Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is covered by WikiProject LGBT studies, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to LGBT issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Unencyclopedic 2 Merge into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell 3 You can wish Baden-Powell was a gay pedophilia all you want 4 Message on my talkpage, by NBlock: B-P's Sexuality

[edit] Unencyclopedic

You can't slap an "Unencyclopaedic" tag and walk away without explaining. It will be removed in 24 hours if unsupported. Haiduc 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the tagging. This is highly speculative and POV. Wordings like presumed attractions, consider him to have been, suspected attraction are unencyclopaedic and show how little evidence on the presumed repressed homosexuality does exist.

There is also no mention of his marriage, of his children and so on...

I think this article should be deleted. --jergen 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your point that his marriage, such as it is, must be a part of this article - it was next on my agenda. But the rest of your comments reflect a misunderstanding of how things work here. If it helps put things in perspective, if you, Jergen, were to include such comments in the article they would be considered "NPOV" and only they. Why is that? Because the other material is the published work of mainstream academics, the bread and butter of Wikipedia, while you opinion is just that, and regardless of how heartfelt, not useable in an article. Haiduc 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"You can't slap an "Unencyclopaedic" tag and walk away without explaining." Well, at least it wasn't rlevse, your regular combatant. ;-)

Does the "not encyclopedic" tag really need to be explained or supported? Oh dear, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Where to start? Editors, if you judge that the following is overkill, tell me and I'll cut it.

Edit: I've deleted four paragraphs that used "What Wikipedia Is Not" to support the recommendation for deletion. (They're still available in History, I imagine, for anyone interested.) Reason for deletion is discussed briefly in the post following haiduc's below. Kkken 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As from what I remember reading Jeal's biography years ago, I support the article as it is. The article does not state, that BP sexual orientation was towards boys, but it states that there is serious research, which came to this conclusion. This is perfectly documented by the fact, that Jeal's biography exists. BTW, I hope all the critics have read the book. LARS 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kkken, since you asked, "Cut it!" Now that you have let on that you have ordered the book, I'll be very interested to discuss these issues with you after you have read it. I on my end will try to dig up the Rosenthal. But I would not expend too much effort trying to dismiss this information, it is too authoritative and widespread. By the way (and I do not necessarily think this should be in the article), I was amused by BP's habit to perform in drag. I wonder what today's scouts would make of that. Haiduc 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If a Scout could entertain an audience for 15 minutes in drag, we'd give him/her the Performing Arts badge. Kkken 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Well, Kkken, since you asked, Cut it!"

Oh. Well, I guess we're all editors, but when I wrote, "Editors, if you judge that the following is overkill, tell me and I'll delete it," I thought I was talking to some gatekeeper(s) who oversee the deletion protocols, or at least someone much more at arm's length than the author of the article being panned. Still, the "unencyclopedic" tag seems to have been replaced by a "how about moving it back where it came from and dealing with it there?" tag, which would seem to render arguments for deletion obsolete for the time being, so I consigned the 4 paragraphs of argumentation to the History file. Kkken 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

I think that the article should be merged into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell; it is unimportant on its own. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk: Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. -Seth Mahoney 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The B-P article proper currently mentions his sexual orientation and the controvery around it. The POV is of course highly important. I recommend that a major section from Baden-Powell: Founder of the Boy Scouts (book) be merged into this article, which does need an good copy-edit, of course. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Oppose Merging the book's article into this is fallacious as this article only covers 5% of the book, the book deals with far more than his orientation. What needs to be done is that the book article be expanded by someone who has read it into a FULL review of the entire book, not just a review of 5% of the book. See several sections of the talk archive at Talk:Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell/ArchiveTo30March2006 Rlevse 10:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, Randy, not the whole book article. I propose that the section on sexuality from the book page needs to be merged into this article. And THEN the remainder of the book article needs to be expanded. So effectively you mean Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Support Book needs to be used as source for other articles on B-P rather than being sidelined into a meaningless article of its own as if it had no relevance to its subject. (I took the liberty of merging sections here to reduce confusion, I hope you will not mind, Rlevse.) Haiduc 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This all goes back to what caused the last go-around on this--only 5% of the book was used to support a highly POV and conjectural aspect of his life and ignored the numerous other parts of the book that show his heterosexual side. The remaining 95% of the book was ignored. Any review of his sexuality needs to use all parts of the book that refer to his sexuality. I also still strongly feel a NPOV article on the whole book needs to be done because as it stands now, it looks like Jeal only talks about his (homo)sexuality; which is hardly the case. Bduke makes a good case that if the WHOLE book is used in a NPOV and balanced manner to support the whole main article, then the separate book article is unneeded. The length of the separate article on sexuality is way out proportion to the main article and if the rest of the main article was expanded to proportionate length, we'd go full circle back to where we are now, having forks created based on length. To me, the two-para length that existed on his sexuality a few days ago with an article link pointing to the sexuality article was fine and in proportion, just as articles on other major people have forks. How many other bio articles have multi-paragraph sections on someone's sexuality? Very few, if any. Liberace's only has a fewe sentences on it. Sexuality, proven or unproven is less important than accomplishments and trying to turn the main article into a treatise on what is in fact unproven latter-day suppositions is unwarranted and out of proportion. Rlevse 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can wish Baden-Powell was a gay pedophilia all you want

There is still no proof.

[edit] Message on my talkpage, by NBlock: B-P's Sexuality

It appears from discussion threads on this article that the writers question whether to include the section on B-P's sexuality at all. The discussion centers on Tim Jeal's writing on this topic in his book, THE BOY MAN (Century Hutchinson Ltd. 1989 in UK and William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1990 in US) later issued as BADEN-POWELL (published by Pimlico and then Yale). (Pardon the bibliography, but elsewhere there seemed to be some confusion about various editions of this book.)

Please consider the following:

1. Writers should be clear about what Mr. Jeal said. In reviewing the close relationship between B-P and his best friend, Kenneth "The Boy" McLaren, he concludes that it was "physically chaste". [p. 83]. He summarizes his other work with this: "I found evidence to support the morally neutral idea that he had indeed been a repressed homosexual;" [Tim Jeal, "Baden-Powell at Mafeking," in THE SIEGE OF MAFEKING, p. 226 (Johannesburg: The Brenthurst Press (Pty) Ltd., 2001)].

2. Mr. Jeal's work in the area of sexuality is not authoritative. I have never found any biographical sketch of Mr. Jeal that gives him credentials in psychiatry or psychology. He cites one serious source explaining any reason why B-P's behavior might be consistent with repressed homosexuality, Freud's CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. [p. 101, fn. 98] After almost a century of extensive writing on psychology, and several decades of scholarly work on homosexuality, one would expect Mr. Jeal to present more science in support of his argument.

3. The entire field of psychohistory is debated among historians. There does not seem to be a concensus favoring it as a useful field for historical work, though it has some devoted adherents. With a few notable exceptions such as Erik Erikson and Peter Gay, both of whom studied psychoanalysis professionally, most of the proponents of psychohistory are historians, not psychiatrists or psychologists. For a summary of the case against psychohistory, see David Hackett Fischer, HISTORIANS' FALLACIES: TOWARD A LOGIC OF HISTORICAL THOUGHT (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), ch. VII.

In general, I believe Scouters are much better served by reading William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's BADEN-POWELL: THE TWO LIVES OF A HERO. It discusses B-P's life and times, without the amateur analysis of B-P's motives. (I should mention that I am the managing trustee of the Hillcourt Trust, and proceeds from the sale of the book benefit the trust.)

Without criticizing Bill Hillcourt's book, Mr. Jeal suggests his work is superior to Hillcourt's because he is writing independent of any outside influence, such as Hillcourt's close relationship with B-P and Lady B-P (she was listed as co-author in the first edition) and his lifelong career as a professional and volunteer Scouter. [p. xi] Mr. Jeal takes the same tack in his biography of David Livingstone, pointing out that the famous missionary's other biographers had been clergymen. [LIVINGSTONE (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973), p. xii] Since Mr. Jeal - who has written more works of fiction than history - is not obligated to B-P's family, or the Scout movement, or the academic community - it would appear that he is responsible only to his publisher and his readers. As such, we must be careful and critical.

I do not frequently read the comments to Wikipedia. If anyone would like to correspond with me on this topic, please contact me at nblock@winstead.com.