Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th 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 delete. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a content fork from Robert Baden-Powell which has two paragraphs on allegations that he was gay as well. It quotes at excessive length from the one book filled with speculation that powell was gay (written long after powell's death) and appears to be the subject of some agenda driven editing. It is a classic content fork as well as a coatrack. While there might be bits of Baden-Powell's life that could stand being broken out (Robert Baden-Powell's impact on scouting say), what we have here is the creation of a forked article to give undue weight to a fringe set of speculation. Forks like this most crucially undermine WP:NPOV by hiving off a set of controversial and unproven claims and treating them as a topic of their own. There can be no "neutral point of view" when this is done. Witness the article as it currently stands "Baden-Powell liked boys, he sometimes talked to them when they were naked after swimming, sometimes he slept apart from his wife, he admired the male form OMG he was a homo who molested underaged boys!" Encyclopedic, this is not.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If one scholar had made this case, it would be unsuited for an article. But now several have (at least according to the article), and it appears to be a subjec of controversy in Baden-Powell scholarship.  It may well not be true, but he's no longer living, and the fact that it's being so heavily debated suggests it's worth a fork. 7triton7 (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, talkpage was just working out a concerted effort to allow editors interested in verifying sources a bit of time to look through a handful of books addressing this subject. The main article is quite clear the subject is notable so after an effort to distill which sources were best and how to apply them - and allowing fresh eyes at WP:RSN to weigh in on any disputes a better article would either be produced or if a lack of sourcing was an issue a possible re-merge to the main article would be the next step. Instead nom has chosen the route of most disruption and drama which is unfortunate coupled with their generalized disparaging remarks against other editors on the talkpage. It's unhelpful and certainly unneeded. With more eyes the talkpage was turning more constructive but as long as we're here if anyone has ideas on what the best sources are for this material please feel free to comment. The article talkpage may be best but here is fine as well. -- Banj e  b oi   11:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment, Several hundred GScholar hits and 100+ GBook hits suggests that sourcing indeed exists. -- Banj e  b oi   11:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you mendacious or just lazy and irresponsible? Yes, if you type "Robert Baden-Powell" sexuality into google scholar you get 435 "hits." But did you look at the hits? Almost none of them are about Baden-Powell's sexuality -- instead the represent the random, unconnected proximity of two phrases. For instance, first hit says: "It was to Lieutenant Robert Baden-Powell's disadvantage (however he later, characteristically, manipulated it to his benefit) that the early decades of his ... A pastoral escapism is openly celebrated in the less conventional work of the sexual theorist Edward Carpenter, and in the..." This means that the word "sexuality" is in that book, but not in relation to powell. Or take this from the second page: "Baden-Powell in its formation and rapid ... By emphasizing sport, Fine tells us about the male sex role (the more appropriate term is gender role), socialization, character development." Get the point? Baden Powell is the subject of 1,000s of articles and hundreds of books (defined as ones where he gets at least a chapter) yet how many books are solely dedicated to the topic of his sexuality? As far as i can tell, just the jeal book. You've just thrown up a smokescreen.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work in achieving a collegial and cooperative environment. I'll let others decide what sources may be the best. This subject has been discussed extensively on the main article before a split for size was made. Lack of reliable sourcing does not seem to be an issue.  -- Banj e  b oi   12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment This is apparently the 4th AfD. -- Banj e  b oi   11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added details of previous AfDs, but I do not know why it shows some more than once. It did that on the last AfD. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the renaming from 2nd to second, etc serves up duplicates. -- Banj e  b oi   12:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fourth AfD? Seems that a lot of people really don't agree that it is notable in its current form then. DiverScout (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually that would be synthesis and OR to assume someone's, let alone several editors' motivations. It's quite clear this is uncomfortable information for some of the current editors campaigning to delete the article but luckily we don't censor to sooth discomfort. -- Banj e  b oi   11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no evidence there are sufficient references here to build an article on - and I mean a proper article, not just a glorified stub - nor, given the scant biographical information surrounding Baden-Powell's sexuality available, are there likely to be so. Passing speculation from biographies does not a Wikipedia article make. What we currently have is simply a content fork that could just as easily be summarised in a couple of lines at the main article with a good deal more accuracy and less flannel. Whether or not this is the product of someone with an agenda, I don't know, but it really feels like it. Moreschi (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Historiography is the ongoing process of analysis of often limited or conflicting data in order to develop an understanding of probable past events and causes. To naively dismiss that process as "speculation" or to imagine that absolute certainty exists shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what historians and biographers do. That also feels like an agenda, an unconscious one more troubling than any avowed agenda. Haiduc (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I totally agree with Moreschi, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality, it is more that enough covered in the main article already. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the main article's current content seems awfully POV with emphasis added to how a biography collaborating with one of his relatives made no mention of any homosexuality. Is that really surprising? I think not. It then goes on to state how "his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before." This has evolved from what was there: The orthodoxy of Robert Baden-Powell's sexuality has been brought into question by his principal modern biographers, who have found a great deal of evidence indicating he was attracted to youthful men and to boys. Nonetheless, 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. We seem to be going to great lengths to dispute "his principal modern biographers". Just a thought to keep in mind while edit-warring starts to remove more content from this article. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   13:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From 2005 discussion that resulted in this article being created - Jeal's biography (one of the sources cited above) is one of the definitive works on Baden-Powell. It is very well sourced and of the highest academic standard, so most of the labels above (nonsensical, lacking legitimacy, libel, speculative, loose, inappropriate) are far from accurate. Although it is true that Jeal's conclusion on Baden-Powell's sexuality is somewhat controversial, this is probably due to general controversy around the issue of homsexuality. Jeal is not the only researcher to have reached this conclusion, nor are his conclusions unreasonable. However, given the controversy, perhaps this subsection should be removed from the Baden-Powell page onto a separate page, e.g. a page about Tim Jeal's biography of Baden-Powell?   -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The extensive quote in italics above is one wikipedia editor's opinion from 2005. His assertions are unsupported (i.e. "highest academic standard" "definitive" etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So for the record you are familiar with all the notable biographies on Robert Baden-Powell and what they have to state on the subject? If not perhaps we should listed to those who are. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have read most of them, and most of Baden-Powell's published writing (both Scouting and non-Scouting) and have a pretty heavy academic qualification that would be appropriate to such a study. I have my own opinion about the reasons for the inclusion of comments relating to B-P's sexuality in these texts (and my own opinions on the matter they explore) - but I'd not claim that my opinion is any more important/valid or correct than any other editor.  What any Wikipedia editor thinks about a book is really of no importance.  Let's not cloud the water by quoting each other!  :)  DiverScout (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually to produce a good article, we would hope that several editors would be quite familar with the main sources and would help compare and contrast what likely should and should not be included. To dismiss the same sources used on the main article out-of-hand is disingenuous at best. We let the sources speak for themselves and editors familiar with them are invaluable. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be an article based upon one person's book, strung out with a couple of mis-interpreted quotes from BP's own book.  People nowadays may be into fitness and appreciate the male form, but does that mean they are aa repressed homosexual?  By all means include that there has been debate about his exuality in the main Baden Powell article, but a seperate article simply put in place to question his sexuality?  No.  This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper.  To quote from the main R B-P article: 'Jeal claims that Baden-Powell was a "repressed homosexual"; but also states that no documentary evidence exists to prove that he ever acted on his sexual orientation.'  Some people may believe it but there is no evidence to support the allegation.  Even many of the more far fetched conspiracy theories can at least find something vaguely resembling evidence.  Arnie Side (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The problem is not so much here unencyclopedicity as such - sexuality of X articles can be legitimate pieces, either based on scholarly work (which "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" can and should be), or based on major popular culture notoriety (sexuality of Jesus). But I fail to see how this gets close to satisfying either criterion. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As mentioned on the talk page, there is vast amounts of coverage of this in the news media. That makes it notable by Wikipedia standards.  The article was created as a fork from the main article.  It list the claims, where they came from, and counter arguments for them.   D r e a m Focus  14:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You simply can't build a decent encyclopedia article off passing mentions in popular media, not without incorporating vast amounts of WP:SYNTH anyway. From looking at the talkpage I saw a singular paucity of RS being presented that actually pertain to the topic, while additional the content that was being proposed was simply a coatrack stick to beat the American Boy Scouts over the head with. I'm sorry, but much as I sympathise, Wikipedia is not the platform for that. There have been decent biographies of Baden-Powell written: the consensus seems to be that he may possibly have had some homoerotic inclinations but anything else is simply unprovable. That could be summarised in so many words in the main article without all this ridiculous palaver, which I'm starting to think has little to do with Baden-Powell and much more to do with contemporary gay rights politics. Moreschi (talk) 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't popular mentions in popular media, its detailed mention in major newspapers. It has nothing to do with gay rights, that not making any sense at all.  And there is no consensus he had any homoerotic inclinations.  The article list the issue, those accusing him, and counter arguments to their ridiculous claims.   D r e a m Focus  11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete article essentially amounts to the following: "Dude #1 says he might have been gay but maybe not, Dude #2 says he probably wasn't, and Dude #3 couldn't be arsed to bother mentioning it one way or another." In other words, nobody knows, and unless something truly extraordinary happens, nobody ever will know. The evidence is extremely slim at best and entirely circumstantial. While the subject is deceased and thus not technically covered under BLP, it still seems unreasonable for Wikipedia to speculate on his private life, especially when the evidence we have is next to nothing. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a gross misrepresentation of both the sources and the article history. That editors who wish to scrub non-heterosexaul content have edit-warred to remove and degrade the article doesn't mean the issues can't be resolved. If the article has to be protected so be it but we don't rewrite history nor do we claim the best or at least leading biographies on the main page to be fringe or otherwise compromised on a sub article. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The separate article seems awkwardly disproportionate to the rest of his coverage.-- Pink Bull  15:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with some material being merged. This is a totally over-the-top and unrequired agenda-driven entry.  The short passage in the main article that notes the unsubstantiated possibility that Baden-Powell may have unknowingly had some homosexual tendencies that he never acted on, wrote about or used as an inspiration for his art work does not seem to require the level of coverage it has been given.  A short entry, how it relates to the arguments being made with the Boy Scouts of America and a couple of links should be enough for something that has no real bearing on the man's life or his personal notability.  I realise that some non-heterosexual editors feel strongly that they want to emphasise this content, and some heterosexual editors wish to bury it totally, but undue weighting is currently being given to an exceptionally marginal matter.  If the content is being drawn pretty much solely from Jeal's text, and wider commentary on how these observations actually fit in with the time that B-P lived is still being refused on grounds of OR, perhaps it should be in an article with a title relating to the text, linked from a short section on the main B-P page.  DiverScout (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non biographical speculation about someones sexuality is inappropriate here. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am concerned not so much by whether BP was in any way homosexual, although that is of interest in trying to understand this impressive man, but more by the seeming homophobia of a number of the comments above. I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America, a body with a strong public anti-homosexual image. It would explain their concern with any suggestion that BP had gay tendencies. To those who see homosexuality in a less negative light, that suggestion about BP would be of no great concern. There are vague references above to the article being agenda driven, but exactly which agenda isn't mentioned. The only agenda that I can guess at is that of those who oppose BSA's position on homosexuality. So it is actually those wanting to defend BSA who are agenda driven here, whatever that really means. The literature exists. It is now widely known about (at least partly because the suggestions in it led to its opponents talking about it so much). The article is therefore valid. HiLo48 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but what the cuss are you talking about? "I suspect that a lot of the opposition to the article is from those who are closely connected with the Boy Scouts of America".  Is this supposed to be some kind of troll?  JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The possible homophobia of some editors is surely not a valid reason to keep an article and more than the homophile (not sure that that is is right word to describe active promotion & advocation of homosexual issues but it seems like the closest I know) attitude of others? DiverScout (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia. It is present in the first sentence where the word allegations is used, rather than something like speculation or discussion. Allegations has a negative connotation that would only exist for someone who sees homosexuality as a bad thing. HiLo48 (talk)
 * Are you saying that everyone arguing for the deletion of this article is a homophobe? Because that would be... bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy card to play though, despite the confusion over whether the issue is a) that Baden-Powell did not have sex with adult men and was thus clearly a repressed homosexual or b) Baden-Powell did not have sex with boys and was thus a repressed paedophile.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I saying that that everyone arguing for the deletion of the article is a homophobe? Of course not! That auggestion is clarly bad though. Misrepresentation is not a mature way to discuss things. I was simply pointing out that the article appears to have been created by a homophobe. The rest of the "deletes" have just followed that lead, perhaps without noticing the homophobia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you wrote: "This whole page appears to be driven by homophobia." A about 20 people have argued for deletion so far. The clear implication of your statement was that all of these people are homophobes. No matter. Humpty Dumpty would approve.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do apologise for not making that clearer. I intended no implication apart from the motivations of the person who created the page. That is what I meant by "driven". HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete; the minimal amount of speculation by some of his biographers about this man's sexuality should go in the main article, or possibly the article(s) on the individual biographer(s) but not in a stand-alone piece. I am not seeing the 'seeming homophobia' that HiLo48 is. (Full disclosure: I have no connection whatsoever with the "Boy Scouts of America" or the "Boy Scouts of Anywhere Else").   pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disclosure - Fair enough, for the record I also have no connections to the Boy Scouts of America, indeed I vocally oppose their views on the matter of their treatment of homosexuals. I also have no interest in the sexuality of either B-P (or the other editors).  I do maintain, however, that, in the context of the notability of Robert Baden-Powell, allegations relating to his sexuality do not merit the attention they are being given here. DiverScout (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think that anyone here who is endorsing that this article be kept must hold some sort of anti Boy Scouts of America agenda.  (SEE HOW FUCKING RIDICULOUS THAT SOUNDS?)  JBsupreme (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh shut up, you homophobe! pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete A worthless article that exists only to repeat an unsubstantiated theory posed by a single biographer with a revisionist history agenda. This should have been thrown out a long time ago. Warrah (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not just a single biographer and how do you know he has a revisionist history agenda? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tim Jeal is the only biographer who is going out on a limb to suggest (not prove, suggest) that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. It doesn't appear that any of B-P's other biographers are willing to go that far. Putting this spin into his life story is revisionism.Warrah (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient for standalone article. Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral Side a: There are scholarly books that discuss this issue. Side b: There is no hard proof of this, just speculation and theories.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * JBsupreme - not so much a troll as trawling for information. I have learnt that when one is negotiating things it's likely to be most successful if the true motives and goals of all the participants can be ascertained. Many people won't declare such things up front. Sevaral of the Delete posts above seem pretty thin on substance. Approaches like mine can be confrontational in the short term, but usually bring out more honesty about the real aims of the various participants in a discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that that speculation has risen over decades certainly to a notable level. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no shortage of sources for this article. In fact the extent of the sources resulted in the section in the main article on Baden-Powell becoming too long. This fork was a perfectly proper fork to handle this. We now have more sources. Recently it was mentioned on the talk page that the suggestion that Baden-Powell was homosexual was first made in 1979 by Piers Brendon in Eminent Edwardians. In fact I was reading that book yesterday while this AfD was started. Reference on the talk page is also made to Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting, which apparently discusses Jeal's views. That book is on delivery to me. Rosenthal is mentioned but reference to his book, The Character Factory, a scholarly account of Baden-Powell and the origins of the Scout Movement, is not even referenced now, although I think it was at one time. This is far from one person's (Jeal) views, and Jeal has also been widely noticed. This is a difficult article. On the one hand we have members of the Scout Movement who can not face up to the suggestion that their beloved founder might have been gay (for example the section on B-Ps main article on his sexuality is frequently blanked with no explanation). On the other hand we have the gay lobby that wants to make too much of it. I believe we can follow a middle way, that is the wikipedia way, by following the sources carefully. The internet is not that helpful. The sources need access to a library. Too many people have waded into this debate, first on the talk page and now here, without looking at the sources. I was getting these sources together to start an improvement drive on this article, when this AfD was proposed, and I would like to finish it, although it may take time. BTW, both Tim Jeal and his book Baden-Powell (book) have articles on wikipedia, but I do not believe this article should be merged there as Jeal's book is much wider and it would give undue weight to one chapter. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But the whole article gives undue weight to (mainly) that one chapter which is either some kind of forensic psychoanalysis or speculation!  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article needs improvement and it has been degraded, but it seems to me that every biographical article on Baden-Powell since the late 1970s mentions this aspect of Baden-Powell. At least I know of no exceptions. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, at about the weight proportional to its representation in the article on Robert Baden-Powell. This is a content fork to provide detail of undue weight on a subject of minor speculation, but no verifiable information. Two paragraphs in the main article is what this should be.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a very large article in Wikipedia on Jesus. None of the information about him in it is verifiable. HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article originally just pretty much spouted Jeal's views and allowed no counters to be made. In fact counter-arguments were agressively removed with editors (including me) being told to leave it alone so as not to upset the "gay lobby" (I always wonder whether that is the name for a room at the front of my house...). The fork is totally out of balance in terms of its notability in relation to the life of the individual. It is, however, pretty much the only thing that most people seem to make comment on with regard to Jeal's book which would suggest that it could be far more sensible to locate the more detailed commentary on Jeal's reasoning there. Giving Jeal's views in an article about Jeal's book just seems a lot more appropriate. Similar treatment could then be given to the other notable texts with links from a short overview paragraph in the main Baden-Powell page. The information stays on Wikipedia, people can read what each text proposes in a format that allows them then to see where the information comes from and we dispose of an article that has no real sustance of its own. DiverScout (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what makes this thing weird and maddening. I have never been and am not now a member of the scouts ("am not now and never been a member of the american communist party," too). I don't care who people fuck. Period. But what we have here is a whole article that boils down to this: "Some people have theorized that Baden-Powell had homosexual desires that he never acted upon or commented upon publicly." Let's assume that's "true" (truth value unknowable of course in the absence of some new diary/letter etc... coming to light, which seems unlikely): Who cares? Is this something crying out for its own spin-off article as a coatrack for people angry at the homophobia of a lot of modern scouting organizations? Is it crying out for a spinoff for people who just know that he wasn't gay so much as a child-molester (a subtext to all that "naked boy" nonsense?) No rational encyclopedia with editors skilled in the humanities would even consider a separate article on this. Mention? Yes. It's currently about 5% of the text of the main article (i excluded the lists), with its own subsection (one of 7) that addresses it. Which is about what a rational encyclopedia should do (particularly an open edit one that has a constant POV problem).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who cares? - WP:WHOCARES ; No rational encyclopedia - WP:UNENCYC, WP:NOTPAPER. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I !=voted to "keep" the article in a previous AFD, but I am persuaded by Moreschi's arguments above that this is a content fork built on too slim a foundation to justify an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The rule in Wikipedia is to give the state of science. All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. That is in the article, properly referenced. The article also mentions arguments which question this opinion (most from me), dangerously approaching to be not allowed original research. But that is the limit. It is not allowed to delete an article because you don't agree with science. Then do research and change the scientifice opinion. Then Wikipedia will follow. DParlevliet (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC) — DParlevliet (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Scientists and psychohistorians they may be, but none of them have anything other than speculation.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. There is no science here.  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 21:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be, and I partly agree. But as editors we are not allowed to judge scientific scholars because that is personal opinion. We are only allowed to give the content of publications which are widely regarded to be scientific. That is Wiki rule. If you want to fight their opinion you must use the scientific way: write articles which are better then theirs. Wikipedia does not allow to use its platform for this. DParlevliet (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What "scientific scholars" are you referring to? Jeal is a novelist and writes biographies. Has he published in peer reviewed scientific journals, and does he have a doctorate in a science? Is he a member of a science faculty at a university? We are not required to blindly repeat everything every biographer states, when it may be speculation. Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "All scientific scholars regard it to be an important item and all agree he was homosexual. " No, they don't.  A couple of recent authors of commercial bibliographys have attempted to suggest that he may have had homosexual leanings.  That is all.  Several others have gone against this, and their views are no less deserving simply because they published prior to Jeal et al. DiverScout (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the writer but what he wrote which is referred too. If you want to check their status then check the wikipedia page of Jeal and his book. Those meet the demand of Wikipedia for reference. It is scientific research that you check that yourself first before you dispute a reference. "Several others have gone against this": then add them to the article. DParlevliet (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone please correct or delete the excessive unnecessary redirects in the box at the top to previous Afds, thanks. I would do it but I would likely break the wiki, the two repeated redirects appear to not be needed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator is criticizing and debating scholarly sources. The topic is amply sourced. However, the article as it presently stands after the edits of the past few days has become a mockery of intelligent and responsible editing and will have to be repaired when and if cooler heads prevail. Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lean Keep: The last nomination was a 'keep' and nominator doesn't explain why consensus should have changed.  It does seem a bit much to have a separate article about this, but that's an organizational question.--Milowent (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I note that both this article and the Sexuality section in Baden-Powell's article fail to draw a contrast between homosexuality and pederasty; this should be rectified regardless of whether this article is kept.--Father Goose (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is important and many nuances really should be dealt with dispassionately. Unfortunately the discussion that was taking place got highjacked by this AFD/edit-warring. There is a good article here but the drama does need to be reigned in one way or another. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - largely per Moreschi above. It's basically a synthesis of opinions previously laid out in two books, both of which seem largely unsubstantiated. At worst, merge with Robert Baden-Powell, at best just delete it - A l is o n  ❤ 10:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete As per Moreschi. Jacina (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing of substance here. - Schrandit (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Schrandit is right! There IS nothing of substance here any more since the article has suffered a hatchet job over the past few days. So how do you people have the nerve to come in, deface an article, and then submit the dregs for deletion??? This is the stratagem that you are trying to impose on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull it off by ganging up on the article and bulldozing your way through it. Let's see if you succeed. Haiduc (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "you people"?  pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * EXAMPLE: Here is some of the original text:
 * While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]
 * And this is what the "rescuers" have butchered it into:
 * Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation has been brought into question by two biographers, Michael Rosenthal[1][2] and Tim Jeal. They contend that Baden-Powell had homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence. [...] Tim Jeal in his 1989 book Baden-Powell claimed that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.[4] Jeal based this on the fact that Baden-Powell had publically praised the nude male form and sometimes talked to boys that had stripped naked for swimming.[4] Jeal also cites Baden-Powell's praise of a friend's photos of naked boys.
 * Jeal based his conclusions on FAR more than what you make him out to have done, and sets out years of research in hundreds of pages of evidence. But your "new" version grossly misrepresents Jeal and makes him sound like an imbecil. And THIS is what has been submitted for deletion? Who are you trying to fool?! Haiduc (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has evolved through a number of editors, despite the attempt of one or two to own it. That is what Wikipedia articles do!  If this article is intended to be an in-depth description of Jeal's views your original text is fine.  It is not, though, as it is presented under a wider title to which Jeal is merely a contributor.  That is one of the reasons why I keep saying that Jeal's comments, arguably one of the most notable aspects of his book, should be located on the page relating to that text.  The Baden-Powell article should retain it's mention of the allegations, with a link to the articles on the appropriate texts.  The sexuality page is really not required as there is no real evidence relating to Baden-Powell's sexuality to realte it to - only the opinions of various people (both authors and editors), most of whom never even met him. DiverScout (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete massive undue weight, and synthesis. Essentially an essay given that the vast majority is speculation. Was going to afd this myself. Viridae Talk 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. We don't have a 'Sexuality of X' article for anyone else, and nor should we. While not a BLP, this article should be treated in the same spirit: if Baden-Powell was still alive it would be totally unacceptable, and it isn't any more acceptable for his being dead. Robofish (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore: this article is essentially a content fork devoted to a fringe theory. It should be mentioned briefly in the main article; creating a separate article for it is seriously undue weight. Robofish (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is Sexuality of Jesus. But that's rather a different case.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actualy, we do have "Sexuality of..." articles for several peopls - William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name a few. And since the BSA makes sexuality an issue, the sexuality of the founder of Scouting is of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected! I still don't think we should have this article, though - just because something is 'of interest' doesn't mean it deserves its own article, particularly when (as here) there are additional concerns about neutrality and undue weight. Robofish (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep : I would usually !vote for a merge in such cases, but the Baden-Powell main article seems enough too long to allow that. The subject has been covered in several sources in detail, and as such there's no reason to delete it -we ought to report it. The subject is not living since long time, so WP:BLP concerns are of course moot. WP:UNDUE applies to articles individually, not to WP coverage: I agree it's quite quirky to see so much attention on Baden-Powell sexuality, but it's not to me or to anyone else to judge subjects of articles. It can be a fringe theory, but we do of course cover fringe theories extensively in Wikipedia, of course, if they're notable (provided they're presented as such an keeping NPOV). The fact that there are few or none other "Sexuality of X" articles it's a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument and, if anything, only tell us that more articles like this one could be needed, if backed up by enough RS to merit an article in itself. In the end, what counts is if the subject has been covered by multiple independent RS. Since it is, it meets WP:GNG and every other consideration -merging, trimming, etc.- can be dealt with editing, per deletion policy and WP:PRESERVE. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, if consensus goes against you, you've already copied the article over to a shadow site, haven't you? Because you know better than anyone else about whether the internet needs this around? ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete This should be merged with hte main article. There seems to be very little here we have two biographies (by the way who is Michael Rosenthal?), what exacly does Michael Rosenthal say on the subject (Mr Jeal seems to try and have it both ways, that he was homosexual but there is also evidance he was not)? This seems a very poor collection of inuedno that even its authors do not seem to be that sure of.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are already two paragraphs on BP's sexuality in the main article that summarize these claims. Here .Bali ultimate (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough there there can be no reason that I see to keep this. Changed to delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, as little more than a POV-fork. Unit  Anode  15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moreschi and Alison. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 16:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, necessary for comprehensive coverage. Everyking (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Comprehensive coverage" is not a valid "keep" rationale. Unit  Anode  16:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why would comprehensive coverage not be a valid keep rational? If you can't cover everything in the main article, you make a side article to hold it all.  That's how things are done.   D r e a m Focus  19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also say that comprehensive coverage hardley applies to the use of two sources, one of which does not even seem to be that convinced.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Moreschi and Bali ultimate. Article is based on an unconfirmed theory. - Josette (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Moreschi and Alison summed it up well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * delete synthesis of opinions - and frankly not notable enough for more than a paragraph in the bio.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The existence and length of this article gives undue weight to a relatively minor and unimportant bit of theorizing about Baden-Powell. It therefore violates WP:NPOV, which is a Foundation policy. A sentence or two, maybe a paragraph, in the main biography is really all that this theory warrants. <b style="color:#1111AA; font-family:monospace, monospace;">*** Crotalus ***</b> 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look a compelling argument to me: citing policies is one thing, actually doing it properly another. Now, we have articles (lots of them!) on fringe theories: see Category:Fringe theory and Category:Pseudoscience for example. There is nothing violating WP:NPOV in the existence of such articles per se: what is important per WP:NPOV is that the topic is dealt with in a NPOV way. How the existence of an article can violate WP:UNDUE also baffles me, since undue weight is a consideration applied within an article, not to all of Wikipedia. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is undue, or rather WP:UNDUE because it is a completely unnecessary content fork giving UNDUE weight to speculation of a small minority.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 20:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)It is a content fork of what? Of the main article on BP? It doesn't seem redundant with it, it seems to focus on an aspect, which is different. 2)Speculations of small minorities can be notable, and can deserve articles on their own. UNDUE means to avoid giving, of an article subject, a biased view by giving an opinion more weight than necessary. That is, within the article. But it doesn't mean avoiding coverage in other articles: indeed, using separate articles is the way to go to cover a detailed aspect of a subject without incurring in UNDUE. Cold fusion is fringe speculation of a small minority of the physics community: yet it is an obviously notable subject, and we have a pretty massive article on it. If a fringe speculation meets WP:GNG, we can -and should- cover it. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * A small minority? What about the massive news coverage?  D r e a m Focus  20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't even glance over all the massive hits you claim you found on this, did you? If you had, you would have found this from the fourth on the list -- "he resourcefulness of judges is something to behold but it is still a stretch to find anything in Scout lore remotely encouraging of practising gays. B-P took a dim view of any kind of carnal activity - or, as he put it, "beastliness" - especially when practised by certain types of young men with their "pink socks, fancy ties and well-oiled hair." I'm fairly confident that a large number of the remainder are of a similar nature. What was your point again, Walter? (addendum DF's previous post had links, this one does not. Not sure what happened there.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Repeating what was said on the talk page, many major newspapers do feature articles about this, and not just in reference to the books alone. Google news search shows 166 hits in one search . Discussion about the specific news sources was started on the talk page . His sexuality got plenty of news coverage and was mentioned in notable books, so the article has a right to exist.  D r e a m Focus  20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * HiLo48 has erased my talk page comment. I just added it back in.  Don't erase others messages, that against the rules, and ridiculously rude.   D r e a m Focus  20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. I have no idea how that happened. It wasn't intentional. I know it's against the rules, and just plain silly, to remove senisble Discussion points. I hvae chastised others for doing so. Many apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that major newspapers feature things that give the impression that Baden Powell was a pedophile, such as The Roanoke Times . The article reads:
 * "Lord Robert Stephenson Baden-Powell, British soldier and founder of what became the worldwide Boy Scout movement, was supposedly a repressed homosexual pedophile. He was devoted to the moral and physical development of newly pubescent boys. At his Scout's camp in Epping Forest, he enjoyed watching the boys swim naked, thinking it healthy. He also appreciated photographs of nude boys taken by an old male friend, A.H. Tod.


 * While glorifying the youthful bodies, the line apparently was not crossed and Lord Baden-Powell remained physically chaste. It is ironic that avowed gays are not now permitted membership in the Boy Scouts of America."


 * We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others, who take things out of context. This article exist not to slander the person farther, but to offer counter arguments to the often repeated claims.   D r e a m Focus  20:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder where they got the quotes from... That said, nice though the thought of it is, Wikipedia won't be changing lazy journalism any time soon.
 * I intend to make a start on adding a brief synopsis of Jeal's views on the matter onto the book's article this weekend. As this would be required to solely state Jeal's opinions and relate their notability to the BSA situation I'd appreciate oversight from other editors.  If anyone starts first though, I'll be delighted to help them out.  DiverScout (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elleke Boehmer, literary historian and editor of the 2004 edition of Scouting for Boys, quoted in US News & World Report that year: "Baden-Powell was a deeply, deeply asexual person. If he was homosexual--and there's insufficient evidence to say--then it was so repressed as to be nonexistent." (just emphasizing this is a fringe view, unsupported by hard facts).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Insufficiently broad as to justify a stand-alone article. - <span style="font-family:Papyrus, sans-serif; color:#775ca8;">Philippe  22:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as both content fork and insufficient for a standalone article. Subject is already convered in main article, and none of the sources cited in this AfD suggest it is worthy of expansion, let alone WP:SUMMARY treatment. I see nothing in the current version worth merging. It is amazing that this has survived 3 AfDs. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect back to BP. Clear POV fork - sleeping outside is now evidence of homosexuality? Only 3 or 4 biographers are listed, and one of them devotes hardly any space at all to the topic, to judge by his quotes. Most of the article isn't even directly about homosexuality. --Gwern (contribs) 23:22 28 January 2010 (GMT)
 * Delete We shouldn't have a huge article on this one topic becuase it is very disproportionate to the rest of his life.--Tonalone (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a huge article on the rest of his life in the main article. This is just to discuss the rumors and offer counter arguments for those who keep mentioning them in the mainstream media and elsewhere.   D r e a m Focus  03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to the main article. It should be mostly a redirect as the topic is well covered in the main article....a redirect can't hurt but otherwise a delete is in order..no need for a 2nd article. --Stormbay (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For those of you who say merge, how much would you have merged? The main article already gives undue weight to the accusations, without showing counter arguements that they are nonsense.  I saw eliminate the nonsense in the main article, replacing it with just one sentence and redirecting here.  "There are some unproven rumors about Baden Powell's sexuality, which are discussed here:" and then link to this article.   D r e a m Focus  03:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I said merge but read the whole comment! --Stormbay (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was refering to the others who weren't so detailed.  D r e a m Focus  03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it very difficult to use the term "rumors" about a very long discussion in what is very likely the most important biography of Baden-Powell that has been written and one that has been widely noticed. They might well be unfounded, but they are certainly notable. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then what word should be used?  D r e a m Focus  03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One word will not do. They are well reasoned speculations of a professional biographer. We can look to see what those who comment on Jeal have to say. I am waiting to see what Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century has to say (see my comment above). My copy should arrive soon. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If its undue wieght in the main article how can it deserve its own page? That seems to be saying that its so silly we can't mention it in the BLP, but can have a whole artciel on it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not need an article about unfounded rumors about someones sexuality and the content at the main article also could be summarized in a sentence or two. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please write this summarization to show us then. I don't think you can discredit these wide spread rumors, without mentioning exactly what the accuser said, and for those not already convinced its nonsense, listing a counter argument to it.   D r e a m Focus  03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge anything sourceable back to main article, which is 52 kb long and has plenty of room. Reads as a speculative/essay type-piece. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Others have said it above, but essentially content fork to give undue weight to a particular issue. Can be covered in the main article, in proportion to the amount of coverage the topic has received. Quantpole (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Moreschi and Alison. Ironholds (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - blindlngly obvious fork of the main article. Users don't get to create new articles just because their material is rejected in the main one. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Tarc, this is a fork, and the main article is sufficient. One has to wonder why this was even forked. Or maybe not. Violates WP:UNDUE. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was forked because it was getting too long on the main page, there discussions about that. So someone created a side article for it.   D r e a m Focus  18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, that assertion is directly contradicted by Haiduc's edit summary in the fork's creation; "starting article by importing deleted text from main Baden-Powell article". Tarc (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was then a merge proposed and a discussion on the B-P main page talk page |here. There was consensus to oppose the merge. The article changed. That was 2 days after creation. Over the four years it has certainly been better than it is now. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete - per Moreschi and Starblind. Something minimal in the main article should be more than enough to cover this, unless we're intending to hold a postmortem grand jury trial on his sexual preferences or something... really, it's not that big of a deal, in the grand scheme of things. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One has to consider motives. Debaters often hide their real ones. It's a big deal to BSA defenders. It suggests that the founder of the Scouting movement may have been ineligible for membership of their association had he been around today. He would not have had a problem in most of the rest of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Baden-Powel did not set up the BSA (I don't bleive he rode one either). Please assume the same kind of good faith as you would ask.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that BP set up the BSA, and I wonder why you responded as if I had. It's repsonses like yours that show that there has to be more to this discussion than just what many people say on the surface. You got it wrong, either accidentally, deliberately or subconsciously. It's the second time an almost identical response has been given to me in this discussion. I've seen many similar "errors" by others. Even if I assume good faith, I cannot assume careful reading or logical thought. It is important to point out such things. I am concerned about the large number of responses here that are worded in very similar ways. If, and I emphasise, if, an orchestrated campaign was underway, it is exactly the sort of thing I would expect to see. One has to wonder..... HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No you did not, but you seem to be implying (if I may make assuptions about your agenda) that if he were to try and join an organisation with which he has (and would have had) no links he would not be allowed to because of acusations of homosexuality. Hoever if he were alive today these accusations would not exist (there is such a thing as libal, and given the basic assertion of PedoHomesexuality he would have a very strong case), nor could he be blocked from membership based uypon an unproven acusation (as he was not openly gay his pecadilos would not have been a bar on membership of the BSA),Which is the point, he had no links to the BSA, nor is there any reason to think he would have nor is ther any reason to assume they would ban him. Nor does the BSA adhear stritkley to his view of scouting (if we assume that the modern movment outside the USA refelcts his vision) in more way then just its attitude towards sexuality. If I may again make assumtions about intend, you seem to be determiined to prove that there is a hidden homophobic agenda behind the move to delete this page, even though he (if I may labour the point) not have been baned as he was not openly gay thus there is no reason for nay partizan of the BSA to fear this. Moreover the BSA was established in 1910 (say 30 year before mr Badden-Powels death), there appears to have been n o attmpt made by either the BSA or Mr Badden-Powel to install him as a member (either then or latter). There is no reason to assume that this is (or was) an issue for the BSA (as they have no link to Mr Badden-Powel, beyond inspirtation). It seems that it is those promotingtthis idea who beleive there to be this issue, and who insist on raising it. By the way as I am not American why should I care about what happens to the BSA?.Slatersteven (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Content is already summarized in RBP main article, and is barely shorter than this spin off. So it is clearly a content fork, but is it worth keeping?  The sources as represented present content so speculative as to be nearly unencyclopedic.  I mean, I almost laughed, he's saying that based on *what*?. Given the intensity of that corner of scholarship which tries to identify anything nonheteronormative in famous historical figures, if this is the best that can be done the topic is clearly non-notable, deserving one or two sentences (not paragraphs) in the main article at best.  Basing this much prose on such indiscriminate ponderings is extraordinarily undue.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a POV content fork. 2 says you, says two 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this, one of the purest examples of a POV fork you can get. A minor historical figure's sexuality isn't some vast topic that requires an entire article to discuss - if it isn't worth mentioning in the main article, it's not mentioning at all. Fran Rogers (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete with the fury of an angry god insane POV fork firstly, secondly since when was it part of wikipedia's goals to promote the outing of anyone? An article purely on the speculation of someone's sexuality based on anecdotal evidence at best is a dangerous precedent to set.  The mention in the main Robert Baden-Powell article is bordering on insanity as well.  There's absolutely no justification to have an entire article based on outright speculation even if said speculation comes from reliable sources.  This is unencyclopedic writing at its finest.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - so, reading this I think I'm either starting to understand some the arguments being made (or am just slowly going insane). Baden-Powell was a homosexual because someone who never met him said so in a book, even though Baden-Powell never wrote anything about homosexual attraction, drew a homoerotic picture, there is no evidence he ever had a homosexual relationship or even considered such a relationship and that anyone who is proposing that this article should be deleted is a homophobic supporter of the BSA's policy against homosexuals, whether they know it or not, support, oppose or know nothing of the BSA's policies and regardless of their own sexual identity.  Does that about sum it up? I know that there are some people who really believe that this article should be here and I am honestly reading their views in case they can change my opinion, but could we drop the random accusations of homophobia please?  DiverScout (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The arguments against keeping this have been made much more eloquently above. We've got two suspect and minor mentions, and then the GLBTQ.com mention (what makes this chap notable, by the way?) It's unsubstantiated claims and speculation from two books that does not merit an article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest all of you who are voting to keep read the article on James Buchanan which has a very well written "Personal Relationships" section and then ask yourself if there should be an additional article speculating on Sexuality of James Buchanan.  If you answer yes feel free to create it, if you answer no then re-evaluate the possibility of your personal feelings against Baden-Powell's organization / BSA policy clouding your judgement in keeping this travesty of an article.  Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are enough sources to deserve treatment, I'd be all for an article on Sexuality of James Buchanan. I have no feelings whatsoever on Baden-Powell, and I couldn't care less about BP himself. I care about the fact that this speculation, no matter how odd and outworldlish it can be, has been published in WP:RS, and as such it is notable. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not gay. I am an active member of Scouting. I admire Baden-Powell immensely. I see no reason to delete the article. This is because it is of interest that there has been writings on this matter. Wikipedia is precisely for consolidating the writings of others in one place. From a Scouting perspective it makes no difference to me what BP's sexual interests were. It means nothing in a global Scouting context if he was gay. The article is not libellous. I know a number of great Scouting members who are gay. However, it would mean a lot to one major western Scouting organization, the BSA. I am more interested in knowledge than the sensitivities of a discriminatory body. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What is the BSA's offical stance on Mr Badden-Powels sexuality. Is it a publicly stated issue for them? Given that he would not have been banned under thier rules is there any reason to suppose this is an issue with them (given the evidance that he was openly gay or an avowed homosexual or known to be gay? does not exist, it is just an accusation). The artciel may not be libellous, but what about the sources? Would we have this artical without them. I will now formaly ask that accuastions (closet or otherwise) of Homophobia or supporting the homophobic stance of a given group stops.Slatersteven (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Accused of being homosexual?! How is that different from being "accused" of being heterosexual? How is that NOT a homophobic statement??? Haiduc (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop. I have a couple of friends from back in high school that are gay. They wouldn't like it at all if you accused them of being heterosexual. Are they then heterophobic? You really need to stop turning this AFD into some kind of crusade, Haiduc. Unit  Anode  01:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's this concept called "outing" in which someone who is not openly gay gets accused of being homosexual. This tends to deeply offend and upset said person and is often done out of malice or retribution to discredit the person.  If an admittedly gay person were accused of not being genuinely gay I'm sure they would be less than thrilled with said accusation as well.  This isn't an issue of homophobia.  This is an issue of having integrity to not write supposedly encyclopedic articles about speculation and conjecture.  I personally don't care if Baden-Powell was gayer than a barrel of penises.  Even if he was dancing naked on a parade float during pride week in San Francisco or was a secret self hating gay man or a child molester for that matter, none of those would be justification of a wholly seperate article.  This article was obviously created out of spite over the BSA and their stupid anti-gay policies and as such should not exist.  If consensus is reached to keep this article then I say we all go watch the movie Outrage and then have a free for all with new articles about the speculated sexuality of everyone mentioned in the film.  Why stop there?  How about articles for every homosexual person who at one time or another was accused or speculated to be a child molester.  This is a dangerous door to open just so someone can make a protest/attack article. Nefariousski (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But that door is already open. Wikipedia has articles on the sexuality of William Shakespeare, Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler, to name three. Why should it stop there? HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apples and Oranges for one. The Lincoln article is largely about criticism of speculation and actually discusses there being evidence (Primary sources) regarding his sexuality.  It's not written based on the "assumptions" of people whom were born after he died based on conjecture and second hand stories.  The Hitler article is more about the actual controversy and takes a neutral stance only by discussing the fact that actual controversy exists.  The Shakespeare article is obviously WP:Fringe if not WP:Bullshit and is being reviewed as such right now.  Nefariousski (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd not seen WP:Bullshit before. "Giveaway signs of complete bollocks are phrases such as emerging theory and widely disputed."  If there was ever a page that descibes this article, this must be it. As to being "accused of being homosexual", I think that the mention of activities such as the spite outing of celebrities rather explains it.  This is an article based purely on opinion making an accusation.  There is, as has been said, nothing to prove that Baden-Powell was that way inclined.  Like the poem on the above Wiki opinion page there is nothing behind the words.  Just partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact.
 * The repeated accusations of homophobia against editors does little other than make me more convinced that this is an agenda-led article unworthy of Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you call it accusation? An accusation is a negative thing. Is it a negative thing to you to see a suggestion that someone is homosexual? Does that mean that you think negatively of homosexuals. Can you see why homophobia has been suggested? HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, no I don't. I might believe that the accusation is wrong, but that is a totally different thing to a persons sexuality.  When, as in celebrity outing, a public statement is made that a person is homosexual without firm foundation that is an accusation.    I'm afraid personally see this as an attempt to hijack the discussion and scare off potential contributors.  If there is real notability in this article I'm sure there must be better ways for those who believe in the article to defend it other than than to hide behind semantics.  I'd also offer a friendly caution that calling other editors homophobic is also certainly an accusation - and as, unlike Baden-Powell, we are all alive I really suggest that some of you think very carefully about the statements that you are making on a public forum about living people.  Now let's stop clouding the issue, leave the personal comments against other authors aside, accept that there is no huge conspiracy going on and get back to debating whether this article should be on Wikipedia.  DiverScout (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But as soon as someone says anything that shows that they see being called a homosexual as a negative thing, they are being offensive to all homosexual people. Homophobic is admittedly too strong a word. We need a better one for people who just think being called a homosexual is a bad thing. This discussion must center on whether the existence of the article is justified, and whether it validly refelcts the sources. As soon as it ventures into the realm of saying that being called a homosexual is bad, it is dangerously off track. HiLo48 (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should focus on the article rather than sematics of the discussion. I've not seen any directly homophobic posts here, but I have seen what I feel to be heterophobic ones...  I would also point out that the article actually accuses Baden-Powell of pedophile tendencies rather than just homosexual ones.  That certainly is an accusation.  Despite the fact that I openly declare myself PC-0 my intention is not to offend, so would you find implication a better choice of vocabulary? DiverScout (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then how would you word the unproven innuendo then HiLo48? I agree that my wording in one respect was wrong, but if your assertion is true (that this is a BSA/homophobic conspiracy) then it is (in their eyes) an accusation. Moreover at the time of his alleged actions it was a criminal offence, thus it is an accusation of illegal activity. Of course you will point out (correctly) that there is no accusation that he committed buggery, or was a practising (or fully accredited) homosexual, which is the point not even the sources say he was just that he might have been. As such your suggestion that this is some homophobic BSA inspired conspiracy is patent nonsense he would not have been subject to censure even at the time (even if these allegations had been made then, rather then long after his death), and there is no reason to assume he would now. You attempts to bully and intimidate users and the wider project by basically saying if you back this you hate gays is both offensive and I believe dishonest. It is clear that you have a BSA bashing agenda. That the purpose of this page is to act as a tool in that agenda, it is a soapbox and a whip, whose sole purpose is to show up the BSA.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unproven innuendo is a statement that takes issue with Jeal et al. If that is your desire, get yourself a doctorate and convince a major publisher to print your theories. Then and only then can you stand shoulder to shoulder with Jeal and other reputable scholars. Until then we are just wasting time and electricity with this type of "argument." Nor is B-P thought to have committed any "criminal offence." Mere desire has NEVER been a criminal offence anywhere. Finally, it has recently become fashionable for groups engaged in thuggish behavior to accuse their victims of being the bullies, presumably on the premise that the best defense is a good attack. But let's not throw sand in people's eyes here with that kind of sophistry, shall we? Haiduc (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're no "victim", Haiduc. You've been bullying people with your false accusations of "homophobia", so please step down from your high horse. Unit  Anode  16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do Jeal et al say that he was Homosexual? Or that he may have been, but that they are not sure? Now I again ask how would you word it? Moreover all this is degenerating into is attacks on how users are trying to say that this is an unsubstantiated, unproven and unsure (in the sense that the sources do not seem to be able to make up their mind themselves) statement about possible homoerotic interests, rather then explaining why this article needs to be kept and explaining why the BSA is such an issue) users are instead attacking other users and casting assertions (without direct accusations) about homophobic intent. I said he did not commit an offence, that is the point he was not (an had not been accused) of being an active homosexualist and as such the argument about the BSA is fascicle and spurious it is an attempt to deflect this debate away from the quality of the article and instead to impune the reputation of users who object to its presence in order to use moral bullying to force its retention. I agree that the bullying should stop, and that vague and game playing attempts to imply ulterior motive should stop. I am happy to do so, I hope others do as well.


 * Delete I looked at the current article and this old version from 22 December 2009. The content in both cases is idle speculation. It is true (and verifiable) that a couple of people have written their opinions regarding the sexual interests of Baden-Powell. But an article with "homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence" in the lead fails the encyclopedic-value test. The article is a battle between the "yes he was" and "no he wasn't" positions: the image shows the subject with wife and children, yet we learn that the subject slept on a verandah (to avoid sleeping with his wife!). It's just rubbish and should be deleted because the article cannot be improved as there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. If there were sufficient real-world drama concerning the claims, there could be an article on the controversy (only if some good sources are available please). However, this article is inherently unsuitable for an encylopedia because the only material available is wild speculation (did Baden-Powell admire the male body as a sexual object [who cares?], or did he admire it for the beauty of nature: the finest creature made by God?). Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious pov content fork; it's all well-said at this point. *Ignore* those who don't get this. Already covered in parent article. Jack Merridew 02:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SOAP - too concerned with spinning history for political purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a pointless fork that could easily be covered in his bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Two authors analysis of circumstantial evidence is not a an encyclopedic article. Ward20 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete, Merge and Balance Forgive me, I am probably repeating what has been said already but I don't have time to integrate my thoughts on this with all that has been said before. Merging this article into the the main BD article would create WP:Undue and WP:POV (no doubt why it was forked off). Merge it into Baden-Powell (book) and cut back on the emphasis this issue already receives in Baden-Powell In my view those who wish to keep the amount of information collected on this small facet of the BD biography have the burden to build up the rest of it so the balance is restored. If it weren't for the bias against homosexuality in the world this discussion would be moot. That clearly indicates a POV problem. WP is not here to promote an agenda. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, merge --  Last time, I said "Given that he founded the Boy Scouts, this has not unnaturally given rise to some controversy, which is much better dealt with here than the main article" . It might be better dealt with separately,  but none the less it's a bad principle. We have no logical  justification for keeping a fork like this for him or anyone else. The main article will of course need to be carefully watched to maintain NPOV on this topic.  Bduke  in his analysis of how and why Wikipedia should cover the matter has it exactly right, but he is wrong in that it takes an separate article to do it. has in right.  As for some other arguments, One.  it is simply  not true that " there is no possible way for reliable sources to research the issue. " --  there are going to be RSs on this and every other historical topic. Not that there will be sources to settle the question, aany more than other historical questions, but there are and there will be properly qualified people analyzing the subject. Two.  Nor is he a "minor figure"  Three.  Nor is it a matter of "who cares?" -- if people did not care intensely because of the conceived relevance to current policy of the organization there would not be this intense a controversy in the fist place.  Four.    Discussing the sexuality of public figures is a legitimate and essential part of history, as is discussing every other aspect of their personalities and behavior.  Discussing aspects that were taboo at the time the person lived is perfectly acceptable and even necessary. Sexuality is not something that needs to be concealed, and the facts and the perceptions of them did and does affect people's lives, and the attitudes others had and have towards them, and towards their legacy. Five  "outing" does not apply in the reprehensible sense to those people whom the prejudices of society can no longer harm. If the question has been discussed, we can include it.  six It is false that "We need a Wikipedia article to denounce the slanderous and ridiculous claims made by others" --  WP does not exist to support or refute propaganda, or to right moral or historical wrongs, except to the extent that presenting neutrally the facts of responsible discussions  is the best way to help people approach the truth of anything and everything.    DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There has been too much drama here. Thank you DGG for a balanced view. I too would like to sum up. I argued for keep as it was last time it came to AfD. However, I recognize that consensus has changed. The argument that pretty well convinces me is that the material can quite well be covered in the main article and that a separate article is giving more weight than the sources justify. Other arguments for deletion trouble me. Many talk of "POV fork" or even "obvious POV fork". It is certainly not obvious. Of course with a topic like this there has been problems. However over 4 years many editors have tried in good faith to develop an article that expands on the summary in the main article. This is perfectly acceptable in general and is not a POV fork. It would be if the article gave a different POV from the main article. That has not been the intention. However, the difficulties that has resulted perhaps indicates that this article is taking the material too far. The other thing that troubles me is the trivialization and ignorance of sources. Having studied Jeal, it is quite clear to me that it is the source that should be taken more seriously than any other for articles on Baden-Powell. It is the only full independent biography of the man. It is also the most recent biography. It is clearly very well researched and professional. We need such independent reliable sources. Biographies written by Scouters are not independent. The authors have a conflict of interest as Baden-Powell was their friend, founder and Chief. They can give some insights and useful material, but we are the poorer if we have to rely on them. I am leaving my "keep' !vote, as I still think with proper use of sources, some of which nobody has yet used, a good article can be made. I will however accept "delete" for the reasons I give above. However, I hope the closing admin will make it very clear that this AfD gives absolutely no consensus for any editor to move over to the main B-P article and try to get the section on "Sexuality" removed. Let the drama cease. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Concluding this is a fine idea, seeing that no real ideas have been presented for discussion. Attacks on the quality of the work of otherwise valid sources are not within the scope of our work here. And such attacks multiplied twenty or however many times over, are not more credible nor more cogent. As for merging the material back into the main article, I have no opinion either way, I am content to have the matter discussed in full either in a separate article or in the main article. But be forewarned that by merging the material back we are leaving ourselves open to the accusation of giving the topic undue weight. Is that not why we spun this off into its own article, because there was too much meat on this bone to properly cover it within a very general biography? Is that not how Wikipedia grows, by branching material out when enough is gathered to stand on its own? And what could be more interesting than to have an analysis of the life of an important and still influential figure that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? This adds a great deal to the understanding of the man, so that we now know not only what he did but also why he did it. And this is what some people are trying to cover up?! Haiduc (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quoting Haiduc: that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects? I'm probably taking this to an admin in a minute. Do i have this correct? You're basically confirming that your original research and creation of this fork was to show that BP wanted to have sex with boys and that it's "small-minded" when most of us dismiss the urge to have sex with underaged boys as the desires of paedophiles?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Haidoc says nothing of the kind. He says that BP did not want to have sex with boys. What about "yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects" do you not understand? Why take it to an admin. This admin does not see anything to worry about. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this should be concluded. The available opinions do not present any evidence one way or the other for Baden-Powell's sexuality.  The fact that the debate is being twisted into a "straight vs. gay" argument by a couple of editors has not helped proper discussion to take place, but I think that enough reasoned argument for its removal has been given.  There is not enough factual evidence here to generate a proper encyclopedia article, and filling Wikipedia with opinion pieces is not the way it should grow.  There is no evidence that Baden-Powell was sexually attracted to boys.  Jeal looked hard through the source materials for signs of homosexuality, especially in connection to his letters to "The Boy" but found none.  All that was left was speculation on circumstantial evidence.  Attempting to push this speculation into a full article is inappropriate.  That said, I have argued that the brief mention of the issue should remain on the main B-P page, and that a synopsis of Jeal's thoughts on the matter should be added to the article on Jeal's text where they would be correctly presented as his opinion rather than as encyclopedic fact.  I have attempted to do so, but the entry was deleted before it could be completed under the statement that it was POV.  I would stress that it was text describing Jeal's arguments from an earlier draft of this article that was copied onto the article on Jeal's book then deleted as POV by a proponent of this page.  No counter-arguments or opinions were copied over.  If Jeal's views are too POV for his own article...?  DiverScout (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @DGG: Of course any historical topic can in principle be researched. However (and assuming the article gives a reasonable synopsis of the book which forms the basis for the article), the research so far is nonsense: more than 70 years after the death of the subject, and based on tea-leaf divining such as praise of the nude form, the authors claim Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual ("repressed" meaning there is no evidence). I grant that my WP:OR in claiming this is nonsense cannot be used in the article, but we are allowed to use common sense in evaluating whether an article is suitable. A reasonable conclusion is that it is not appropriate to base an entire article on such a flimsy case (although there could be an article on the controversy if it were really controversial). Sure, mention that Tim Jeal (a British novelist, and biographer of notable Victorian men) has written a book making certain claims – but do that in the main article, not in some dedicated fork which can never (barring extraordinary new evidence) be more than a report of Jeal's claim with accompanying wild conjectures. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to see this closed, and the material moved (or at least retained) on the main Paden-Powel page. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence or sources to warrant a separate page (as has been pointed out this page is smaller then similar sections about other public figures on their main page). I apologise if I got a little heated, and drifted of topic, but I do not like being called Homophobic (however obliquely).Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I would not matter if this irrelevant item would be handled in a few lines in the main topic. However it is a fact that it is very controversial, mentioned in a lot of publications, so readers want to know and therefore a encyclopedia like Wikipedia should give an answer. If it is transferred to the main article, then fully in the version before the edit war. As mentioned this was edited intensively and resulted in a good and not to extended equilibrium between those who agree and who oppose (is has been much larger in the past). It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal) and in the second part careful some good arguments against Jeal, leaving the choice to the reader. Official that is not according Wikipedia rules, but given the controversial nature I think a good choice. However I agree with Haiduc that the effect is contrary, because much more readers will be confronted with this and because of it size will overestimates the importance. The present is better: a few lines in the main article (indicating it is not really important) and a special page for those who are interested. So it is no fork, it is like a lot of other articles which handles scouting-related items in more detail, which otherwise should be in the main article. Also this item will remain attracting war's as last week. It is practical to keep that in a separate article, other then load it on the main article, which can loose its featured article position for this. Then finally: look to the list of reasons to delete: none of them applies to the article (it is certainly no fork according Wiki description). So what reason can an administrator have for deletion? Therefore, for practical reasons I remain my "Keep". DParlevliet (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. This subject is already handled in the main topic article. I'm still not seeing a reason for this to get a standalone article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment  That's a very strange comment. There are many reasons given above. A reason is a reason, whether you like that reason or not. One of the better ones (at least to me) is immediately above, from DParlevliet. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the main article could lose it's featured article status should be neither here nor there when it comes to deciding whether or not this article is appropriate. That Jeal gives a view is undisputable, but the constant insistance by some that his view is somehow beyond reproach until someone manages to publish a new biography that directly challenges him is bunkum.  That Jeal has put forward a theory based on a dearth of evidence does not negate the fact that the only actual concrete evidence of Baden-Powell's sexuality is that he got married and produced children.  That Jeal has used circumstantial evidence to imply a degree of homosexuality does not mean that an encyclopedia article professing to be about Baden-Powell's sexuality, not Jeal's opinion on the same, should not provide balance and context to those statements.  If editors want to create an article that just presents Jeal's views they should do so on the existing page relating to the text.  I do think that it should also be noted that when I attempted to copy the synopsis of Jeal's arguments from this article to the article on Jeal's text it was DParlevliet who immediately deleted it as POV content, so I must profess to a bit of confusion about how this same material is now being given such strong support in this location.  As has been repeatedly said, this proposition is covered in sufficient depth in the main article and this fork is really not needed.  Let Jeal's claims go to Jeal's book's stub article, which has been needing to develop for years and where it can be accurately presented as one author's conjecture.  The other texts, if notable, should then be treated in the same manner.  As these articles should be accurate, academic synopses of those specific texts there would be no further scope for edit wars, conflicts, lobbying by those with agendas and unfortunate misunderstandings. DiverScout (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. In addition, I strongly disagree with the statement given by another user just above: "It gives the present common scientific view (by Jeal)". The whole point of my objection to this article is that Jeal is not qualified to assess repressed homosexuality, and there is no "science" of that subject. Jeal writes novels and biographies and on that basis he can be quoted as a reliable source regarding some fact that he records. But there is zero evidence that anyone can do more than speculate about whether a person is a repressed homosexual (given the total lack of information beyond Baden-Powell praising a friend's photos of naked boys, identification with an all-male culture [apart from his wife and three kids!], and sleeping on a verandah). Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also common view of what, that he might have been Homosexual but there is no evidance? That is about as un-scientific as you can get with out saying a wizard did it. Also common view amoung whome?Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & moreschi who make the arguments why this should not be kept. Eusebeus (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per BDuke. There are plenty of sources.  This is not the case of a POV fork, where this article says this, that article say that.  Sure, there is a WP:NPOV challenge in this article, in collating and summarising what others have said, but that is a worthy challenge.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * COMMENT TO ADMIN: This discussion was not properly included on the January 27 AfD log; instead, the 1st nomination (from 2006) appeared (see old version).  I've now fixed it to satisfy Step 3.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 00:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Content fork. Epbr123 (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POV pushing. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment has been made above about Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, a scholarly account of the first century of scouting. It is a set of articles arising from the first conference of academic historians of Scouting and Guiding. Nobody else has mentioned this, yet is an important source. I have finally got a copy. Jeal is only mentioned once and the author of that chapter, while clearly thinking that Jeal got in wrong, feels that a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of his article. However, he does say "However, in the almost twenty years since he presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, though it begs for one". Both parts are important. The first to say that Jeal is notable as he has been much noticed, he has not been properly refuted. The second to say that he may be refuted in the future. This is part of a full page on Jeal, so Jeal has clearly been noted by academic historians. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like an excellent source, and hopfully that article on Jeal can be added to the page on his book to which it is referring. DiverScout (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way no one has bothered to discuss it. Its so notable it been ignoredSlatersteven (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is completely wrong. As Brock puts it in that source "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, the mainstream press seems to have taken them as fact". It has been very far from being ignored. Many have bothered to discuss it. His point, in the very next sentence, is the absence of a scholarly critique of Jeal's argument. That Jeal is widely believed to be correct, possably in the absence of that scholarly critique is notable and should be discussed on wikipedia. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note also that to say (as Haiduc does above) "the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects ..." is disingenuous; there is no reason to suppose that it included those aspects. pablo <sub style="color: #c30;">hablo. 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was supposed to be (I badly worded it) that no scholer has taken this up as a serious sugestion. That serious scholers have not botherd with this. How Its so notable that no major accademic (even the one quoted) can be botherd to repudiate it, thats its not worth the time an energy. One accademic historian has noted jeal, and he decides to leave it to others. In 20 years its been commented on by a single serious accademic.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where would you begin and from what point of view? The above-quoted author would like Jeal to be critiqued, but the absence of a critique does not diminish Jeal. It may be that he has so thoroughly made his case that it cannot be shot up. As for the author's opinion that professional historians consider Jeal to be speculative, that is HIS opinion. But it can certainly be mentioned in the article, as such. It could be balanced by mentioning the bit about the mainstream press accepting Jeal's conclusions. Haiduc (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be specualtion, all we can say it that it has not been done, not why.Slatersteven (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the issue of whether Jeal's case can be 'shot up'; it is primarily Jeal's case. Most references to Baden-Powell's sexuality quote Jeal. Jeal's view should mentioned on Baden-Powell's biog, and expounded on either Jeal's page or a page for Jeal's book.


 * Delete POV and content fork. Marauder40 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge This article doesn't need to be separate from the other article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two paragraphs on this speculation already in the main article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:FRINGE theory that's not notable enough for a separate article. We do keep fringe theories here, but only when they receive significant commentary, which is not the case with this one. A total of three sources are used, two of them primary for the purpose of advancing the theory, and one commentary from a web site. This is an unjustified fork of Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, which summarizes both print sources. The only thing lost here is commentary from a web site that's a red link, GLBTQ.com. Pcap ping  06:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Content fork that can easily be handled within the main article.   --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non-notable fringe theory. The relevant section of the main article, which is featured, has a sufficient coverage. If a man has a wife and three children, he obviously is not from LGBT stock. Besides, the main article does not label Baden-Powell with some LGBT category. Brand[t] 13:37, 3 February 2010 (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.