Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Remove sexuality section
Simply put, the sexuality section is mere speculation and it is disingenuous and useless to clutter a Wikipedia page about a prominent person with such uninformative drivel. In all, there is exactly zero evidence put forward by anyone that could in good faith promote the view that Powell was a "repressed homosexual". Claiming that the person making the judgment was a "prominent biographer" of his gives no credential nor credibility to the assessment, as any person can read books and study a person's life and form his or her own opinions and write a book full of those opinions. The fact remains that all of the assertions contained in that section are mere speculation, unsubstantiated and indeed at various points materially refuted by Baden-Powell's own character, expressions, and behavior. It would not be honest to retain the section, and it imparts no useful information. It should be deleted. Pygosceles (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there anything wrong with being a repressed homosexual? Your words suggest you think there is. Dismissing the sources is inappropriate, because a lot of other content in the article is based on the writings of those same people. Should we remove all content based on what those people said? Or just the bit you personally don't like? HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many times. I basically agree with HiLo48. It is important that this be retained because it is mentioned in biographers of B-P. --Bduke (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * this is an editor with an agenda, see their contributions, especially at Nazi gun control argument and Disarmament of the German Jews‎. I've given them 4 DS alerts. Every edit of theirs has been reverted by someone. Doug Weller  talk 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My other edits have been to state opinions as opinions, not as facts, and to eliminate baseless conjecture. They were reverted out of a strange insistence to continue to state opinion and conjecture as fact. Pygosceles (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I go on the content not the editors previous edits. --Bduke (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I also go on the fact that the OP hasn't been back to say anything else after two and a half days. Just wasting everyone's time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine, perhaps the past won't be a guide, one can hope. But they're back more or less repeating themselves, saying that the sources are ok but we shouldn't use them for certain purposes. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Speculation is speculation, regardless of who is doing it. Any plausibly literate person can write a book full of opinions about someone or something. If the purpose of Wikipedia were to mirror a particular author's views, it might make sense to echo every such claim regardless of whether it is unsubstantiated and/or disputed, but that is not what we are here to do. As it stands there is no substance for the claim that is made here, it is only someone's tortured opinion, so it is contrary to good information to promote those views here. Other references to the same biographers on this page may include pertinent facts about BP. The references in this section include only unsubstantiated and contested conjecture. The section should be removed. Pygosceles (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We go on sources and there are clear sources that make this speculation so we can report them. Of course we should say that Jeal speculates that B-P was a repressed homosexual. Readers need to know that people have made these speculations. --Bduke (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. The man was flaming. His wife forbade him from seeing a certain male friend over her worries about him. He spent the war cross dressing and doing drag shows, he spoke of dreams as a boy where he was "disciplined" by muscled men. Does this sound like the behavior of a completely hetrosexual person? This is all on the public record! 2001:44B8:6117:B100:5C8:A2AA:BEB6:D3B0 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing this section, I suggest that editors compare, confirm and/or disconfirm it with other equally credible opinion. As it stands, the article states that the 'opinion is disputed', but to date nobody has produced any credible reference(s) to that effect. This, together with the identification and comparison of any other views found in credible literature, should be the aim of editors, I believe; not the eradication of an opinion because it is disliked. (Michael J. Mullany (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)|talk]])
 * Added citation from Block and Proctor (2009) which dismiss Jeal's analysis of Baden-Powell's sexuality. (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)|talk]])


 * I think we have discussed this to a draw. The standing article should remain as it is. --evrik (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * so what happened to the section? 2600:8805:3B01:9200:7075:D03E:2859:BF62 (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It is still there but at the end of the "Personal life" section. --Bduke (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Candice 2407:5200:400:B42:BDB9:80E5:CAED:9568 (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

controversies?
i feel it may be worth creating a sub-section based on controversies surrounding baden-powell. i would write it, but i am not quite confident enough in the subject and in wikipedia editing to do so. Farleigheditor (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Farleigheditor Probably better not. The material can usually be better integrated into other sections rather than dramatising it.SovalValtos (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Criticism strongly recommends against having such sections, and gives reasons better than I could. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hilo48 there is a large body of critical material about the way he staved scouts based on their skin colour, how he organised what he called "niggerhunts", about his admiration of Hitler and Mussolini, none of which can be found in the lemma. It now looks as if the man was a saint. This is not neutrality but personality cult Maggy (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Staved =>starved Maggy (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If reliable sources discuss in detail aspects of Baden-Powell's ideology/life that aren't already covered in the article then they can of course be added. The point made in this discussion two years ago was that Wikipedia tends to avoid specific sections of criticism. If the information is available, valid, and from reliable sources, then it should be added to the existing prose rather than given its own awkward section. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Possible sources for extending content on B-P's attitudes a possible new section
Looking into perceptions around B-P view's of race, fascism, sexuality, and Hitler, for an edit of "Recognition" sub-section, gathered a few possibly useful sources: Above sources unused in that 21 Dec 2020 edit, but saving them here, as considering adding further information about B-P's views and, especially, perceptions of them. new section .180.216.180.68 (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Any attempt to look at B-P's views on such matters must not be by comparison with what we think today, but by comparison with how most other people of his time and his class saw such things, and what impact his views had on his life and his acts. What is your goal in creating such a section? HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A fuller, more encyclopedic article. 180.216.180.68 (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article?
This article has been tagged as B/C class since 2015. It never failed WP:GAR, so it was inappropriate to delist. I reverted. Schierbecker (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:WIAGA: "A good article loses its status when promoted to a featured article. Accordingly, demoted featured articles are not automatically graded as good articles and must be reassessed for quality." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)