Talk:Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London

Did you know nomination

 * Did you know nominations/Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London

As there has been little support in improving or expanding this article, I withdrew the DYK nomination. --evrik (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Article details
, do me a favor ... if you're going to delete entire passages of this work, please replace it with the same amount of relevant information. I'm trying to keep the character count above 1500. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. This is a page about a statue. "Baden-Powell House is a pilgrimage site for dedicated Scouters worldwide. The statue has long been a "selfie-spot", as it stands at the entrance to the building." That doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry about a statue, it belongs in a tourist pamphlet. "This statue has not faced the same level of controversy as that of Baden-Powell in Poole, Dorset, which was threatened during protests in 2020" This has NOTHING to do with this statue and is covered in the article about the Poole statue. I have no idea why the character count should matter. Swatchdog (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both sentences relate to the statue and its relevance. As for the character count. If you drop it below 1500 characters, it no longer qualifies for DYK. --evrik (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but can you please explain to me how a 2008 press release (which is entirely about the OTHER statue in Poole and does not mention this London statue at all) is a proper reference for a controversy about the Poole statue (and not about this statue) and why that should be mentioned in THIS article? Swatchdog (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sloppy editing on my part, I fixed the citation. --evrik (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not explained why a controversy about A DIFFERENT STATUE should be included in THIS page. The Guardian article does not mention THIS statue. Is this just to plump up the word count? Can we please remove this and the travel guide nonsense? Swatchdog (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "plump up" is a value laden term. I think that the citation shows that the other statue has been the source of controversy. The London statue hasn't been protested, so no coverage there. "travel guide" is also a value laden term. I think that the two facts help give the article more depth. I'd like to keep this above 1500 characters, so if you want to drop those two sentences, please add in more facts. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like all of the important information about this statue to be included and accurate. I am not interested in keeping the page at some arbitrary number of characters. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Swatchdog (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You realize that you're arguing over two sentences? I put forth again, that both sentences are relevant. --evrik (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with : the stuff about a "pilgrimage" does not belong in the article, and as far as I can see, bigmaninthewoods is a self-published source, and so not reliable for anything except possibly about itself. On the other hand, I wouldn't to a single sentence about the difference from the Poole statue. But, if there isn't enough reliably published material to make an article long enough for DYK, too bad: if that becomes your goal, then you've lost sight of our purpose to build an encyclopaedia. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I know that Scouters in London go to BP House and to Gilwell, that should be reflected in the article. Also, at the time that statues everywhere are under scrutiny, and the other BP statue was controversial it is of note that this one is not controversial. --evrik (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying you know people that visit the statue is WP:OR. A sentence about something that didn’t happen is hardly relevant, especially if there is not even any source that point to this statue being removed at all. There’s probably hundreds of statues of Columbus; just because the one in Buffalo, NY came down, do we have to go to every single other statue and make some mention of it? ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 10:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's hardley OR, and while you may not agree with the fact that people do visit the building, and take selfies there, it does happen. It is sourced, oh yeah, I forget ... you don't like the source either. People go to see B-P House, and the statue sits in front of it. --evrik (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the two sentences accordingly. Perhaps some other editor can provide some input at a later time. ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 01:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , The sentence say, "The statue has long been a "selfie-spot", as it stands at the entrance to the building." The source, a travel blog says, "... the popular selfie spot with the three-metre high statue of Baden-Powell (the only granite statue in London) ..." Would you agree that this is good enough to remove the tag? --evrik (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The issue isn't what the source says; it's that we need a better source bigmaninthewoods, which seems to be a WP:SELFPUB. ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 05:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Self pub, yes. Subject matter expert, also yes. --evrik (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking out the sentence for now.
 * The statue has long been a "selfie-spot", as it stands at the entrance to the building.

--evrik (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Writing for the sake of a DYK
I came by the discussion at Talk:Statue of Robert Baden-Powell, London, and after seeing your additions to the page, it seems to me that the information you added is only to reach the 1,500 character requirement of a DYK. The two pieces of information you added each has their own faults: the scouts one is not backed by a reliable source, being a blog; the protest at a different site is honestly irrelevant to the statue at hand. Remember, we are here to build an encyclopedia. There's no need to sacrifice the quality of an article for some recognition that only lasts for 12 hours. ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 15:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would put forth that my edits greatly improved the article. I have no problem with someone disagreeing on the sources. If you don't like the source then tag it. As for the sentences and whether they are appropriate, I'll discuss that above. I don't get the DYK credit for this, but I did nominate it. you have put a lot of effort into arguing against those two sentences. Earlier, I simply asked that if you were going to take them out, to add some more content. If you can't find it within yourself to edit collaboratively, do us all a favor and go ask that the DYK nom be withdrawn, and we can move on to something else.--evrik (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Evrik, I have experience editing wikis and working collaboratively. Your definition seems to be "doing what Evrik wants to do". YOU have put a lot of effort in defending three (not two) sentences. I had nothing to do with "the DYK nom" and I know nothing about it. You admit here that this is all about maintaining an arbitrary character count, not about writing a correct, concise page about a statue. If you want to move on to something else, the only thing stopping you is you. Swatchdog (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You have had your account for less than three weeks, and this is the only article you have edited on. There doesn't seem to be a lot of depth in your editing experience. If you had perhaps you wouldn't be edit warring. --evrik (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve removed the two sentences in question. , the burden to provide a reliable source lies on you, so if you could do so, the scouts sentence would be welcomed. Saying that you know people that take visit the statue constitutes as WP:OR. As for the second one, multiple users has expressed that it’s irrelevant, so do not restore that sentence. , just leave the nom alone; the article length is one of the first criteria to check for in a DYK nom. You’re also not obligated to re-add any information on Evrik’s behalf unless it benefits the article. ◢    Ganbaruby!    (Say hi!) 10:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentences are sourced. This isn't voting. --evrik (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

False Claims - the niece of the Duke of Gloucester didn't attend the statue's unveiling ceremony and B-P House is not a tourist destination
you have been very busy adding bits and pieces to this page seeking a "DYK". I don't understand your motivation.

In your desire to add to the word count you have added false information.

The following sentence is not true, "The ceremony was attended by the prince's niece, Queen Elizabeth II."

Reading that, it appears that the Queen of England played a 'second fiddle" to her uncle. This made me chuckle. The Duke performs while the Queen spectates. Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith identified simply as "prince's niece, Queen Elizabeth II" is an amazing bit of restraint. In your quest to obtain the coveted 1500 characters minimum (sounds like the requirement for a high school essay--1500 words or more), which this article had obtained from its very first version, why not use this correct title. But I digress.

The two reference links for this sentence say nothing about QEII's attendance at the statue's unveiling. However, a link from one of those links, | Queen Opens B-P House, contains a video which shows the Duke of Gloucester unveiling the statue; whereupon, Queen Elizabeth II arrives, gets out of a car and is greeted by the Duke of Gloucester. After the Duke did some heavy lifting, QEII makes a royal entrance for the purpose of unveiling a commemorative plaque to open B-P House. The Queen did not attend during the Duke's show. The Queen does not "attend", She, of course, is the star, not her uncle.

I will delete the sentence "The ceremony was attended by the prince's niece, Queen Elizabeth II." as it is false.

Additionally, further on down the page, the sentence "Baden-Powell House is a tourist site for dedicated Scouters worldwide" is clearly a personal opinion. It is not relevant to the statue per se. The reference link does not say what you claim it said. B-P House is, at most, a hotel with a statue; it is not much of a tourist site. I am a Scouter and I've been there, but not for the purpose of B-P House tourism. I visited the Natural History Museum and happened to look across the street and saw the B-P House and the statue and decided to take advantage of the opportunity. It was not at all notable, if fact, I was disappointed in finding that it was simply a hostel hotel. I would not recommend the B-P House as a reason to visit South Kensington. I will delete this sentence.

evrik, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia that provides authoritative information. When editing, please apply sufficient scholarship so as to provide true information that are important facts about the topic. And personal opinions should be avoided. Osomite (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, are these sentences correct?
 * On 12 July 1961, Baden-Powell House was officially opened, and the statue was unveiled by Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was the President of the Scouts. Later in the day, Queen Elizabeth II unveiled the ceremonial plaque inside the building.

--evrik (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The statue and the relevance of Baden-Powell

 * Baden-Powell has become a controversial figure, however, this statue has not faced the same controversy as other Baden-Powell statues, threatened during protests in 2020. In response to the controversy, Bear Grylls, current Chief Scout, and successor to Baden-Powell, said, "... we also recognise that Baden-Powell is part of our history, and history is nothing if we do not learn from it ... Baden-Powell may have taken the first step in creating Scouting, but the journey continues today without him ... We know where we came from but we are not going back." Grylls also said that he hoped Scouting statues  remain in place "to remind us all of one thing - the huge positive influence that Scouting continues to bring to so many young people worldwide."


 * So please, explain to me how this is not relevant? --evrik (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)