Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus. I read this entire discussion. I read Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. I read Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. I read the all of the referred to discussions on Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell and Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/ArchiveTo30March2006. I examined the all of the relevant policies at WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:N. I went through and tried to measure the various arguments against these policies. In short, I gave it my best effort to find a consensus supported by policy and am left to close this as no consensus.

However, I will note the following from my review:
 * 1) Contrary to some of the arguments here, I did not find a consensus in the talk page and talk page archives supporting the basis for this article.  What consensus I did find from the talk page discussions was that undue weight was given to this subject in the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article and therefore the bulk of the content in this article does not belong in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell.
 * 2) The Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation article needs some work—enough that it made this a close call between no consensus and delete.  The article needs to describe the theories of Baden-Powell's sexual identity instead of presenting the theories.  Quite possibly the article needs to be moved to Theories on Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation in order to maintain a neutral point of view.  Reporting on the theories requires reliable sources that have examined the theories, which the article does include in the intro and briefly references in the first paragraph under the "On his interest in males" section.  The theories themselves are a primary source, and per WP:V, the article should be reporting the analysis of reliable secondary sources that have reported on these theories.  Most of the rest of the article past the third paragraph becomes a presentation of a single work and needs to be rewritten.
 * 3) The article slips from describing the theories to adopting them and needs the language cleaned up.  The following examples either need to be recast or sourced to primary facts, not secondary theories by the Jeal: "There is no reason to suspect that either Tod or Powell's relations were anything but chaste", "Despite his appreciation for the beauty of boys", "From the physical view he regarded the body as the best example of the beauty of nature, and with that of God, the creator", "Their relationship held hints of masculine attraction as well"

This closing of no consensus is without prejudice for any future AfD. —Doug Bell talk 09:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Let's see if we can pry this one loose. Reasons for deletion include: That is all. Ride forth, and fear no evil. Herostratus 18:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC) N.B.: the previous AfD for this article was closed as No Consensus, discussion here.
 * 1) We don't have articles on "Hillary Clinton's sexual orientation" or "Condolezza Rice's sexual orientation" even though you hear plenty speculation about them. (In fact, as far as I know we don't have any articles on "_______'s sexual orientation" except this one.
 * 2) We don't have articles speculating on the inner life of historical personages. We don't have articles on "What _______ secretly thought about _______".
 * 3) In particular, we don't have articles speculating on, specifically, the sexual persona of people whose sexuality is not germane to their notability. For t.A.T.u. or David Bowie, fine; for Baden-Powell, no thanks.
 * 4) This is way too detailed a level of information for an encyclopedia article.
 * 5) Reality check: this whole article is an exercise in making a WP:POINT. Anyone surprised? Does anyone think that the editors responsible for this article were casting about a way to improve the encyclopedia by adding additional material on Baden-Powell, mooted a treatise on his tactics at the siege of Mafeking, but decided on this article instead? 'Nuf said. The article was created by User:Haiduc, who is a fine editor and very erudite in his field (pederasty) but is also the Energizer bunny of pederasty-normalizaton here. The Wikipedia is not for hijacking to lend authority to anyone's personal agenda.
 * 6) Finally, and for what it's worth, and recognizing that this is not really a deletion criteria: the entire thrust of the article is not only incorrect but also insulting to the human spirit and socially toxic. I resent the implication that, because one can (for instance) appreciate the coiled muscular power and grace of The Discus Thrower, or has close male friends, or enjoys mentoring youth, etc. one is perforce gay, and I think the people who make this connection are psychologically retarded at best.


 * Well, looking at the article purely on its own merits, without attempting to analyze the motives of its author, certainly it fails to meet Wikipedia's stated policy: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another...".


 * This article quotes only two sources to advance the hypothesis that Baden-Powell's sexual orientation was deviant, whilst ignoring the many other published credible sources which consistently portray him as a paragon of virtue. It also fails to mention that his writings, in the context of Edwardian times, are not at all unusual or evidence of prurient interest. How, then, can this article be said to be truly "representing all views"?


 * As an encyclopedia article, it should endeavour to compare and contrast the divergent interpretations of past events in the context of the times. Instead, all we have here is simply a glorified book report which leads the reader to the conclusion that the Article is POV, not history.

Agree it should be deleted, unless someone wishes to undertake a major re-write more worthy of Wikipedia. JGHowes 19:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment FWIW, we have other articles on the sexual orientation of noted individuals. See Jesus Christ's sexuality, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, and Sexuality of William Shakespeare. -Will Beback · † · 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * observation, based on those articles, there should probably be done some renames for uniformity sake-Sexuality of x or x's Sexuality. Chris 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's consensus at Talk:Robert Baden-Powell for the existence of this article, and it already survived one AfD. The nominator doesn't seem to be saying anything that wasn't already said in those debates--except for his points 5 and 6, which are ad hominem arguments. If JGHowes is correct in saying that the article has NPOV problems, the article should be expanded to include the views of additional sources--but I see no reason to delete this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But note that the previous AfD was closed as No Consensus. It's still an open issue. Herostratus 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleate. Unless we want to open the flood gates of there being an article about the sexual interests of every major historical figure since the dawn of time this needs to be done away with. Bragragger 01:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC) 6 February 2007 (UTC


 * Note: The above comment was Bragragger's second edit on Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: The above comment was by --Akhilleus who does not agree with me on this topic. Bragragger 01:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Consensus on talk page as per --Akhilleus above, and second time at AfD. Shall we just keep on proposing articles for deletion until eventually it get's through?? More germane, I found the article via todays main page article on Scouting and specificaly then looked for information on Bayden Powell's sexuality. Not through any form of titilation, but I remember considerable debate and controversy in the UK about 20 years ago (maybe more). In short as a hum drum reader of the encyclopedia if I am interested and also disinterested it stands to reason that others will be too. Article does need a rewrite though, but that's no reason to delete. Pedro 1999a | Talk  14:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, we keep hearing that this article has already survived and AfD. But the AfD was closed as No Consensus, and that was a year ago. So that is a very weak argument indeed, and yes, we can review articles periodically until we get a consensus. And yes I understand that there are a few editors at Baden-Powell's talk page who are eager for this article to survive, but that does not really bear on this discussion. Herostratus 17:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but perhaps you would do me the courtesy of reading beyond the opening lines of my support. As I am disinterestedthe value of the article is that there has been debate in the wider world beyond wikipedia. Therefore it is encyclopedic to include articles about such debate. Indeed if we have issues about a "smear" then I will happily re-write the article to include the historical context as this is noticeably lacking. However I think any rewrite before close of AfD would not be proper. Pedro | Talk  21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per nom, and further these random smear campagins are useless, besides in the article it is well referenced that he in fact never had any activity of the sort, and supported flogging of those who did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.128.18 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep but in passing, the whole thing has only two references. I'm in favour of applying WP:BLP to articles about any person dead or alive, so we should be bold and trim out the unverifiable portions. Flyingtoaster1337 17:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hate to go with the sock patrol on this one, but this is a clear-cut case of undue weight. Much of it is unsourced, and the bulk of it is sourced to one single biography. (The other cited source isn't cited anywhere but at the end of the article.) This would be bad sourcing for a single paragraph in Robert Baden-Powell; for an entire article that seems to be a soapbox piece, this is inexcusably bad sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete For many reasons stated above. As for other similar articles mentioned, well let's be honest this guy is not William Shakespeare or Abraham Lincoln. The level of study of his sexuality doesn't seem to be anywhere near as deep, varied, or longstanding.--T. Anthony 18:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - there appears to be at least a minimally adequate level of sourcing for the article and it's a reasonable topic of encyclopedic interest. Frankly, I find the nomination to be a little suspect, what with its throwing around phrases like "socially toxic" and "psychologically retarded." And I take great exception to the false characterization of this sort of scholarship as "smear campaigns." Otto4711 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the place to advance one's own agenda and there's not one shred of proof that Gen. Baden-Powell was deviant. Where are the eyewitnesses? Recorded events as evidence? There are none - this is entirely speculation invented out of whole cloth. An article like this would never pass muster for a living person, you know it and I know it. - C. Watkins
 * First off, referring to gay people as "deviant" pushes the boundary of WP:CIVIL, so I suggest you refresh yourself on that and be a bit more selective in your word choice next time. Second, whether this article would pass muster about a living person is irrelevant. Otto4711 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article indicates he had pederastic tendencies, not simple homosexuality. I believe the above poster is stating that pederasty is deviant. Although a few Wikipedians may even disagree with that the idea that pederasty is deviant is basically the mainstream view.--T. Anthony 04:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, what kind of fucking crap is this - a fucking hatchet job! Fucking delete it now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.207.111 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Well, that's solved that then. Delete as per 86.6.207.111. The informed and persuasive logic of the argument is without compare..... Pedro | Talk  21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - there seems to be a tendency at the moment for controversial material to be deleted even when it is sourced. This may be a democratic form of censorship, but it's still censorship.  If there are outrageous facts about a historical figure they should not be airbrushed out.--Simon Speed 20:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There's no "censorship" to it. If the issue is germane, no one is saying it can't be included in the main Baden-Powel article. From my look at this article, there is no reason why it needs to be a separate article. We don't need a separate article on every habit, belief, incident, or action of an encyclopedic person. A well-written article can always accomodate information like this if it is relevant to the biography. Agent 86 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue with this specific article, as I see it, is not really censorship of unpleasant facts at all. Indeed, the article cites no facts, which is one of the main reasons why it should be deleted. Secondly, the article is seriously flawed and unencyclopedic, as follows:


 * + It relies solely on one book, T. Jeal's biography. All other sources are ignored.


 * + Since Jeal's work is the only source for this article, what are his credentials? He is not a psychoanalyst, nor has expertise in psychology or psychiatry.


 * + The entire field of psychohistory (which is what Jeal is practicing in the chapter on B-P's sexuality) has been subject to serious debate. Psychohistory is not very well accepted.JGHowes 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete --evrik (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I will not repeat ad infinitum arguments made before, I will simply mention that the reason I seem to be hitting people over the head right and left with pederasty is simply because most other editors have a distaste of the subject, and I am left working at it largely alone. But, if I may point out a minor matter, the permanence of the large majority of my contributions despite the controversial nature of the material is at least suggestive of their validity. And don't for a second imagine that I have been free to impose on the Wikipedia some personal agenda. Other editors have been watching like hawks to make sure that I do not turn the documentation of relations between men and boys into a boy love polemic. Which is as it should be. Pederasty has much to be blamed for. But to jump from that to presumptious arguments that to mention a notable personage's attraction to boys is an "attack" is the very essence of imposing an agenda. I would like to leave you with a quote from a recent work on Uranian poetry by Michael Kaylor: "[C]urrent scholarship employs four strategies that blatantly attempt to quell any meaningful consideration of ‘the paederastic’, strategies that attempt to forestall a ‘Uranian approach’: scholarship engages in absolute avoidance of this form of love, intimacy, and/or eroticism; claims its anachronism; heightens its ‘homosocial’ aspects; or disguises it as ‘homosexual’." (Secreted Desires, 2006; p.xxvi) We do not have to fall into any of those pitfalls, not with Baden-Powell nor with any other topic. Haiduc 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (N.B.: The above comment is by the creator of the article.) Haiduc, I already conceded in the nomination that you are a good and erudite editor. However, in this case you're way overreaching. Also, it'd be disingenuous of you to claim that you don't have an agenda: the peppering of the encyclopedia with material tending to glorify and normalize pederasty. I know that you don't see it as an attack to claim the Baden-Powell was a closet pederast. However, most people do see it as an attack - Baden-Powell certainly would have, and I daresay his sucessors in scouting would also - and also a direct attack on scouting itself.  If Baden-Powell was alive, this article would be deleted under WP:BLP in a heartbeat. Haiduc, the quote you included in your comment is painfully opaque, but serves to make this point: this is an encyclopedia and as such is, ultimately, a general work designed to be accesable to a general readership. It is not possible to understand that quotation without a extensive background in whatever the hell he's saying, therefore it is not possible to refute his argument without possessing a greater depth of knowledge that the typical user has or can reasonably be expected to easily attain. You follow me? The Wikipedia is not a scholarly academic journal and  there's a limit to how deep we can go. And it's all very well for a couple of academics to say well such-and-such and isn't that rather fascinating to speculate on, but here in the real world there's no way that calling Baden-Powell a closeted pederast - and on "evidence" such that he was friends with a younger man and so forth - isn't a scurrilous attack. Herostratus


 * Herostratus, the danger of calling another's work "agenda driven" is that one is exposed to the selfsame criticism. Often such accusations are also inadvertently humorous, since the person doing the attacking appears convinced of his or her neutrality, a neutrality less than apparent to other observers. A close reading of the article that the Scout portal editors and I developed with no small expense of effort will make it amply clear that B-P was a deeply ethical man who deeply loved boys. I do not know what sort of individual condemns and fears an ethical and loving lifestyle but I certainly do not think we should cater to that mentality.


 * Finally, I take exception to your suggestion that Kaylor's words, which I quoted above are opaque. For anyone unfamiliar with Uranian poetry a small side trip to that article would have resolved any questions. The opacity, if any, lies not in the quote, or in the articles I write but in the reader. And if there is anything I reject more forcefully than attempts to censor discussions of pederasty, it is attempts to dumb down experience any further. I am sure I do not have to explain - just look around at the world we live in.


 * In closing, however, I do want to give credit where credit is due. You are right, I do have an agenda. It is to approach the subject of pederasty in a scrupulously neutral fashion, documenting its negative, neutral and positive aspects with an even hand. And if I might refrain from poking fun at you for a moment, I understand completely your objections. This kind of an activity, from the perspective of a culture which has evolved into a position where pederasty is seen as universally negative, must seem peculiar, slanted and suspicious. That is why we are here now, having this debate. Let's hope it will serve a useful purpose. Regards, Haiduc 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I really don't think it's appropriate to make ad hominem arguments in an AfD. Haiduc's motives in writing the article should have nothing to do with this discussion.
 * As for Herostratus' other points, I don't know of any WP policy that limits how much detail an article should cover. Nor can I agree with the idea that the article is a "scurrilous attack"--it's based on Tim Jeal's biography, which meets WP:RS as far as I can tell, and also refers to Rosenthal's biography. Reporting the views of reliable sources is not an attack. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I couldnt care less if he enjoyed shagging bears in the wood, it has NOTHING to do with what he's famous for. Frankly is it any of our damn business what lit his fire?! What next, Sexuality of Queen Elizabeth II? Jcuk 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is far from a persuasive argument. Otto4711 01:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, however as I didn't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT your comment is irrelevant. I said his sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with what he's famous for. Jcuk 23:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge Anything salvageable from the article (ie, well-referenced statements from reliable sources) can be made into a section in Robert Baden-Powell, the rest can be dumped into the bit-bucket. Just because the folks at Talk:Robert Baden-Powell don't like it isn't an excuse to spin off a separate article when there's so little there. Argyriou (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment anything "salvageable" is already there.Rlevse 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This material already was in the original article, and was split off from it. It has been reduced to what can be asserted based on the existing scholarship, which is not for editors here to criticize as no one here has adequate credentials, to the best of my knowledge. So returning the material where it came from is not a solution, and reducing it further is not appropriate since what remains is properly documented. And the only arguments for deletions (and I select the cream of the crop so as not to say worse) have been spontaneous opinions or attacks on bona fide scholars by anonymous nobodies, which is not the stuff academic arguments are made of. Any other ideas? Haiduc 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge Just because it was previously part of the main article and later split is no bar to returning it. Neither is the fact that some editors of the main article don't want it.  I don't advocate censorship, but also don't see why this particular aspect of his history needs its own article. Matchups 04:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge what's worthwhile and then delete. Baden-Powel's sexuality is by no means a notable topic on its own, although it may be of interest in his main article, nor is the Baden-Bown article long enough to mandate splitting (although this article seems a bit more like a POV fork if you ask me...) AmiDaniel (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not suffcient material for article subject.-MsHyde 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete somewhat trivial, and anything that can be covered here should be on the main article instead. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]]
 * Comment - You know, I've always found that a good informal bar for notability for a controversial claim is whether anyone has ever felt the need to attempt to refute that claim. So is there any publication anywhere that states, "For such-and-such reasons, Baden-Powell was not a pederast or homosexual"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable subject, enough to say that it's worth being split off. Everyking 06:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AFD's such as this one proliferate themselves ad maximum nausium. There are quite a few things going on in this one, though.  One is a general dislike for the subject or a desire to wear blinders while confronted with it.  This is, of course, not a reason for deletion.  Some assert that the article is not NPOV.  Whether or not this is true, it is not a reason for deletion. (You do not delete articles you feel are POV, you edit them to make them NPOV).  If they take the time to consider the context, nobody can assert that the topic is not notable. (There is strong evidence that the founder of the largest and possibly the most influential boy's youth organization in the world, which currently proselytizes against same sex attraction, might have had pederastic attractions...and we can assert non-notability HOW?).  There are several ad hominum attacks that claim that Haiduc is somehow trying to usurp article space in wikipedia in order to advance his agenda of brainwashing all those who so much as LOOK at one of his articles into being pederasts (insert evil laugh here?).  Thrown in here is also a condemnation of academic language (by the nominator, no less) and with it academic notability and expertise (because wikipedia should be accessible to a 'general' audience, which means we should talk down to those humble little peons who will just never understand our academic 'lingo'.  Sources in an article, after all, are only there to give some sort of arbitrary idol of 'proof' to its content, not to actually provide a pathway to research and, oh i dunno, learning something).  And while I jest a good amount here, I think it's pretty clear that the inclusion of articles like this are crucial to the wiki project, and that most of those poo-pooing it have a historical vested interest in its deletion. CaveatLectorTalk 06:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So, where are the sources claiming that Baden-Powell wasn't a pederast? There's no potential for a NPOV article if there's only one person who has commented on the subject, with their one opinion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this pyscho-bio-crap. Existing mention in the Baden-Powell article is sufficient.  Edeans 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to the brief mention the topic actually merits in Baden-Powell's article. This is excessive detail. GassyGuy 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep as expansion of that subject in the B-P article. In this case it seems quite possible that sexuality was related to his career in rather obvious ways. If there is enough material for an objective discussion, there can be an article--and it seems there is. The WP article is not making judgements about people's psyche --it just reports on the work of others using appropriate quotations. DGG 06:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for undue weight as noted above. Also, how is this subject in and of itself notable enough for an article? No publications specifically about it are cited. A brief, well-sourced paragraph in the main article will do. Sandstein 07:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much is made above about there being only two references. It does not appear to be realised that these two books are the only two biographies of Baden-Powell that get close to what we call NPOV. They do indeed look at all sides of the man. The earlier biograpies were written by people strongly associated with Scouting to praise the founder of Scouting after his death. They allow no criticism, while Jeal and Rosenthal have written well researched notable biographies. The topic is important because it often appears in criticism of Scouting. The section in the main article on Baden-Powell was getting too large so it was agreed to spin off an article for this topic. I personally think that more material from these two books needs to be added to WP articles on Baden-Powell, but the sections refered to in this article are notable and important in understanding the man. --Bduke 07:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bduke eruditely and succinctly hits the nail on the head. Pedro | Talk  08:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with most of this, but the conclusion where I differ is that spinning this off and giving it a full article was the proper move. Rather, it should have been pared down to its barest and most necessary facts so as to give a proper overview within the context of the Baden-Powell article. GassyGuy 08:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only acceptable to "pare it down to its barest and most necessary facts" if you're moving the rest of the detail to a subarticle. Wikipedia embraces information and does not strive to limit the information available to the reader. Everyking 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternately, it's necessary to pare it down if undue weight is being given to a minority idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternately, they're the only sources to advance a fairly radical idea. How are we to know the difference? The answer is that we cannot, and we should give ideas not widely discussed or brought up due weight, by mentioning them as minor details in a larger context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, the fact that no one's bringing up sources that disagree with Jeal and Rosenthal are evidence of an NPOV problem? That doesn't make any sense to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for all the reasons in the first afd plus what Bduke says here. Rlevse 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Further up you ask "So, where are the sources claiming that Baden-Powell wasn't a pederast?". Well, actually, Jeal, as well as zillions of scouting sources. Jeal's views are more nuanced about his sexuality. Other points:- It has been pared down for the main article on BP, but there is, as folks just above say, more to talk about. Also, someone above says about Scouting "which currently proselytizes against same sex attraction". Only the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do. The Scout Association (UK), Scouts Canada, Scouts Australia, most Scout organisations in Europe, and many others do not. However the fact that BSA does makes this article to be about an important topic. --Bduke 11:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Briefly Sorry about that, I was only aware of BSA policy. CaveatLectorTalk 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge if verifiable sources can be found for the statements currently flagged as unsourced. If this can be done, I would recommend cutting down the text, and merging it back into a main article - OR, start cutting down the bio article on Lord Baden-Powell into sub-articles (early life, military career, scouting career), so that the whole thing isn't overly long. If sources cannot be found (and give people some time for heaven's sake, we have lives you know :) - then DELETE. I don't agree that this material deserves its own article, but I also don't agree that it shouldn't be mentioned, somewhere. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with the main BP article and take out false information, such as the Juliet Low bit at the bottom which I am 99.9% certain is false. We don't have articles on other peoples' sexuality, make a section for it in the article if you feel it is that needed.  Darth griz 98 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't this already a sub article?Rlevse 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Making my points afresh. 1) Delete doesn't make sense:  There does seem to be potential encyclopedic content.  This has been hashed many a time.  2) Should we merge? I don't think so.  While that is an option, this is sort of grown into its own controversy.  It's a fine distinction, but this article is not so much about him but about the research movement regarding this topic.  So, the research and writing itself is a separate topic.  One could imagine an article "Examining the Monica Lewinsky affair" that should be separate from and article on Monica Lewinsky.  If anything, this article needs to focus more on the controversy or the research but not be merged. --NThurston 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1-Name me an encyclopedia that has an article solely about an individual's sexuality. I mean any individual including Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. 2-The parent article is a bit long, but barely longer than this discussion.--T. Anthony 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia--See Jesus Christ's sexuality, Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, and Sexuality of William Shakespeare. There are also articles on such topics as a pundit's speech at a press dinner, which IMHO is even more of a stretch than this an that article is an FA. It's not like he made the Gettysburg Address or anything.Rlevse 15:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant another encyclopedia, not this one. You can justify almost anything based on what's in Wikipedia as it's huge and anyone can edit. The first point is still not addressed as far as I'm concerned.--T. Anthony 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even going by Wikipedia standards the sexuality of the most important figures in history is going to be more notable than normal. Do you really rank Robert Baden-Powell up there with Shakespeare or Jesus? Or think that the level of scholarship on him is at that kind of level? Personally I'm not sure any "sexuality of" article is encyclopedic, but I can maybe see it if it's limited to the most notable people to have their sexuality thoroughly debated. If we start doing it with anyone who founds a major organization or movement we could have "Sexuality of Henry Dunant", "Sexuality of Syed Ahmed Khan", "Sexuality of Bernard Kouchner", etc.--T. Anthony 17:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also Alexander the Great's personal relationships. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is notable, and because of his interest in boys leading to the founding of scouts, his reported sexual interest in men and boys is a fair subject for an article. The article is not original research or a synthesis. It is not trying to telepathically look at his inner thoughts, but it does look at his words and actions. It presents several reliable sources which have substantial coverage of the topic of his sexual orientation, possible pederasty, and interest in nude photos of boys taken by his lifelong friend, who was nicknamed "boy." Completely appropriate, and the objections seem to be of the "IDONTLIKEIT" variety. Wikipedia is not censored. Edison 16:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How about it has several unsourced statements, it's mostly based on a biography by a novelist (sorry I'm in academia, that would be a "interesting, but don't use it"), and the person's sexuality is not yet so notable it's of solid historic interest.--T. Anthony 16:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Jeal? Do you have any evidence to support this "put down". He has written other biographies, including a very well received one on David Livingstone which is source for that article. As I indicate above, both references are very well researched biographies that have been well received and reviewed. They are miles better than the earlier biographies of Baden Powell. They are perfectly good sources (and I'm an academic too). --Bduke 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hoo boy. OK, going from the top: There's a place for a well-sourced and neutral article on this topic, given the controversy surrounding Scouting's policies regarding homosexuality, as explicated at Scouting_controversy_and_conflict. However, this article has serious problems, as much of the material is poorly sourced and the presentation doesn't adhere to a neutral point of view. As such, I'd be inclined to basically burn this article to the ground and re-create a version that's a more even treatment of the subject, in the manner in which some BLP violations have been handled in recent days. More commonly, I guess that's a Delete, with no bias against the re-creation of a better version. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Fair comments but please see the deletion policy, specificaly "article needs improvement". I can't see "delete and then re-create" helps at all. Surely there are three options. Delete, Merge or Improve . The point of this discussion is to ascertain which of these is the community's consensus. I'm afraid that "delete and bring it back later if you like, but slightly better" doesn't seem the way forward. Pedro | Talk  20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to try to radically re-work the article, but I'm disturbed by the idea of some of the unsourced material remaining in the article's history, since it's potentially defamatory. As such, I think the article's needs go beyond simple cleanup, in favor of more radical measures. If we were to cut out all the bits that aren't adequately supported, there wouldn't be much left beyond a stub anyway, so I don't think there's much difference in this case between a de facto deletion and a de jure one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I'm having trouble understanding why you think most of the article isn't sourced. Most of the article seems to be based on Jeal's biography. The article shifts from footnotes to parenthetical references after the fourth paragraph; paragraphs 5-8 are based on Jeal, to judge from the parenthetical notes at the end of paragraphs 5, 7, and 8; after that, the article isn't referenced. But it seems to me that most of the article indicates its source. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There are parenthetical citations to some portions, but it seems that many potentially controversial statements are currently unsourced. For example, consider the following passage near the beginning: "The most intense relationship of Baden-Powell's life is widely believed to have been with a younger man, Kenneth McLaren, a boyish looking British Army officer whom Baden-Powell had grown fond of when they first served together in India. Baden-Powell nicknamed McLaren affectionately "The Boy," and remained close to him throughout his life, until his friend chose to marry — against Baden-Powell's advice — a woman below his station. Their friendship was the cause of intense jealousy on the part of Baden-Powell's wife." The phrase "is widely believed to have been" contains so-called weasel words, which compromise the integrity of the passage. If something really IS widely believed, multiple sources should be relatively easy to find. The potentially controversial allegation that McLaren's wife was below his station is unsourced, and the source attached to the claimed jealousy of Baden-Powell's wife does not match the passage, rendering that section unsourced as well. It's also questionable to use a summary from a book review as source material, rather than the source itself. For an example of the type of sourcing that is needed for potentially controversial material of this nature, please see the article on Ron Jeremy. At a casual count, I found 30 citations from 23 different sources for an article with a length of 28 sentences. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that detailed reply. In general, I agree with your analysis of this paragraph, but these seem like problems that call for a rewrite, not a deletion. (I'm not quite sure where your comment about the book review is coming from, though, because the editor who wrote the article definitely read Jeal's work.) --Akhilleus (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My objection to the usage of the book review within that context is that it's not the best available source at hand for the material. Since the review's summary is drawing its information solely from Jeal's book, it would be better to directly cite the relevant part of that work, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't realize the footnote mark was for the review, rather than the book. Of course, I agree the citation should be to the relevant part of the book. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article a bit to address some of Hit bull, win steak's concerns. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's some improvement, but I'd say that at least 60% of the article is still uncited. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your percentage is on the pessimistic side, but I agree that further improvements can be made. (Someone just removed some of the material with "fact" tags, so that helps also.) I'm not going to tinker with the article very much until the AfD closes, because I'd rather not spend too much of my time on work that might get deleted. But I hope this demonstrates that the article's citation problems can be addressed through cooperative editing, and that any problems of undue weight can be addressed, if people will be specific about whose views aren't being heard. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Book Review maybe this article should morph into a review of the whole book, not just 5% of the book.Rlevse 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We already have this - Baden-Powell (book). --Bduke 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment If it gets deleted, someone will undoubtedly try to put it back in the main article again in full, where it was before. It was a POV fork, and had far undue weight in the B-P article than the topic itself is worth. If it is deleted, is there any way to keep that vast volume out of the B-P article? As it read previously, you would think the only thing to the guy was his sexuality, it was written to far outweigh his military history or youth work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment To re-focus on why this article should be deleted, apart from the rather irrelevant "I don't like it" or "censorship" variety, WP:NPOV specifically disallows forks to advance an author's POV, undue weight to one side only, and not citing sources espousing the contrary view. Indeed, WP:NPOV goes so far as to say that, even by consensus in a Discussion group, an Article cannot depart from this Wikipedia pillar.

The issue for deletion is: does this article meet all of the above? If not, WP:NPOV says it should and must go JGHowes 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As usual the attack on this article comes from people pushing the POV notion that it is "defamatory." But that only reveals the bias of those observers, who are attempting to impose their view of what is or is not defamatory on the rest of us. So far no one has been able to point to any crime committed by B-P, nor to any indecent sexual activity, or anything that caused harm to a boy in any way whatsoever. What are we left with? On one hand, an attempt by the squeamish to objectify their biases. On the other, a rationalization that an article which does not have footnotes at every sentence should be thrown into the garbage, even though the material clearly has been sourced to a given work. As for the notion that all sources should be given equal weight, presumably we should apply that approach to cosmology as well, and give Copernicus equal weight to that given to Einstein, so as not to appear "POV." History, even as science, moves on, and some sources are more authoritative than others. To be neutral does not mean to be morons. People feeling that other points of view need to be represented are free to add them, as they have been all along, but not to abuse their editorial powers by using the alleged dearth of opposing viewpoints as a cloak for their puritanical sensibilities. Haiduc 01:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Don't be ridiculous, this is not a "Flat Earth" issue. No matter what level of sophistry, bomb-throwing, or obfuscation you care to inject here, Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is obviously a controversial subject. As such WP:NPOV requires that, "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." You have chosen only a source supporting your POV, and not cited or mentioned in the Article the many other sources available which paint a different picture of Baden-Powell and present a view different than your own. Your are obliged by WP:NPOV to "present a neutral, balanced article by citing sources on both sides of a controversial issue, even when they differ with your own". Including in the article the published criticisms of Jeal's book, for example, is standard for Wikipedia, read WP:NPOV JGHowes 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am obliged to do no such thing. It is expected that an article should evolve to that ideal state, and I certainly do what I can to maintain an even keel. But I, unlike you, am not omniscient, and am unable to provide all points of view - that's what other editors are for, and there have been many who have worked on this article, including a whole bunch from the Scouting community, who presumably have an interest to present an accurate picture of their founder, an interest tempered only by their intellectual integrity - a quality that all of us here would find profitable to cultivate. Your novel doctrine presumes that each article should be born full-fledged from the editor's pen, which is patent nonsense, and part and parcel of the smokescreen of propaganda thrown up by those who prefer to destroy rather than to build. Haiduc 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Such preposterous sarcasm as your "omniscience" rant really is misplaced. Your quarrel is not with "my novel doctrine", as you call it, but rather what is Wikipedia policy found at WP:NPOV, which is what I directly quoted. Where does WP:NPOV say that the creator of an article on a controversial subject may contribute a POV article and just leave it up to others to provide balance? We are obliged to make a good faith effort to present both sides of a controversial issue in a neutral tone: if you disagree with that, then all I can say is your disagreement is with one of the Three Principals of Wikipedia stated at WP:NPOV.
 * Please refrain from mis-representing my position. Tim Jeal's exhaustive biography of Baden-Powell is certainly a scholarly work and well-researched for the most part. What I am saying, though, is that this Wiki article, by relying solely on Jeal and ignoring the rest, makes no attempt at NPOV and thus merits Deletion. A prime example is the complete omission of Hillcourt's opposing view biography, Baden-Powell: The 2 Lives of a Hero, written in collaboration with Olave, Baden-Powell's wife. JGHowes 01:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry you are upset. It is easy to take these things too seriously. Or not seriously enough. If I read you right, you have found an article which you deem incomplete, you appear to see a way towards completing it (this book which you suggest, which I am not at all familiar with) and your response instead of buckling down and doing some serious editing is to come here and blame me and the other editors for not doing what you seem to know needs doing. And in the mean time, your "solution" is to delete the part of the article which has already been built. Bravo. Two things I will say in response to your insinuation of irresponsibility on my part. In the first place, as I mentioned before, I was unfamiliar with other materials, and, frankly, unfamiliar with a lot about Wikipedia culture. I am a slow learner, and I am still learning. In the second place, a lot of other people had a great deal to do with this material, it was debated at length, and this is the best we were able to come up with. We put a lot of work into it, and it seemed to us to be a good piece, and one which had reached consensus between people with very different outlooks on life and on history. If that is not good faith, I do not know what is. Haiduc 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hillcourt's biography was published in 1965, Jeal's in 1989; they may differ in their views, but Hillcourt certainly didn't write in response to Jeal. In fact, I haven't seen any criticism of Jeal's approach in a published, reliable source, so I can't really see where the "controversy" is.
 * By the way, maybe I'm reading the deletion policy incorrectly, but I think the usual answer to NPOV problems is sofixit, not deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In a thread on ANI earlier today, I ran across a messager by Jimbo that seems to serve as a pretty good rebuttal to your post. There's nothing wrong with asking that controversial information, particularly that of a speculative nature, be sourced in accord with policies and guidelines. Your accusations of bias are unhelpful, and they do you no credit. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article doesn't seem like a POV fork to me; it's an article spinout, with a summary in the main article. See WP:SUMMARY for the relevant guideline.
 * It would be helpful if the editors who see an NPOV problem would explain which prominent views are left out of the article, and direct us to sources where those views may be found. If there are such sources, then their views should be reported in the article. If there aren't such sources, I have trouble taking the NPOV complaint seriously. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the article has serious issues with undue weight, since the bulk of the text concerns speculation about Baden-Powell's alleged homosexual desires, even though he was outwardly a heterosexual who married a woman and had three children with her. Even if the article isn't intended to be a POV fork, the distribution of its focus certainly gives that impression. There's plenty of material available about his marriage and heterosexual relationships, which could be added to the article to address this concern. Also, as previously noted, there are numerous unsourced statements of a potentially controversial nature, both about Baden-Powell and the other people in his life. I think there's a way to deal with the material in a responsible fashion, but when you start throwing around words like pederasty, it pays to be extra-thorough on your sourcing. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your presumption of indirectly criticizing Jeal by criticizing an article based on his research is nothing but original research which does not belong here any more than in an article, to say nothing about the poor quality of the reasoning employed, which evinces no understanding of LGBT issues. And while I have no intention of engaging a mudslinging match, I will point out that you have compromised yourself repeatedly by your disparaging allusions to B-P's alleged chaste attraction to boys, and you will not succeed in laundering yourself by blaming me for pointing out your obvious bias. Haiduc 02:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea what this means. Seriously, absolutely none. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of WP:NPOV reads "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Jeal's biography seems to be regarded as the best bio of B-P available, so I'd say it's a prominent, reliable source. What other major sources are we missing? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but there have been a number of other biographies written about Baden-Powell, including one by his daughter, and to the best of my knowledge none of these present him as anything other than a conventional heterosexual. As such, it would seem odd that this perspective is represented in such a minute fashion in the article. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Upon re-reading the nominator's points 5 and 6, it seems to me that they could be considered a personal attack upon the creator of the article. I'd like to ask the nominator to consider rephrasing them, especially since he admits that point 6 is not a criterion for deletion anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - ludicrous. I read the NYT article cited in the article.  It is a book review of a book by Tim Jeal.  The short version is that BP wasn't married and was a Boy Scout leader, therefore he must have ben gay.  The sources given in the article are all book reviews of the Jeal book, so there's nothing independant.  At BEST, this should be an article about the book itself.  --BigDT 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. There are several parenthetical references to Jeal's book in the article; perhaps I'll convert them to footnotes, so people won't miss them. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article about the book is here: Baden-Powell (book). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * comment then if the article is not kept, the info should be routed into Baden-Powell (book) instead of into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Chris 22:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Emphatically disagree. The information is about the man, not the book. Haiduc 03:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not have much problem with the content of the book being described in the book's article. The huge section in Baden-Powell's article is giving a minor aspect of his person far more coverage than it merits (because this really isn't a large part of the reason why he's notable...) However, the book's content is certainly a valid aspect of an article about a book. GassyGuy 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't help but openly wonder at how several people have talked about this as a 'minor' personality trait... CaveatLectorTalk 23:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just what the hey is that supposed to mean? Herostratus 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps CaveatLector is wondering how minor this could have been when it is claimed to have figured in all the important aspects of his life, including what is considered to have been his life work and greatest achievment. Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your use of the word "claimed" is precisely why it should go into the book article and not the bio article, thanks for putting the fine point on it! :) Chris 04:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Historians and other scholars do not live in the world of black and white certainties shared by undergraduates and some others. They understand that knowledge is always provisional, and they nuance their statements as appropriate. The proper response to information that makes one uncomfortable is not to shove it under a literary rug, but to investigate and document it more fully. Haiduc 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research. Most of the article presumes connections between sexuality and other things (like nudity). 4.250.168.163 03:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)
 * Can someone with more standing than I clean out the one-timers and the anons from this page? Haiduc 03:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think this last IP is identifying as User:WAS 4.250, an editor of long standing. However, I think his argument is incorrect--most of the article is sourced to Jeal's biography. A quote from Jeal (p. 346) may help clarify things a bit: "In Chapter Three I examined in detail a wide variety of evidence suggesting that Baden-Powell found men physically attractive and was sexually indifferent to women. There is, however, nothing extraordinary about his desire to marry. Since contemporary medical opinion-in the wake of the Wilde trials-maintained that homosexuality was an illness bordering on insanity, most 'sufferers' inevitably fought their desires through sublimation or marriage." If the article "presumes" that B-P was a repressed homosexual based on his appreciation for the male body, it is because Jeal's biography, presumably a reliable source, makes that argument. (However, the paragraph that begins "However most of the arguments comes from Baden-Powell's admiration of the male body..." doesn't have a citation and doesn't appear to be closely based on Jeal. That paragraph may well be OR, and I'm placing a "fact" tag on it.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Actually, I think this last IP is identifying as User:WAS 4.250, an editor of long standing." Correct. My editing habits are such that I sometimes edit while not logged in. In cases where my identity as WAS 4.250 is important, I add that that's who I am. In case of any question, one can always ask on my user page and when I log in I can answer such questions. Thinking about homosexuality and sexual attraction to children (and animals and images and shoes and ...) varies widely across cultures and generations and it is an original research problem to to take things from one culture or time period and present them as relevant. Something as simple as quoting a centuries past author as admitting to "intercourse" with a child is original research because "intercourse" did not come to be a euphamism for "sexual intercourse" (but instead could mean talking or commerce (intercourse between nations)) until it displaced the orininal sense of the word. This article has a lot of drawing conclusions by suggestion and association - wink - wink - about it that need to be specifically addressed by independent reliable modern sources for it to properly belong here. 4.250.132.20 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WAS, thanks for the response, but I have to say I don't understand your argument. The main source for the article is Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell, first published in 1989. I'd say this book is an independent reliable modern source. And really, almost the entire article reproduces arguments from Jeal's book--I could add footnotes citing Jeal to almost every single sentence, but I think that would be verging on WP:POINT. Since most of the article is based on a WP:RS I'm having trouble seeing an OR concern here, except in those places that have the "citation needed" tag. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is very disappointing that these arguments keep on popping up ad infinitum, as if no one is reading the article with attention. WAS, while, you are certainly right in everything you say, none of it has any bearing on the article, since, as Akhilleus properly pointed out, these are not OUR arguments, these are JEAL'S arguments. Thus your debate is with Jeal, and while intellectually valid it is of no use here since it is precisely that which it denounces - it is all a bunch of original research. Are we expected to include it in the article? "WAS, however, refutes Jeal, properly pointing out that blah blah blah..." Haiduc 20:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.