simply no purpose for the mention of it. Using the rationale here for its inclusion, every biography on Wikipedia should include a section where every heterosexual person's supposed homosexuality is discussed, followed by no evidence whatsoever. It's preposterous for a person to state that a person was a "repressed homosexual" without any evidence. How can Jeal possibly know what was going on in B-P's psyche? It's not just absurd for a non-professional (in the field of psychology) to assert, it's absurd for *anyone* to assert under those circumstances.

That section could easily be summed up thusly: "Robert Baden-Powell was never witnessed, nor were any claims made that he was involved in, any homosexual behavior. He expressly condemned any scoutmaster engaging in any sexual behavior with a scout. He was married for 29 years and his wife never made any claims that he was a homosexual. However, he appreciated the male form, suffered from headaches after he married and had a really close male friend. Therefore, he might have been a repressed homosexual." That is pretty much what the article contains and it's absurd. It is libelous and ludicrous and one could easily make the claim that it is included as a dig to the BSA contingent and their policies against homosexual scoutmasters. As such, it has no place in the article. Supertheman ^(talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed widely for many years. It is not libel as one can not libel the dead. To me the most important issue is that we have to follow reliable independent sources and it is clear that many biographies of B-P are not independent. The one by Jeal is independent and is clearly the most important biography that has been written about him, as well as, I think, still the most recent. Jeal is noted for writing biographies that have been widely and well reviewed. His one on B-P is not a "one off". Jeal is also not the only biographer that has has raised issues about B-P's sexuality. It was first raised by Piers Brandon in his "Eminent Edwardians". That was referenced in an earlier version of this section, but it was removed in an effort to make the section shorter and tighter. It is mentioned by Jeal and indeed criticized there. We would not be working from a neutral point of view if this section was just removed. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Supertheman - the issue of BP's sexuality will inevitably be raised for as long as parts of Scouting, particularly the BSA, make an issue of sexuality. In my view, neither is a good thing, but I cannot change the world. Another aspect that I think is missing from the discussion is what was normal back when BP was young. I'm not referring to homosexuality but to a much greater acceptance of images of naked youth as a form of art and beauty. Or just even that kids could be naked without being seen as sexual objects. As a kid on Boy Scout Camps in Australia in the 1950s I can recall nudity at the swimming hole, with no sexual overtones at all. (Now that we have girls throughout the movement it clearly cannot happen.) I would like to see a lot more attention paid to this aspect of BP's background. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

For the record I am in the process of producing a paper dealing with these issues. Should it be published on completion, I would hope that the content would be considered as counter-argument - but until someone has published such a paper (whether mine or anothers) we have a duty to record that the issue has been raised. What we should not do is, as was the case in the past, give undue weight to the issue. DiverScout (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Clear absence of good faith

collapsing section that isn't really helpful in improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hadn't looked at this article since the deletion of the "Sexuality" article. And now having done so, I'm very disappointed. One of the strong arguments used by many of those arguing for that article's deletion was that what was in this article was sufficient. No-one foreshadowed significant changes here. To now be doing so after using the existence of what was in this article as a reason to delete the other article is, to me, quite unacceptable behaviour. Even if those now making the changes really believe they are needed, they are not showing good faith to those who argued, on their side of the previous discussion, that what was here was fine. It really does look like selfish, POV and not good faith behaviour. Nothing should have been changed in this article without extensive discussion and strong consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC) That section has been the major point of contention in the article for years. One can only hope that it'll be stable one day. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC) And it will stay a major point as long as there are scouts which abhore homosexuality. I warned that deleting the article would attract the discussion to this article. What HiLo48 expects I don't know. The delete discussion started with a few sentences here but when it was deleted it was about the size of the article. As long as the administrator does not tell on what ground he deleted the article, we will not know. However Gadget's article is a good, short, referenced article of the scientific state. That can easily be defended and who adds must give good references, worthy of the quality of the whole article. DParlevliet (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC) At this moment there is not appropriate balance in that section - but that is being dealt with in the discussion above. I agree that it would have been better to deal with the content through discussion before such an edit was made, but Wikipedia articles are not owned by anyone and we all have to accept that they will change - not always in directions that we personally approve of - and that discussion is now taking place. I do agree, though, that a properly-written short paragraph here with links to articles on the texts where the authors opinions are presented as appropriate is the most encyclopedic approach and least likely to allow for future dispute. An attempt to add details of Jeal's arguments to the article on Jeal's text, as I stated I would do on the deletion thread, was however blocked by an editor who professes on these discussion pages to support his content, so it's not going to be easy. DiverScout (talk) 10:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC) It's precisely because no-one owns Wikipedia articles that nothing should have changed in that area of the article before considerable discussion. Both the good faith guidelines of Wikipedia and the ethics of those who think they are somehow defending BSA should have come into play. But both have been appallingly breached. Those who have done that breaching have lost much credibility. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Good faith does not restrict someone from editing without consensus. It tells us to assume that when someone makes an edit they are doing so to improve the article. I would also ask you to stop making accusations of breaching wikipedias rules on conduct and of questioning the ethics of editors with whom you are in dispute. Given the controversial nature of the material (and the possibility of edit war) it might have been better if the material had been discussed before alteration. One option is to remove all contentious material and to discuss a new section before adding it back.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC) That has been done with the proposal of Gadget. DParlevliet (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The deletion of the sexuality article never discussed "locking" the section here, nor would that have been relevant to the discussion "Foreshadowing" began the day the sexuality article was AfDed and the section here began to be changed; everyone should have expected this article and the book article to have some hot editing The section here had issues before the AfD and continues to have issues Please continue discuss specific issues with the current content ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC) In this particular case, editing without consensus was a major offence. It may not normally be a problem, but because of the previous discussion associated with the Sexuality article, it really is incredibly arrogant behaviour, and very poor manners. The motives of those doing it must really now be strongly questioned. HiLo48 (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Those misrepresenting my arguments, or even finding the need to inaccurately rephrase them, are also not behaving very ethically. Just stick to my precise words if you want to argue against them. Don't argue against something I haven't said. That really is pointless, and simply reinforces my case. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) So exactly what is it you dod not agree with about the current (or sugested) versions?Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Surely that is obvious. I don't approve of editing before discussion, especially in this case. HiLo48 (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Editing has occurred. Please participate in the discussion and let us know your opinions on the content. Otherwise, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC) It's around this stage in discussions, when the arrogance and bad manners of some editors dominates activity on an article, that I generally withdraw for a while until some sanity prevails. A better article will arise out of waiting for the irrational (and usually strongly POV) behaviour to subside, and then getting on with the real job. I'll leave it to the more courageous among you to keep fighting now, if that's what you want to do. HiLo48 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Don't let the door hit you on the ass. Breathtaking. You start a whole section to accuse others, the people you style as your opponents, as acting in bad faith, irrational, blah blah blah, whine whine whine. Your doing so is tolerated for some reason. And now you're off in a huff. Good riddance, kiddo.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

About Bali ultimate

collapsing section that isn't really helpful in improving the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How sad. Bali ultimate wrote a post directly abusing and attacking me as an individual, something I did not do to anybody, then again misrepresented me while hiding and attempting to lock the discussion. I did NOT style anybody as my opponents when I made my point on this matter. I did not actually express an opinion on the content of the changes I regarded as unacceptable because of their timing. I simply opposed ANY changes being made at that stage. Yes, I know I said I was withdrawing, and I will now. I simply felt the need to defend myself just a little. It's not nice to shoot people in the back. To all of you, do please have a civil discussion. Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated content 2: New version

The last days there was not much comment in substance of Gadget's new version or his comments on the present one, so I have put it in the article. It is (again) much shorter, so less to fuss about. I added the references, deleted the citations (does not add to the content), added a sentence about the dispute of Jeal's opinion. Also as a remembrance I repeat Gadget's comment about the previous version:

• Tim Jeal has speculated that Baden-Powell was a homosexual as have others.
  • Redundant with the next Jeal statement.

• Eminent Edwardians by Piers Brendon, says that such speculation has focused on his close friendship with Kenneth McLaren, though the books says: "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge".
  • Brendon has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: (regarding McLaren) "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge."

• Michael Rosenthal, in his study of Baden-Powell and the origins of Scouting, also speculated that Baden-Powell and McLaren were lovers.
  • Rosenthal has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: "Whether a physical relationship accompanied the deep affection Baden-Powell had for McLaren, it is impossible to determine, though it is clear that 'The Boy' occupied a very special place emotionally for Baden-Powell."

• Jeal says his research found no evidence of a physical relationship and argues that Baden-Powell was likely a "repressed homosexual."
  • This is at the heart of the issue. Baden-Powell has an entire chapter devoted to B-P's sexuality. Chapter 3 starts off by discussing prior claims by Brendon and Rosenthal and their lack of supporting references. He then discusses B-P's relationship with McLaren and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." (p. 82) The chapter then discusses B-P's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." (p. 103)

• Baden-Powell did not tolerate Scoutmasters who made sexual advances towards their charges.
  • This has no relationship to B-P's sexuality; it neither confirms nor denies his own sexuality.

• Another biographer, Scout movement leader William Hillcourt, who collaborated with Olave Baden-Powell in the writing of Baden-Powell: The Two Lives of a Hero (originally published in 1964), makes no mention of any homosexual tendencies and said of Baden-Powell's courtship of his future wife, "From the moment Baden-Powell met Olave [aboard the ship Arcadia in 1912], his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before."
  • Again, this neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality.

DParlevliet (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the new wording and think we should stick with until someone raises new issues in the future. However, the first sentence should be sourced to Brandon and Rosenthal. It is shouting out for a "citation needed" tag. Jeal was responding to these two authors, particularly in the extensive research that lead to "there is no evidence that this friendship was physical". So, add the references, but do not change the text. I'll add them later if nobody else does, but I need to be out now for several hours. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it implies that it proven, I would suggest replacing "Jeal's conclusion is disputed by scholars, but as yet no serious study has been undertaken." which reflects the situation better. Its not that they have failed, they have not tried. Also Block has refuted it in the sense that he has "denied the accuracy or truth of" the statement. Also it could be argued that as Block questions both the credibility of Jeals conclusions (in terms of stating that Jeal is not qualified to make judgements based on Psychological analysis) and his methodology (stating that Jeal uses too few sources to make his case a rigorous example of scholastic work (and that he ignores literature)). Thus (depending on your view) he can be seen as having offered counter arguments designed to "overthrow by argument" its a matter of perspective if you think his arguments win out.Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with extra refenrences of Bduke and "but as yet no serious study has been undertaken.". I will add them tomorrow. DParlevliet (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I had the cites on a workpage, so I added them. I also added page numbers for the other cites. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of altering the text to better reflect that Block says.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeal jeal jeal

This is not a jeal book review, we have an article for that, this version is more rounded and less opinionated, jeal said BPowell was homosexual, it is stated like he actually had a solid fact, he liked the male form, and he slept outside and he had a good male friend, rubbish, jeal has no qualifications in psychoanalysis or sexuality at all to assert anything, but its the most respected book, its speculation, jeals book has got an article, I wanted to immmediatly change the header when I saw it to jeals speculations about bp's sexuality, feel free to ask the community as to which version is supported by general consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this is not a book review. It is a brief paragraph on a notable aspect of how people have seen B-P's life, and Jeal has played a major role. Your argument regarding Jeal reads like a parody of what he actually said. I have reverted your change. There was consensus here for that change, after a long discussion. I would have liked more detail, but we reached a consensus so I support what I reverted to. If you disagree, please try to convince people here. You have not so far done so. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The new text

Sexuality

Early discussion..who by, when of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later..later than what biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes that there is no evidence..why does he have to conclude this when there is no evidence of a physical relationship that this friendship was physical. Jealjeal jeal jeal, if this is all about jeal then you should put his name in the header then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male formaccording to who and what, his military relationships..what have his military relationships got to do with anything, relevence? and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell was aone opinionated unqualified person's speculation repressed homosexual. Jeal's conclusion is disputed, but not yet examined in any detail by scholars..of course there has been no scholarly examinations, scholarly people would not waste there time speculating, guessing whether someone was a closet gay or not.

The section is full of blind comments that are totally unexplained, the previous edit was simple and opinionated. To explain the issues that this write has would give the whole issue undue weight. it also could have been written by jeal as an advertisement for his opinionated paperback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

Let us look at these one at a time:

• Early discussion..who by, when - that sentence is now sourced as I said it should be all along, to Brandon and Rosenthal, so by them.
• Tim Jeal's later..later than what - later than those two publications of course.
• ..why does he have to conclude this when there is no evidence of a physical relationship - because that is exactly what those two authors speculated about briefly. Jeal shows there is no evidence after a serious search for letters between the two, even though he reports evidence that many letters were destroyed.
• Jealjeal jeal jeal, if this is all about jeal then you should put his name in the header - it is not all about Jeal. It is about B-P. We have 4 sources and the weight given to each is actaully less for Jeal in proportion than the attention each gives to the subject.
• according to who and what, ..what have his military relationships got to do with anything, relevence? - these are what Jeal examines in detail. he looks at many relevant features of his life. We do not have space to expand on them. The sexuality artcile could have done that :)
• one opinionated unqualified person's speculation - and you are qualified to give that opinion when you have not read the source?
• ..of course there has been no scholarly examinations, scholarly people would not waste there time speculating, guessing whether someone was a closet gay or not - where did you dream this up? Biographers do it frequently. It is of course refuted by Jeal, because his biographies of Livingstone, Baden-Powell and Stanley are clearly and widely considered to be scholarly.
• The discussion above suggests that some editors think this gets the balance right.
• What do you have against Jeal, particularly as you appear to have not read it? Several of the editors commenting above have read it; perhaps all have. It is the most scholarly biography of B-P to date. An article on B-P is bound to cite Jeal frequently. And, NO, again, I do not know Jeal or have meet or corresponded with him. The book is not, I think, anywhere a paperback. If it is, it is a very large one as it has 690 pages including the preface. To call it an "opinionated paperback" is just an ignorant slur on a very good biographer. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke's analysis. The section is concise, properly sourced and presents no original research. If you have issues with Jeal's statements, then you need to take that up with Jeal. If you have sources that refute Jeal, please provide them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it would appear that Jeal is generaly considerd a good biography, whith onoly his conclusions on thingy being a boner of contention.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As another who has read, then bought and read again, Jeal I agree with the above. This passage makes sense in dealing with the issue raised by a few authors. If you have counter-evidence to Jeal from sources available please add it to the page on that text. I note from the discussion on that page, though, that you were very keen to remove such marginal evidence as is available when it was being added so I'll be interested to see what action you next take. DiverScout (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

                               BADEN POWELL'S BRIEF HISTORY

 1-Baden Powell full name is:LORD ROBERT STEPHENSON SMITH 
                                  BADEN POWELL OF GILL WILL   
                                      
 2-Nick Name:B.P

 3-Laqub:Gill Will  

 4-Scouting Post:Chief Scout Of The World

 5-Period Of B.P:(22 FEB 1857-8 JAN 1941)

 6-History:
           The founder of scouting Lord Robert Stephenson Smith Baden Powell was born on 22nd Feb   
   1857 in Landon.When he was 3years old his father died.when he was 18 years old he got graduated
   from Charter House Army School.Then he joined army.He got post of Major General.Then with his 20 
   scout's he had 1st Experimental camp on Brownsy Island in 1907.In 1908 a book was published by 
   him Scouting for boys.In 1912 he travel in different countries they were West indies,Australia, 
   Newzealand and South Africa.In 1916 a book was published Wolves Cubs Hands book.In 1918 rovers 
   scouts came.In 1920 1st World scout Jamboree in Landon.He was given the rank of chief scout.
   3rd World Jamboree he was given "Laqub" Gill Will.Baden Powell died on 8 Jan 1941 in Kenya Syria
   Nyeria.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.101.194.37 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 

References

Recent edits to Sexuality section

An anon editor removed the reference to Block and added material about Colin Walker. This was partially reverted by HiLo48, quite rightly, to remove POV. However it still left the reference to Block removed. I have fully reverted the anon IP edit. The Block reference is important as it talks about scholars. Walker is a great amateur historian, but he not a scholar. I thought about editing the material HiLo48 left about Walker to give:

"Jeal's conclusions are also disputed by UK Scout Historian and author Colin Walker who in his review of Jeal's biography Colin Walker Scout History Website calls into question many of his assertions but also points out that Jeal himself admitted that, despite his considerably efforts, he never found any evidence whatsoever that Baden-Powell was a homosexual."

The problem really with this is that Jeal of course never suggested that Baden-Powell was a homosexual, just a latent homosexual. Jeal's admission does not affect his conclusions. I am also aware of course that many editors feel that Walker should not be cited here as his web site is self published. I also think Walker's review is important. If we were to add anything, maybe it should be shorter and just "Jeal's conclusions are also disputed by UK Scout Historian, Colin Walker Colin Walker Scout History Website." The URL, of course, would be made into a reference. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd run with the shorter entry. While I agree that it is a shame that Walker is self-published, I am still slightly amused that he is widely accepted as a reliable source apart from, seemingly, on this one topic. I would also contend that Walker's detailed study and knowledge of the area concerned (the history of the Scouting Movement) certainly qualifies him as a scholar, ie " a person who has done advanced study in a special field: a learned person" - but that is just a bit of an aside. DiverScout (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to leave it as it was and not restart all arguments. Walker has been discussed before and did not reach the final version. I think that was right. It is not only the fact that it is self-published but Walker does not give arguments and is (I think) no expert on homosexuality. You don't rely on a scolar because he is a scolar, but because he works in a scientific way: proving his opinion by giving facts. For instance Walker view is wrong: it is Jeal's opinion that Baden-Powell had no homosexual relation, but a represssed homosexual is still a homosexual, also when he does not act on this. The subject was sexual orientation, not sexual practice. DParlevliet (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Am not sure that the term "repressed homosexual" has any real meaning in the lack of clear evidence. Seems--at best--to be pseudo science based on eisegesis (i.e pouring early 21st century thoughts and interpretations into late 19th and early 20th century ancient Greek influenced upper class British culture). Am glad that the huge section speculating on a sexual choice for which there seems to be scant and VAGUE evidence...has been vastly trimmed down.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Very belated reply to DParlevliet - Jeal is also, as far as I know, no expert scholar on human sexuality, but a commercial biographer. There is no evidence of any "scientific method" in relation to his claim (as science requires evidence, and Jeal states that there is none yet makes the claim anyway). The blind hero-worship of this author, and acceptance of his POV, is worrying. DiverScout (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is blind hero-worship of this author. It is that Jeal is the only independent biographer of B-P and is clearly an excellent biographer with very positive reviews of all of them. It is more that other biographers were Scouting people with a blind hero-worship of B-P as the founder. I have read many of them in recent years as an outsider. My last direct involvement with Scouting was 45 years ago, apart from being on a Group Committee in the 1990s. They really are blind hero-worship. Another independent biographer of B-P might give a different picture of him, but no new independent biographer of B-P will be able to ignore Jeal. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke, and partly with DiverScout. I also think that Jeal is not right and no expert in this area. But that is my (and Diverscouts) POV. Wiki allows only general accepted scientific published information and Jeal is regarded to be so. Commercial of not does not matter (I think he is not). Anyway proposing homosexuality is not typical for "blind hero-worship" writers... DParlevliet (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeal generally did a good job, but then threw in his statement on sexual orientation without any evidence whatsoever - a pure statement of Jeal's POV which, of course, helped increase the market for his commercial text (as is shown by the ongoing debate it has caused). Sadly, however, nobody is going to publish a book that is purely addressing one element on a biography of a person who is not even all that relevant to the wider public any more. DiverScout (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not following you. What point of view do you think Jeal was introducing? It is a while since I read it, but I do not recall thinking he was suddenly introducing a point of view. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

His point of view that B-P was a repressed homosexual despite there being no evidence whatsoever for this. The statement is just thrown out there without any justification. DiverScout (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Marriage date

The marriage date stated did not match that in its citation. For now, I've changed it to match the source, but could someone confirm this is correct (or find an accurate citation). Obscurasky (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wed Oct. 30th, 1912, according to O.B-P's "Window on my Heart", p. 90 (end of Ch.8) RobinClay (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:The Scout Association

As he was the founder of the entire Movement are we going to need to add all international Association categories for WOSM, WFIS, FSE, BBS etc.? DiverScout (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

B-P directly founded The Boy Scout Association, thus the category is appropriate. He did not directly found the others, so those categories are not appropriate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

B-P directly founded the Movement to which they all belong, and is therefore central to all of them. I don't see how they are not appropriate. DiverScout (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Newly uploaded image

of B-P at Mafeking which may be of some interest/use: (Will need cropping - sorry, don't know how)

• 

Stronach (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Powell as "Paul"

I was watching an episode of Fawlty Towers for the umpteenth time the other night, and I was struck by Sibyl (Prunella Scales)'s reference to Baden-Powell, where she pronounced the Powell part exactly as one would say "Paul". Baden-Paul? Is this a common pronunciation? I've never heard it anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the first I've heard of that. It's hard to say if it's a local thing, or what, but from the places I've lived in Ontario and Nova Scotia, Canada, it's not anything I've ever heard of. Prymal (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

50 years ago (yes, I'm old) I was at an event in Australia visited by Olave Baden-Powell. She made a point of telling us how she pronounced the name. To my Australian ears it sounded like a cross between pole and Paul. Really only one syllable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

See the pronunciation at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Scouting movement. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks. That answers my question perfectly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"The W is silent", i.e. "Po-ell" (as in Noel), not "Pow-ell", so actually it is (almost) two syllables. RobinClay (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Beta script publishing

I just saw on Amazon a small book "Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell: Robert Baden- Powell, 1st Baron Baden- Powell, Piers Brendon, Kenneth McLaren, Tim Jeal" editors: Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken, which mentions "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". Does anyone know what this is and what the relation is with Wikipedia articles? DParlevliet (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting cover. See WP:Alphascript. The book is probably based on the short article Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell that was deleted in February 2010. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are they allowed to use these texts? We have written them. I suppose Wikipedia has the copyright, but publishing by third parties and editing in a way you have no influence on is quite a step further. It is more then just the old article, that was not so much pages. Essentially what is now in the article is real Wikipedia. The discussions depends on the different states of the article which is unknow for the reader so can give misinterpretations. DParlevliet (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think they are allowed to use our material provided they say it comes from wikipedia and is released under the same license. I would like to see a copy but amazone seems to not have any. We need to take care that this book is never used as a source on wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are allowed to sell material that uses Wikipedia content; see WP:REUSE. No content derived from Wikipedia should be used as a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the article would be no problem of course, but you don't fill 70 pages with that. If they also used parts of the discussions that is a different case. But perhaps the book is mostly filled with Jeal, etc. DParlevliet (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. Perhaps they included some of the referenced website content. Only way to tell is to buy it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Last time I looked Amazon did not have any copies of it, and now they are reporting it is out of print. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

I have restored the section about Baden-Powell's sexuality which was removed by another user. I believe that, as what is mentioned is well referenced, his sexuality is of some notability. Thus, it should be included in the article. I appreciate the view that his sexuality is not important (we would not have a section on the sexuality of every straight person); however, Wikipedia is not for making anti-discrimination statements. If Baden-Powell's sexuality has been discussed, then it should be in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. The current section is a terse summary of the thoughts of a few writers that made a big splash. A separate article on the issue was deleted ages ago because it made a mountain out of a molehill. It took ages to get the section to where it is now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the comments about sexuality are inappropriate for Wikipedia as they are conjecture and are not based upon facts. If opinions and subjective commentary become part of Wikipedia, the value of this source becomes much less relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.184.136 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They are based on reliable sources. This has been discussed at great length and there is consensus about the current wording. Whenever the section is deleted, as you did, it is quickly restored. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This matter was discussed in the NY Times last year here. It points to a possible new source when it states "Geoffrey Wheatcroft, writing several years before the biography (Jeal) appeared, expressed the same opinion". The explanation that the article is referring to the Jeal book and the WP link to the name is my addition. It may be referring to this review of "The Character Factory: Baden-Powell and the Origins of the Boy Scout Movement" by Michael Rosenthal in the New York Review of Books in June 1986, but I only have full access up to 1985. There is also this, but that does not seem very useful. OK, this is just some research. Does anyone think we can use any of it? Can anyone here access the Rosenthal review in in the New York Review of Books? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:RobinClay just removed the section on Powell's sexuality, claiming others don't have it. Abraham Lincoln has an entire article about his sexuality Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, so I'm thinking this isn't a very valid argument. Also, this section was created and included after considerable debate, so I don't think it's appropriate to unilaterally delete it now. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have already reverted it for the reasons you give. --Bduke (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I put "opinion / speculation that does not appear in entries of other notable people, e.g. the Duke of Wellington)". Obviously, I did not look at ALL "notable people". And, No, have not read the Abraham Lincoln article. But it is a fact that the entire "subject" in this B-P article is opinion and speculation by three authors, none of whom is any kind of "expert" on the subject - and such unfounded speculation perhaps says more about them than about B-P. Wikipedia is vehement that it does not allow opinion / speculation / "original research", so why is this case different ? I have to agree with Nelson Block's quote (above) Jeal's conclusions are questionable, that he is doing amateur psychoanalysis without having expertise in the area, and that even an expert using this methodology 50 years after someone's death would be questionable. To me, "questionable" is an understatement. And I agree also with diverscout (above) is point of view that B-P was a repressed homosexual despite there being no evidence whatsoever for this. The statement is just thrown out there without any justification. The "justification", of course, for all three authors, is to publicise the book andi ncrease sales ! RobinClay (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chief Scout of the World

Hi there,

Can anyone please tell me why "Chief Scout of the World" has been directed to Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? I believe he was made Chief Scout of the World at some point, but I am writing and translating an article about someone who received their Wood Badge from the then Chief Scout of the World (received just after the death of Robert Baden-Powell). It would look rather strange if I write the person received their Wood Badge from the Chief Scout of the World and readers click on it to find that Robert Baden died before the event. I believe there was an article called Chief Scout of the World but someone redirected it. Any recommendations? Thanks Tamsier (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

B-P was the first and only Chief Scout of the World; likewise, Olave was the first and only Chief Guide of the World. Looks like you may have a source problem if it indicates there was a Chief Scout of the World after B-P's death. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gadget850, thanks for your contribution and sorry for the late reply. Yes I know he was the first Chief Scout but was he the only? Check this article out Chief Scout (The Scout Association). Do you have any reliabe sources for your statement above? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

B-P was acclaimed Chief Scout of the World in 1920 and held it until his death in 1941. This title was never assigned again. The Scout Association, and many other associations have a Chief Scout, but the particular honor of Chief Scout of the World was never assigned again. Do you know of anyone else who has held the title of Chief Scout of the World? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Gadget850 is totally correct in this. There was only ever one Chief Scout of the World. DiverScout (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Newspaper articles are not always as correct as you want them to be. Journalists often fill in the gaps. The person was likely described as the successor to B-P and the journalist assumed, because B-P was always described as Chief Scout of the World, that was also true for his successor. Or something like that. --Egel _Reaction? 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Well thank you all for your help. That has helped me a lot. I have updated the article in both languages. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Referencing

The section on Sexuality is not properly referenced, having the page numbers all suspended after the reference proper. Can someone fix this? Amandajm (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This is one valid method of including page numbers; it uses the {{rp}} template. See Help:References and page numbers. Did you have an alternative? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not just write it in the note along with the rest of the reference information? Page specifications are as much a part of the reference authors' names, titles and publication dates. The only upside seems to be that you achieve somewhat fewer notes (which is largely irrelevant in digital format), but at the considerable cost of confusing most readers by applying a very obscure method of reference notation which is disjointed and fairly illogical.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Baden Powell redirect

The article used to have a header '"Baden Powell" redirects here. For other meanings, see Baden Powell (disambiguation)'. This was removed by User:Sharcho with no explanation. I restored it. I then realised that this user had redirected Baden Powell to the disambiguation page. I reverted that also. Then User:Egel reverted me with the message "Baden Powell doesn't redirects here anymore". However, it does! There has been no edit since I reverted User:Sharcho. There is some confusion.

I recall that this was discussed much earlier, but I can not find it. The consensus was that readers looking for Baden Powell overwhelmingly were looking for the founder of Scouting, so this redirect was set up deliberately. So can we revert Egel's revert? --Bduke (Discussion) 11:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Do we really need the hatnote for Stephe? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need it as a redirect here? --Bduke (Discussion) 11:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you put it to redirects for discussion? I am off to London tomorrow for a month so am very busy and will not be very active during that time. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Baden Powell the musician was one of the most influencial Brazilian musicians ever. e.g. Baden Powell on YouTube about 80% of the results refer to the musician. Baden Powell on Amazon also shows 80% of the results towards the musician. All the other Wikipedia languages have Baden Powell go to a disambiguation. The Portuguese even goes directly to the musician. Definitely not "overwhelmingly".--Sharcho (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but just going ahead and changing everything without waiting for a consensus to develop is not, IMO, a good idea. I do not think, for example, that YouTube and Amazon represents a consensus of the readers looking for Baden Powell on wikipedia. However, as I indicate above I am about to start a wikibreak so I will leave it to others to sort this out. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In the case of the English-language Wikipedia I am not too sure that the musician is all that well known in the English-speaking audience (other than among those who have a specific interest), whilst Baden-Powell the founder of Scouting certainly is, but wait to be proven wrong. I don't see that the Stephe redirect makes much sense though as how many people know that this was hif familial name? DiverScout (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sexuality again

There has been a recent edit war about this section, resulting in the block of an IP editor by me. You might need to be more aware of this situation, so see User talk:Bduke/Archive 12#Sexuality Section and User talk:76.118.130.14, where the blocked user threatens to "do the sockpuppet thing". --Bduke (Discussion) 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this is happening yet again, let's look at history. At one point there was a separate article that was deleted in 2010: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination). Per the consensus there, the article was summarized here. After a lengthy discussion aboave at #Sexuality, the current content was crafted. If there are objections to any point, please provide counterarguments or refuations to the cited material.  Gadget850 ^talk 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The objection raised by several editors is that the material isn't factual. It's conjecture. Providing citations or making an appeal to authority based on the biographer's purported significance doesn't fix that. Federales (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Which specific point is at issue? --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the section is at issue. Let's start here... what does the section tell us? Does it tell us something about Baden-Powell? Or does it tell us something that an author thinks about Baden-Powell? If the answer is the latter (and it is), then the section doesn't belong in the article, since it's not really about the subject of the article. Federales (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ummmmm. OK. So, no specific objections. --  Gadget850 ^talk 00:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of "the section should be removed because it isn't factual and isn't about Baden-Powell" are you having trouble understanding? Clarify what it is that you can't grasp, and I'll try to help. Federales (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Which part does not have a reliable source? Which part is not about B-P?  Gadget850 ^talk 01:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

We never really know what is factual and what is not factual. We just rely on reliable sources. Jeal is an excellent reliable source for material that is not only discussed by him. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Jeal's conclusion on B-P's sexuality is the weakest part of his book. It is, however, a great way of drawing attention to a text and selling more copies due to the debate that it causes. I have no doubt that it is bunk. I have written a paper, based on evidence, that counters Jeal. Sadly a paper that shows that someone is not something that causes heated debate is a lot less marketable than one that says he was. I agree that the content ought really to be on the text about Jeal's book (where is was deleted as being POV), with little more than a footnote on here as, even by Jeal's admission, there is no evidence and the conclusion is just his POV. Sadly Wikipedia has evolved into something where the truth is less important than the cited sources, so until someone gets a paper published we're stuck with having to defend the inclusion of this nonsense. DiverScout (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no doubt that BP's sexuality is a subject of conjecture in more than just Jeal's book. That's basically all that the quite small section of our article is saying - that some people think he may have been a repressed homosexual. And it's 100% true that some people, including this major biographer, think he may have been. The article is not saying that he was a homosexual. And I think we all realise that we will never actually know. To suppress the reality that the such a "debate" exists would definitely be censorship. The section in question is 85 words out of a total of 4100. It could hardly be smaller and still address the topic, which is a very real one. It's not undue. HiLo48 (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's preposterous to say this is censorship, when in fact it would merely be following Wikipedia editing guidelines. See WP:EGRS: "Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate." Note the word "must"; note the word "verified". It is not sufficient that some people think this; the requirement is that most people know it before it can be included in a Wikipedia article. Federales (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is about categories. At this point, I will give you a couple of months to reason out your objections and come up with a compelling argument. If you can refute the current sources you might have a shot at it. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a sourcing issue and I'm not going to get caught up fighting your straw man. Federales (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Federales, Gadget is right. WP:EGRS is about whether a person should be included in a category to do with sexuality. Well, BP is not included in any such category. That policy also refers to living persons, so it's obviously not formally relevant here. Oh, and I don't see any straw men in what Gadget has said. There are 85 words on a topic that is one of interest about the man. It's not written in any negative way. In fact, if you think that any suggestion that someone may be homosexual is a negative thing, we have a problem right there. BP was from a time and from part of a culture where men spent long periods away from women and from family. Very different from today. I find it an interesting topic. Don't you? HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I also don't agree with Jeal, with good arguments, but Wiki does not allow original research or personal opinions. You can only add information out of published articles from writers which are regarded to be scientic. Jeal is so. The only way to change the article is adding more recent information from someone with the same credibilaty as Jeal.DParlevliet (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with the thrust of the argument, any reliable third-party sources can be employed. Jeal's publication is not scientific, it is a commercial. If/when someone manages to get a paper or text published by a third party that counters his argument it can be added. As DP states, original research cannot be added - otherwise I'd have included my own work that concluded that, if anything other than heterosexual B-P was a heteroromantic asexual. Unless I can get this work published, however, it will remain as is. However, I would challenge DP's statement on his edit that Jeal and co. are the "most important" biographers. They are no more important than any other. DiverScout (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Bduke explained that. They are regarded to be the most secientific. The others are not bad, but not intended to deal with everything: good and bad (as seen by general community). DParlevliet (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The apparent fascination with Baden-Powell’s suspected homosexuality reminded me that a year or so ago I was sorting a mass of photographs dating from the mid-19th through the mid-20th Century. I recall noting variations in the posing of male groups: some stood apart, not quite touching; some literally shoulder-to-shoulder; others with arms about each others' shoulders; a few gripping one another quite firmly - perhaps to fit the whole group into the picture - but also a number clearly showing affection - some maybe familial but others clearly not so. It seems unlikely that all of those in close contact were ‘gay’. Social customs vary not only geographically but temporally too – behaviour acceptable in one place or time is not so in another. Close physical contact between men (except in regulated situations such as some sports) is today regarded by many as indicative of a particular bent, whereas in other times and cultures it is trivial. I wonder whether the obsession in this present entry may be due to current attitudes to behaviour common among some social groups in earlier times.John C Kay (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. I share those thoughts. BP came from a time when males and females spent much more of their time apart too. I know I've seen old photos of adult men with boys, mostly naked. This too was normal. It did not mean homosexuality. We also know that, unlike today, homosexuality was hidden in BP's time. We will never know if he had such inclinations, and must certainly never try to judge apparent behaviour of the past against today's values. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I too, but that cannot change the Wiki-article because that must be based on scientific published information, not on personal views. DParlevliet (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "scientific" is quite the right word there. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not, yet it still keeps getting thrown about whenever this commercial biography is mentioned. DiverScout (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The power of three

I don't see the importance of noting that three biographers have written about the issue. I would hazard that most readers have no clue how many biographers there have been. But I would guess that most can count. I presume this is supposed to try to minimize the issue, but without context it fails. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to keep "three" but I think that perhaps "many" should be removed. Just say "Three of Baden-Powell's biographers choose ..". The problem with the other biographies is that they are not independent. One I have is typical. It is "The Scout's Life of Baden-Powell" by W. J. Batchelder and David Balfour. Note the title. People wrote biographies to praise B-P to the Scouts and Scout Leaders. The one by William Hillcourt had access to Lady B-Ps papers, but that in itself shows a lack of independence. She will have let him have what she wanted him to have. However I do think it was a serious biography published after his death to try to explain the man. I doubt any of the others were that serious, although I have not read all of them. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"She will have let him have what she wanted him to have." Well, in theory, perhaps, but not in practice. Olave B-P, World Chief Guide, was a very busy person; she trusted him, and simply said, "There it all is; help yourself." Bill Hillcourt and Grace stayed with her for about six months, in the self-contained Annexe of her apartment at Hampton Court Palace, where I was also living at the time (as a student, so we didn't impinge much!).

Similarly, B-P's daughter Betty trusted Jeal; he stayed with her for a while to "cherry-pick" her archives, and he was given the same "free rein". Betty never forgave him; she felt he had betrayed her trust by twisting and mis-interpreting things she had said. I have her diaries. And in conversation. __ RobinClay (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All published biographies are commercial. Older ones, from a time when people liked to respect and admire people, will reflect the nature of those times. Modern ones, now that we delight in ridiculing celebrity and creating controversy, reflect the current nature of our society. Rosenthal's book is especially not an NPOV biography of B-P, however no commercial biography can or should be considered NPOV as they are targetted for publication and sale to an audience. All of them are limited. Academic papers are more likely to be NPOV, but are unlikely to appear as a useable source for Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By saying all published biographies are commercial, you seem to be saying that all academic books are suspect and only peer-reviewed journal articles are OK. Many disciplines rely on published books. They are judged by their peers in other books, articles and reviews. Also, it is not just a change of the times. The early books were written from inside the Scout Movement. The later ones are from outside. That is a very important difference. On Rosenthal, I think it is an important book, but not a biography. It is a study of the early Scout movement built on a study of B-P. It is good source for some points about Scouting, but Jeal is a much better biography. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying "three" doesn't minimize anything, but it does add perspective where there wasn't any before. Federales (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It does increase the section size and makes it a scooch more prominent, so that that goal is accomplished. And it helps readers who cant count. --  Gadget850 ^talk 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Science is no matter of number or majority but on good scientific reseach. Jeal is the last and most thoroughly biographic and according reviews is accepted as such. He also comments all earlier biographers. Wikipedia wants to contain the most recent scientific views and that is Jeal. That does not mean that Jeal is right in anything he wrote, but if he is disputed, then on the same level: by better research and preferably published in scientifiv journal (which because of peers give judgement of the quality. DParlevliet (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Tim Jeal biography

There is often a discussion about the use of Tim Jeals biography, so therefore a short overview. First on the scientific publisher page. Secondly Jeal is referenced several times in the article. Also what is written in wikipedia about the book and Tim_Jeal. This makes clear that his biography is the last one, the largest and most extended researched by a well-reputed biographer. This publication complies fully to the demands of Wikipedia. Of course it does not mean the Jeal is right in every subject, but if one wants to oppose him, then according Wiki-rules it must be done with other references of equal quality. DParlevliet (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Jeal is used in the article to refute both Pakenham's position on B-P and the treatment of natives at Mafeking and Rosenthal's portrayal of B-P as a Nazi sympathizer. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The previous refusal to allow reference to published critical reviews of Jeal and an editors belief that this commercial biographer has written a scientific paper rather than a commercial text undermines what little credibility his arguments have. Wikipedia does not place rank on reliable third-party sources and any such published source may be employed regardless of the desire of any editor(s) to fixate on one that is (even by this editor) widely respected. DiverScout (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What "published critical reviews of Jeal"? It is worth quoting here what Brock says in the reference to him in the article (ref 50, page 6) - "However, in the almost twenty years since he (Jeal) presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, although it begs for one". That was in 2009. Has there been such a published scholarly critique of his argument since then? I agree it begs for one, and when it is written, we can mention it. Brock does go on to make what he calls "an outline of the issues", but says "A detailed discussion of Jeal's argument is beyond the scope of this essay". --Bduke (Discussion) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. We can't refute Jeal's argument here because there is no published reliable work that does so. --  Gadget850 ^talk 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Book review, not academis review. Sadly I also agree that no challenge to his published opinions has been published at this time. DiverScout (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This means very little, except perhaps that nobody thinks it's worth the effort. Federales (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

More relevantly, it means that there is no new material to be posted here on that matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Styles

Why does his styles was removed from the article? Abex888 (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

What date (entered or removed)? DParlevliet (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit [8] by Aumnamahashiva on 16:00, 14 February 2013‎ ? --Egel _Reaction? 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC

Yes it was. I think that the styles information are important so people can know how to address him properly Abex888 (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you must search where it disappeared and ask the one who did that.DParlevliet (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Featured article review?

The sources for this article are weak in places. I've just removed three that are obviously not reliable. The article is tagged in at least three places for verifiability. The inline sourcing should be brought up to featured article standard or the article should be delisted. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Every conversation I've been involved in that starts this way has ended with the article being delisted after acrimony and heartbreak. Fix it, revert to the FA version or have it delisted. --  Gadget850 ^talk 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"acrimony and heartbreak" Ain't that the truth! 198.6.33.13 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Best to see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/archive1 that the original article also had problems. It's an old FA, promoted before the standards were as high as today. My advice is to work to fix it, best you can. Montanabw^(talk) 03:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Significant family members

Editorially, I don't understand why this list/tree of "Significant family members" (ie descendants?) currently appears (permalink) within the ==Personal life== section of his biography. Also, it's unclear to this reader at least why the named people who don't have articles on Wikipedia are deemed to be "significant" (other than for being direct first-/second-generation descendants). 109.155.60.103 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 26 external links on Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050315092430/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk:80/library/hqdocs/headline/981113aa.htm to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/headline/981113aa.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061003194851/http://www.wivenhoe.gov.uk/Orgs/WSGA/about_badenpowell.htm to http://www.wivenhoe.gov.uk/Orgs/WSGA/about_badenpowell.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131710595200/http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/b_p_s_last_message to http://scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/b_p_s_last_message
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121103055932/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31928/supplements/6176 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31928/supplements/6176
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110816203231/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197/page.pdf to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197/page.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131215/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24362/pages/4962 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24362/pages/4962
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131212/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24625/pages/5174 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24625/pages/5174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141230152411/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25308/pages/244 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25308/pages/244
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130912/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26306/pages/4008 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26306/pages/4008
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092040/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26726/pages/2028 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26726/pages/2028
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091846/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26848/pages/2367 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26848/pages/2367
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091914/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26850/pages/2535 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26850/pages/2535
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141230151648/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/27194/pages/3253 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/27194/pages/3253
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092023/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28029/pages/4011 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28029/pages/4011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610134038/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28305/supplements/8239 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28305/supplements/8239
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091946/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32782/supplements/6 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32782/supplements/6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130629/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28296/pages/7493 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28296/pages/7493
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131115/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28611/pages/3791 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28611/pages/3791
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610132729/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32178/supplements/2 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32178/supplements/2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092037/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32798/pages/1296 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32798/pages/1296
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610090711/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33280/supplements/3606 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33280/supplements/3606
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130442/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33536/pages/6032 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33536/pages/6032
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029195340/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/34396/supplements/3080 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/34396/supplements/3080
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714110020/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31586/supplements/12415 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31586/supplements/12415
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610134810/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150703181931/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32483/pages/7974 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32483/pages/7974

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

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102110604/http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Rasuwa++peak+named+after+Baden+Powell&NewsID=291408 to http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Rasuwa++peak+named+after+Baden+Powell&NewsID=291408

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Lieutenant-General Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, OM, GCMG, GCVO, KCB, DL (/ˈbeɪdən ˈpoʊ.əl/ BAY-dən POH-əl; 22 February 1857 – 8 January 1941) was a British Army officer, writer, author of Scouting for Boys which was an inspiration for the Scout Movement, founder and first Chief Scout of The Boy Scouts Association and founder of the Girl Guides.

I've raised the current lead sentence of this article as an example of bad practice at a centralised discussion and thought I would post here in case anyone feels like improving it. As you'll see from that discussion, I think there are way too many bits of metadata there, and it is also quite independently a really ponderous sentence. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right, it is not pleasant for the average reader, but this can only be changed if Wikipedia gives advise how to write these items. What is written now is its real full name like it would be used in official papers. OM, GCMG, GCVO etc. are not just metadata, but titles which officially are part of the name. Also with the pronunciation: if it should be added and how is something Wikipedia should advice.DParlevliet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Milden House

For the record in 1939 Milden House, Folkestone, Kent seems to have been owned by Cicely Hilda Baden-Powell ("Notice" (PDF). The London Gazette. 27 March 1939. p. 1904.) who seems to have been born Cicely Hilda Farmer and was the widow of Warington Baden-Powell, Robert's eldest brother (after his death in 1921 she married, in 1927, Montagu Sneade Faithful Monier-Williams but reclaimed the name Baden-Powell several years after his death in 1931). No evidence that Robert Baden-Powell bought it and in 1935 Hilda (she apparently preferred her second name) had just been widowed from her second husband. Another of Robert's brothers, Francis (Frank), lived in "Milden House" in Wimbledon (Mildenhall was where the Baden Powell's came from). --Erp (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Arms

Arms of the Dukes of Baden

The "Arms" section claims that the Baden quarter in Lord Baden-Powell's achievement "is not the shield of any Baden family in Britain but that of the Grand Duke of Baden in Germany, to which the Baden-Powells had no right." This is sourced to his ODNB page. It strikes me as dubious however, firstly because it's not the sort of thing the College of Arms would allow, and secondly because the Duke of Baden's arms actually bear no resemblance whatsoever to Baden-Powell's. What was the ODNB basing this on? Zacwill (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

His ODNB page is quoted accurately in the footnote, but it is talking about his mother not him. As a sixth son, he would not be entitled to his father's arms, which would go to the eldest son, and his own would need to be differenced in some way. Consequently, the article text is misleading because it relates a comment in the source about his mother's arms to his own. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)