Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, due to size or style considerations.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
  • No consensus, 27 February 2006, AFD
  • No consensus, 5 February 2007, AFD
  • Keep, 29 February 2008, AFD

Contents

[edit] Page references

{{rp}} may be used to clean up the page references. I did the first one, but was getting edit conflicts and stopped. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made some additions:

  • My remark in the previous undo is of course not serious.
  • The fact that Baden-Powell wanted to see Tod's photo's again does not make the argument stronger. Also he does not mention to see specific the nude boys, just the photo's. Tod's collection was much larger and nowadays still admired (the nude photo's were destroyed in the sixties).
  • The urenian movement is not mnetioned in the reverence and for the subject not important. The painting only showed nude boys, no love between men and boys. It only signify that pictures of nude boys were not improper in that time.
  • Roman statues and body builders: probably it was not clear that this paragraph changed from pro- to con- arguments. I hope to have written in better now. The argument is that admiration of male bodies by men is normal.
  • No homosexuaal in Scouting: I added a reverence.
  • And my thanks for upgrading my not perfect Englisch DParlevliet 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologetic material

I have reverted an edit that consisted largely of providing excuses and rationalizations for the data indicating B-P's erotic appetite for men and boys. Not only is it transparently pov, it is also transparently unaware of the well-know homoerotic aspect of male nude imagery, in athletic magazines and other venues. Saying something ain't so does not make it not so. Haiduc 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes it more clear. The revert was not because of Englisch but because of content. Pico also did not use the last version of the article, but an older one without the deletes I made two months ago on which there were no objections. In this way he avoids the need to discuss my arguments for delete. The discussion about Baden-Powell's orientation is not final. As you know Elleke Boehmer is less convinced about this. This wiki-article should show therefore both pro and con arguments. I think it is not right to revert an article because you don't like the arguments. What I wrote is that it is normal for men to admire the male body. If this is because of the physical shape or hidden home-erotic feelings in every man is not important. Baden-Powell handled in the same way as Romans did, or body builders, or present day museum visitors, so he is not different from them. Excuse, rationalyze, pov, well-known: but what are your arguments and references. Please discuss in detail which of the arguments I used is wrong before reverting. DParlevliet 18:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I mean no unkindness, but your ability to communicate clearly and correctly in the English language is very limited. Even if your content was uncontroversial, reverting your edits would probably be a good idea. On top of this, your content is very controversial. To be honest, it looks like a bunch of lame excuses. If someone can't tell whether a particular woman is even attractive, it means they're just not attracted to women sexually. This might mean they're asexual, or more likely in this case, homosexual. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I do have a problem with fraud, so I want the truth to be told here. ThAtSo 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
First: show me the Wiki-rule which allows reverts because of limited language. Second: If you want to be objective you must mention all arguments, not simply declare "excuses" for those you don't like. People who oppose homo-sexually will declare the firts part or the present article ungrounded accusations. Who is right? Therefore you discuss the arguments. Why did you not mention an argument and explain what is not true? Indeed regarding Baden-Powell when you read Tim Jeal it is more likely that he was less sexual. But I have no clear proof so I won't declair that. You say he is "more likely" homo-sexual. Why?. Why don't you explain it with an argument. Why don't you fight mine? Fraud is when you recvert an article to remove arguments you don't like. DParlevliet 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Please! What is being reported here is simply the present scholarly view of the life of this man. You came in with a polemical piece in which you argue for a certain point of view, often utilizing evidence that does not help your argument but damages it. First, this is not a place for polemics. Second, if it were, your argument would be refutable on its face. So do not be surprised if it was deleted. Haiduc 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
What I used was work of Tim Jeal (nude pictures were common in those days, not secret, not illegal), E.Boehmer (are we not asked the wrong questions), an argument in the present article (body builders) and only added Roman statues, which I think don't need a reference. This is only polemical when you don't like these facts. The article also does not conclude that B.P. is homo-sexual or not, because you cannot know (this opnion can also be found in ref 1 of the present article). Personally I don't matter. In the Netherlands there are quite some Scout leaders openly homo-sexual so that is no issue. The question here is only if the data is strong enough to declare him home-sexual. Anyway, when an argument is polemical, damaging: mention it and refute. DParlevliet 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


1) If the text is unreadable, we have to fix it or remove it. If fixing it is too problematic, we remove it. Have you considered contributing to a version of Wikipedia in a language you are more familiar with?

2) I don't understand you well enough to discuss the content. ThAtSo 16:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The text is not that unreadable that you decided it to be lame excuses. I have written more parts in Wikipedia which survived with only small changes. I agree it is not perfect English but it cannot be unreadable. Wiki rules does not allow revert in this case. You need much more votes in this case and the discussion shows that language is used as an exuse for unpleasent arguments and evade the need to discuss that. The content is not difficult and if you don't understand something please ask, so I can also change it to someting better understandable. DParlevliet 10:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki rules does not allow revert in this case" That is wildly incorrect, and anyway WP:IAR 71.193.243.8 (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to lead

Just made some edits, explained here:

While early works on the life of the founder of Scouting, works commissioned or written by those close to the Baden-Powells or by insiders to the Scouting movement, such as 27 years with Baden-Powell or The Chief: The life story of Robert Baden-Powell, both by Eileen Kirkpatrick Wade, mentioned nothing on this subject, modern authors, upon examining Baden-Powell's life and papers from the perspective of late-twentieth century understanding of sexuality, have explained his life-long work with boys as motivated by a strong erotic attraction to masculine beauty, principally in the form of young males. Among these historians are Tim Jeal, the author of Baden-Powell, a widely praised biography which takes a compassionate view of a man he considers to have lived a life of repressed homosexuality, and Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University, in his The character factory: Baden-Powell and the origins of the Boy Scout movement. As a result of his investigations, Jeal is persuaded that "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." Gender studies scholar Geoffrey Bateman sums up current scholarship, also stating that "Baden-Powell was probably a homosexual. Certainly, most of his life was spent in same-sex environments and his deepest emotional commitment was with another man."
Other historians have commented less favorably on Baden-Powell's presumed attractions, such as Kenneth Morgan of Oxford who refers to Baden-Powell's "probable pederasty" as a character defect covered up by the media of his time. Nonetheless, despite his alleged attraction to youths, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters who indulged in sexual 'escapades' with their charges.
  • to:
While early mentioned nothing on this subject, modern authors are persuaded that "[t]he available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." Gender studies scholar Geoffrey Bateman, summing up current scholarship, stats that "Baden-Powell was probably a homosexual. Certainly, most of his life was spent in same-sex environments and his deepest emotional commitment was with another man." Kenneth Morgan refers to Baden-Powell's "probable pederasty" as a character defect covered up by the media of his time. Nonetheless, despite his alleged attraction to youths, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters who indulged in sexual 'escapades' with their charges.
This is far more readable and still manages to get the main ideas across, which is the main purpose of a lead section - to summarise the article. The books which have been edited out (Jael et al) are already in the body of the article, but aren't essential to the lead.PiCo 07:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

I have restored the last version of the article which was reverted because of language and apologetic material. Wiki-pedia does not allow edits to be reverted because of language and the article was in a status of cleaning up by other editors. After several requests there was no explanation which arguments were apologetic and why. The last version article contains both pro- and con- arguments, mostly from the old version but cleaned up to it's basics. The article does not decide. Tim Jeal showed that society was then more permissive about nude boy pictures and relations between men (and boys) then present times. The question is: did this tolerance gave Baden-Powell the possibility to follow a homosexual orientation or would most men nowadays act the same if society did not have such strict rules for people working with children? Both is possible, but we cannot look into his mind, so probably we will never know. The evidence is just too circumstantial, too much depending on interpretation according the rules of our time. DParlevliet 19:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles shouldn't even exist if all they're based on is circumstantial evidence. This article is a travesty in its lack of neutrality and its speculation. wikipediatrix 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
We've got a Featured Article on Noah's Ark, and all that's based on is circumstantial evidence :). The real reason this article exists, apart from the eternal human interest in the intimate secrets of the great and famous, is that a couple of biographers have written well-received works raising questions about BP's emotional (not sexual) life. So it's note-worthy. PiCo 11:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Because there was no further comment on the "not neutral" arguments mentioned below I will restore a previous version of the article. They meet the objections of the "not neutral" arguments and for claims like his un-interrest in woman give a better argument. But Jeal explained that his behaviour was normal and acceptable according the rules of his time. It is not acceptable for the rules of our time. So the question is: who is right. I think that therefore Elleke Boehmer, the latest historian who studied his work, questioned if we are asking the right questions. Therefore I also gave the arguments (mostly from Jeal) who could explain his behaviour in another way. If someone does not agree, then discuss the argument. Declaring the con's as lame excuses is no argument because with the same right the others could declare the pro's as acusations. More explanations about the arguments in this version can be found elsewhere in this discussion. DParlevliet 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article is not neutral

The previous reverts show the article is not neutral. A part of the content is not right but more important is that some editors revert every change which does not fit their opinion. Hiaduc request "to specify exactly what you object to" to someone placing a "not neutral", but he does not answer when I ask to specify exactly what he objects to, from what he reverts. ThAtSo tells he does not understand well enough to discuss the content but he understand it good enough to tell they are lame excuses which must be reverted. They fail to give a wiki-pedia rule allowing them to revert. I'm afraid the subject is too controversial to become objective. There will always be editors pushing the article to their view, in so becoming an Wild-West article.

Some argument against the article I previously wrote in the discussion (also reverted without explanation or argumentation):

  1. "Baden-Powell often expressed disfavour of female bodies, generally in contrast to his appreciation for male ones, which he admired and found clean". There is no reverence for this. I don't remember reading this in Baden Powell writings.
Re-read Jeal.
It is the writer's responsibility to give the reference, including page. You cannot refer to a whole book
  1. "At age fifty-five, he married twenty-three-year-old Olave St Clair Soames.". The mentioning of ages suggest something. If so, it should be explained.
Idem.
Jeal mentions all details but does not suggest something. In this article one should only mention what is essential for the subject. As it is written it gives a not explained suggestion.
  1. "Their relationship has been described as holding hints of masculine attraction as well, as she altered her appearance to suit him. She flattened her breasts[16]" The reverenced article does not give a primary reverence. One is judging Baden Powell on the acts of others, without any proof that she did it to suit him or by her own desire. Also the quotation is selective. Elsewhere in the article one can find: "Jeal's conclusion may or may not withstand scrutiny" and "Whether this interest was simply an extension of a Victorian sensibility toward male friendship or a latent indication of homosexuality, we may never know".
Idem
The reverenced article is not from Jeal
  1. "cut her hair" The suggestion that women who cut her hair want to suppress sexuality will not be shared by many.
Irrelevant
Why is it then in the article? It suggests she did it to look manly.
  1. "and wore her scout-like Guide uniform. However, as Olave was the World Chief Guide, wearing her uniform to Guiding functions would have been appropriate.". So what is the point? Does it imply that all guides wear their uniform to look as boys?
Relevant to one who wishes to show he preferred male figures.
Then it cannot be used to proof a preferred male figure. Otherwise it is a circle reasoning.
  1. "In short order after his marriage Baden-Powell began to suffer from agonising headaches. Two years after the birth of their third child he began sleeping apart from his wife, on a balcony. From that date his headaches left him, a relief thought to spring from the end of his reproductive duties and his departure to a separate bedroom". Jeal gives no reverence for this statement, nor as far as I know, has medical expertise in this case. Is it known that homosexuals sleeping with women get heavy headaches?
It is not your place to criticize Jeal.
Everybody can, if they have better arguments. That is the basis of science. In this case Jeal did not give a reference nor is a medical expert, so it is only his personel opinion.
  1. ".. Geoffrey Bateman sums up current scholarship, also stating that "Baden-Powell was probably a homosexual.". Bateman does not state this in the article. The article is also part of the encyclopedia for gay, lesbian... which perhaps is not be a neutral source.
You are not here to exclude sources which do not serve your purpose.
Its is told that this is a quote from Bateman's article. I don't read it in the referenced article.
  1. "Kenneth Morgan ... refers to Baden-Powell's probable pederasty". In this article Morgan does not give prove for this statement, only a rough reference to other writers. There should be good reference to this writers.
He said it, we report it.
And I report that Morgan does not give proof. You cannot just quote everyone. It must be a reliable quote
  1. "Baden-Powell's closest friend was Kenneth McLaren...". There is no statement in this part or proof that this relation was homosexual. According Jeal there was no sexual relation.
Desire does not mandate fulfillment.
When it starts with the assumption he is homosexual, it cannot at the same time be used as a proof he is homosexual.
  1. "Jeal also mentions that Baden-Powell ...and denigrated the female." This is a statement of Jeal, he does not give proof or reference (on that page).
See above
See above
  1. "He incorporated a graphic prohibition against masturbation". This part has no connection with the topic. It was a common opinion in those day, even until the fifties. His objection had no sexual reason (for which as a nature man he was very open minded) but for supposed health reasons. DParlevliet 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
They reflect on his sex-repressive personality. Haiduc 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Prohibition against masturbation was normal in his time and is no indication of homosexuality DParlevliet 10:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the best way to approach this subject:?

I've reverted DParlievliet's latest revision because it produced an inferior product - the English was poor, the argument tendentious. Nevertheless, I'm no great fan of the version I reverted to, either. It's too long, and, tho far more sophisticated as DParleviet's version, equally pov-pushing. Wikipediatrix has a very good point in saying that aticles shouldn't even exist if all they're based on is circumstantial evidence. This article can only justify its existence as a summary of the modern biographies of BP, which have gained enough salacious notoriety to merit coverage - but brief coverage, please!PiCo 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my version again because:
  • Wikipedia does not allow reverts because of poor language (if so, show where). The Wikipedia principle is that it is improved by others and it was done so before the reverts started.
  • "Tendentious" is not argumenting. Explain which argument is wrong or wrong used. Remind that most "tendentious" arguments are references from the same writers as the part you don't find tendentious.
  • You revert to an article with bad arguments. I explained that in detail, above. First give satisfying arguments before you restore to this.
  • You want a brief coverage but you revert to an article much larger then what you deleted. If you want to delete this article, start a question about that and don't revert between articles you both don't like. DParlevliet 18:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the original version but edited it considerably so that there's less waffle - it now concentrates on the two biographies, which are the only reason this article exists. If you want to add a paragraph on the post-biography attempts to defend BP I'd have no objection, but it would best be put as a para at the end, not scattered throughout the article - and it would need to be referenced (not OR).PiCo 12:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing POV in the article as it stands now. It is succinct and faithfully reflects current biographical consensus. If no valid arguments for maintaining the tag are presented, I will remove it in 24 hours. Haiduc 12:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I did some additional editing with explanation
  • First of all it is not a case of defending BP because there is no accusation. Homo-sexuality is in my opinion normal, for scouts, scoutmasters, or BP, if he would be so.
  • "and despite his frequently-expressed horror of the female body ". There is no reverence for this.
  • "At age fifty-five, he married twenty-three-year-old Olave St Clair Soames.". The mentioning of ages suggest something. If so, it should be explained. Jeal argues that in the army it was normal to marry at older age. Are man who marry young woman homosexual? If not, then it has no relation to the topic.
  • "as she altered her appearance to suit him. She flattened her breasts" There is no proof in the referenced article that she flattened her beast. One is judging Baden Powell on the acts of others, without any proof that she did it to suit him or by her own desire.
  • "and shearing her hair" Do woman shear their hair to suppress sexuality? That needs prove
  • "Shortly after the marriage Baden-Powell began to suffer from agonizing headaches: these left him abruptly two years after the birth of their third child when he began sleeping apart from his wife". Is it known that homosexuals sleeping with women get heavy headaches? Jeal gives no reverence for this, nor has medical expertise in this case.
  • "to Baden-Powell's probable pederasty". The referenced article gives no prove for this statement. Primary references must be used.
  • "Baden-Powell's closest friend was Kenneth McLaren...". There is no statement in this part or proof that this relation was homosexual. According Jeal there was no sexual relation.
  • "He incorporated a graphic prohibition against masturbation". This has no connection with homo-sexuality. It was a common opinion in those days, even until the fifties in sexual education books.
  • "James Casada, reviewing Jeal's book". This is a support for the quality of Jeal's book, which is not needed. That should be part of Jeal's wikipedia article. Jeal's refences are good enough and does not need additional support. DParlevliet 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with the bulk of these edits, but I've put the paragraph about his marriage back in. It's true that army officers tended to marry later than civilians in those days, but BP was wealthy and eminent enough to have married earlier if he had so wished;
  • So every man who does not marry is probably homo-sexual? Indeed BP was not attracted to woman, but it does not imply that he was homo-sexual. He did marry, expressed in his writings his lofe for her and got children. So it needs reference or proof.
as for Olive's haircut and flattened breasts, yes, that was unusual, and even more to the point, it was done at BP's request;
  • I have never read that and it is not stated in the reference, so it needs (primary) reference. So not an article which refers to another article, but the primary article which did proof it with quotations.
and yes, the headaches were very, very unusual - most men don't get headaches when they start sleeping with their wives, and the usual cure is an asprin, not a separate bed.
  • It is indeed unusual but not imply homo-sexuality. A lot of homo-sexuals get married but I have never heard they get headaches. Doesn't have the Englisch queen and husband separate beds? Conclusion? So this needs (scientific) reference otherwise it is personal opinion.
By the way, there are a few minor problems with the article: (1)fn 1 contains two links, one of which leads to a site that needs an account and a password; and (2), the lead mentions two biographies, but only one is referenced throughout the article. It would also be a good idea to check all the references, as they may have become garbled by all this heavy editing. PiCo 01:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I stil not quite agree with the married part, see my comment above DParlevliet 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to be clear what we're doing here: we're not trying to prove that BP was homosexual, nor that he was not; what we're doing is presenting the conclusions and/or suggestions that the two biographies make about BP's sexuality. I gather that Jael never said that BP was, definitely, homosexual - rather he says that the evidence suggests that he had strong, but repressed, homosexual inclinations. If Jael and others present BP's late marriage, the headaches, and the cessation of the headaches when he began sleeping apart from his wife, as evidence to support this conclusion (their conclusion, not yours or mine - we don't count), then we should mention it. PiCo 07:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
But we do count if we put those arguments in wikipedia. Jeals writes 600 pages and 45 pages of notes because he explaines exactly how he came to his conclusions and gives the reader the possibilty to check and agree or disagree. If you have better arguments (which is not easy in his case), you can fight him. That is the base of science. You must agree with someone because of the strengh of his arguments, not solely on his reputation. So if you add his arguments you must agree yourself. For instance the old age marriage. I don't know if you have unmarried men amongst your family, friends or collegeas. Can you tell them that you wrote in wikipedia Jeal's opinion that men who marry at old age (the more for men who don't marry at all) are likely to be (repressed) homosexual? Would they agree with Jeal? Do you agree knowing these men? If you use Jeals opinion you must be willing to check Jeal's text, agree it's right and willing to defend. Also Jeal's opinion is not (anymore) fully accepted. Professor Elleke Boehmer, who recently delivered the scientific edition of Scouting for Boys is much less confinced about Jeal's opinion and when I quote a former refence of this article (Geoffrey W. Bateman): "Jeal's conclusion may or may not withstand scrutiny, but his discussion emphasizes an important undercurrent to Baden-Powell's life. He intensely identified with and enjoyed all-male culture and the activities that accompanied it. Whether this interest was simply an extension of a Victorian sensibility toward male friendship or a latent indication of homosexuality, we may never know." Therefore, before one adds these marriage-arguments one must give a reasonable answer on the objections like I gave above. DParlevliet 20:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is to second PiCo's statement that we need to present Jeal's arguments, not stand in judgment of them. If others have opposing views, and they are notable, then they too can be included in the article, as long as we mention what their possible biases may be (like "editor of Scouting for Boys"). Haiduc 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I put the marriage para back in and added the Bateman quote that you mention. PiCo 03:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so you also want to mention the bias of Bateman? : a homosexual, Assistant Director of a research center that promotes the study of gays and lesbians in the military, from an article from the encyclopedia of gay, lesbian.. etc. Still a good, balanced article, so not biased. If a writer is biased, don't use him at all (according Wikipedia) DParlevliet 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bateman quote seems to me to be balanced ("Jeal's conclusion may or may not withstand scrutiny") and sensible ("Whether [BP's] interest was simply an extension of a Victorian sensibility toward male friendship or a latent indication of homosexuality, we may never know.") It seems to me he's managing to control his bias pretty well. We all have biases, the trick is recognising and controling them. But if you want to add something in the footnote abt Bateman's background, go ahead.PiCo 00:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry no, it was an answer to Haiduc. The quote and Bateman are alright for me. DParlevliet 10:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Some explanation of a previous change: Shifted a part to the top because as it was it suggests that Batemans remark is part of the BSA view. Deleted the BSA-part because there is no reference to their arguments against Jeal. DParlevliet 15:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I have undone a resinsert of a previous part because the controversial part is already in the lead section while the BSA part has no reference. Mentioning the BSA is only useful if they have good arguments, in which case they could be used as a reference. Mentioning local Scouting organisations which are pro or con can in itself not be used as an argument and would need to add the opinion of all other organisations DParlevliet 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are we approaching this subject at all?

That's my question here. How many articles like this are there? Writing a homosexual article about B-P can ONLY be motivated by politics, given known BSA policy and recent contraversies. Why would such an article with all the possible articles in the world find its way here? And we have two modern biographers that are writing about this. Is that considered a consensus? Frankly I think it's quite obvious, and it should be to everyone. This article should be closed until a reasonable explanation for its worthiness for inclusion is determined. Is there an identical article about the sexual orientation of the founders of Wikipedia? No, there isn't right? Please close this article.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This article exists because someone or some people deleted the information from the article about Baden-Powell. That's what happens when you attempt to suppress information in a free society: you draw attention to it.
There are no articles about the sexual orientations of the founders of Wikipedia because to publish such articles would be an infringement of their rights. That may change when they're dead.
81.157.201.114 (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The article is there because wikipedia-editors/readers wants it that way. There were two votings for deleting with the result it should stay. I think it has more to do with impulse to damage the reputation of positive "icons" then with BSA policy. Anyway removing is also a politic statement. The sexual orientation of the man who founded a large boy-movement is of course more relevant then that of Wikipedia founders. I agree that BP had more interesting personal qualities which really did influence Scouting, so that is not in balance, but neither a reason for delete. I don't know the rules for deleting an article, but I would be surpriced if the article gives reason for that. DParlevliet (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Summary

I've created a sub-page which (I hope) fairy summarises all points made by all sides over the three AfDs. This was done to facilitate any future AfDs or proposed mergern, a not intended to reopen the discussion. If I've overlooked or mis-represented any viewpoints, I apologise, and these errors should be of course be corrected. --jwandersTalk 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DParlevliet, please stop

You have made your opinions clear, you have been asked to stop. You grasp of how Wikipedia works is deeply flawed. Brute force and ignorance will not work here. Also, your edits do nothing but make this page unintelligible. Perhaps you would consider editing a Wiki thaat is in your native language. 71.193.243.8 (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN 71.193.243.8 (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] USA

I changed the USA part to a link to the article about this item. I am quite sure there are much more countries having problems with a possible homosexual Baden-Powell and I suppose that was the intention of the original writer. Otherwise one has to mention all organisations. The article handles the orientation of Baden-Powell, not how organisations think about homosexuality DParlevliet (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] inaccuracies

I have reversed an edit because the original text (not mine) was better. The facts are that Baden-Powell married, got children and wrote a lot about marriage and how to go around with woman. The homosexual evidence is, like mentioned the article, circumstantial. So there is enough reason for the original text to say;

- he may have taken an erotic interes (in stead of: he took)

- was not exclusively heterosexual (in stead of: was not heterosexual)

- in men (in stead of youths): Tim Jeals chapter regarding this subject is called "Men's man" and he mentions often remarks of Baden-Powell that he was accompanied by strong good looking men. So Baden-Powell's had an admiration for the male body in general, not limited to boys. DParlevliet (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The text as it stood was not reflective of Jeal's and others' contentions. "May have taken" is a waffle. The historians say he took.
"Not exclusively heterosexual" is an outright fraud. The last thing Jeal depicts is an enthusiastic het who dabbled in boy erotica. He depicts a man who had no interest in women whatsoever, and who managed to tolerate one long enough in order to reproduce. Plenty of history on homosexual men who marry and reproduce, please let's not bandy "beards" about as proofs of het interest.
The main love interest in B_P's life was the most boyish of all the officers, one whom he dubbed "Boy". His main life interest was the welfare of boys, and his pleasure at the sight of boys' naked bodies is attested to by several pieces of evidence. But I would accept "men and boys" for the sake of comprehensiveness. Haiduc (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Men and boys is alright for me. Circumstantial evidence in history "is not considered to be proof that something happened but it is often useful as a guide for further investigation" (Wikipedia article). So "May have taken" is surely not inaccurate, and reflects also that the article contains both pro and con arguments. "Not exclusively heterosexual" is related to the object in that sentice: people who reject even a small bit of homosexuality in Baden-Powell. Tim Jeal argues that he did not understands women and had no interrest in marriage during his military time, but not after that. His remark about "tolerate one long enough in order to reproduce" is not backed up with any proof. DParlevliet (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)