Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

	Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus without prejudice for any future AfD.

This article is summarized on the following page: Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Remember to keep those articles updated with this one.

Contents 1 Unencyclopedic 2 Merge into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell 3 You can wish Baden-Powell was a gay pedophilia all you want 4 Message on my talkpage, by NBlock: B-P's Sexuality 5 AfD closed 6 Resolving any leftover issues from the AfD 7 Impressed

[edit] Unencyclopedic

You can't slap an "Unencyclopaedic" tag and walk away without explaining. It will be removed in 24 hours if unsupported. Haiduc 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the tagging. This is highly speculative and POV. Wordings like presumed attractions, consider him to have been, suspected attraction are unencyclopaedic and show how little evidence on the presumed repressed homosexuality does exist.

There is also no mention of his marriage, of his children and so on...

I think this article should be deleted. --jergen 09:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your point that his marriage, such as it is, must be a part of this article - it was next on my agenda. But the rest of your comments reflect a misunderstanding of how things work here. If it helps put things in perspective, if you, Jergen, were to include such comments in the article they would be considered "NPOV" and only they. Why is that? Because the other material is the published work of mainstream academics, the bread and butter of Wikipedia, while you opinion is just that, and regardless of how heartfelt, not useable in an article. Haiduc 11:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"You can't slap an "Unencyclopaedic" tag and walk away without explaining." Well, at least it wasn't rlevse, your regular combatant. ;-)

Does the "not encyclopedic" tag really need to be explained or supported? Oh dear, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Where to start? Editors, if you judge that the following is overkill, tell me and I'll cut it.

Edit: I've deleted four paragraphs that used "What Wikipedia Is Not" to support the recommendation for deletion. (They're still available in History, I imagine, for anyone interested.) Reason for deletion is discussed briefly in the post following haiduc's below. Kkken 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As from what I remember reading Jeal's biography years ago, I support the article as it is. The article does not state, that BP sexual orientation was towards boys, but it states that there is serious research, which came to this conclusion. This is perfectly documented by the fact, that Jeal's biography exists. BTW, I hope all the critics have read the book. LARS 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kkken, since you asked, "Cut it!" Now that you have let on that you have ordered the book, I'll be very interested to discuss these issues with you after you have read it. I on my end will try to dig up the Rosenthal. But I would not expend too much effort trying to dismiss this information, it is too authoritative and widespread. By the way (and I do not necessarily think this should be in the article), I was amused by BP's habit to perform in drag. I wonder what today's scouts would make of that. Haiduc 16:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If a Scout could entertain an audience for 15 minutes in drag, we'd give him/her the Performing Arts badge. Kkken 17:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Well, Kkken, since you asked, Cut it!"

Oh. Well, I guess we're all editors, but when I wrote, "Editors, if you judge that the following is overkill, tell me and I'll delete it," I thought I was talking to some gatekeeper(s) who oversee the deletion protocols, or at least someone much more at arm's length than the author of the article being panned. Still, the "unencyclopedic" tag seems to have been replaced by a "how about moving it back where it came from and dealing with it there?" tag, which would seem to render arguments for deletion obsolete for the time being, so I consigned the 4 paragraphs of argumentation to the History file. Kkken 07:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

I think that the article should be merged into Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell; it is unimportant on its own. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk: Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. -Seth Mahoney 22:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The B-P article proper currently mentions his sexual orientation and the controvery around it. The POV is of course highly important. I recommend that a major section from Baden-Powell: Founder of the Boy Scouts (book) be merged into this article, which does need an good copy-edit, of course. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Oppose Merging the book's article into this is fallacious as this article only covers 5% of the book, the book deals with far more than his orientation. What needs to be done is that the book article be expanded by someone who has read it into a FULL review of the entire book, not just a review of 5% of the book. See several sections of the talk archive at Talk:Robert_Baden-Powell,_1st_Baron_Baden-Powell/ArchiveTo30March2006 Rlevse 10:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, Randy, not the whole book article. I propose that the section on sexuality from the book page needs to be merged into this article. And THEN the remainder of the book article needs to be expanded. So effectively you mean Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC).

Support Book needs to be used as source for other articles on B-P rather than being sidelined into a meaningless article of its own as if it had no relevance to its subject. (I took the liberty of merging sections here to reduce confusion, I hope you will not mind, Rlevse.) Haiduc 13:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This all goes back to what caused the last go-around on this--only 5% of the book was used to support a highly POV and conjectural aspect of his life and ignored the numerous other parts of the book that show his heterosexual side. The remaining 95% of the book was ignored. Any review of his sexuality needs to use all parts of the book that refer to his sexuality. I also still strongly feel a NPOV article on the whole book needs to be done because as it stands now, it looks like Jeal only talks about his (homo)sexuality; which is hardly the case. Bduke makes a good case that if the WHOLE book is used in a NPOV and balanced manner to support the whole main article, then the separate book article is unneeded. The length of the separate article on sexuality is way out proportion to the main article and if the rest of the main article was expanded to proportionate length, we'd go full circle back to where we are now, having forks created based on length. To me, the two-para length that existed on his sexuality a few days ago with an article link pointing to the sexuality article was fine and in proportion, just as articles on other major people have forks. How many other bio articles have multi-paragraph sections on someone's sexuality? Very few, if any. Liberace's only has a fewe sentences on it. Sexuality, proven or unproven is less important than accomplishments and trying to turn the main article into a treatise on what is in fact unproven latter-day suppositions is unwarranted and out of proportion. Rlevse 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You can wish Baden-Powell was a gay pedophilia all you want

There is still no proof.

I agree. This article is ridiculous; where sources are given, they're dubious. What a waste of space... -- User:Wozocoxonoy 14:44 GMT 06/02/07

[edit] Message on my talkpage, by NBlock: B-P's Sexuality

It appears from discussion threads on this article that the writers question whether to include the section on B-P's sexuality at all. The discussion centers on Tim Jeal's writing on this topic in his book, THE BOY MAN (Century Hutchinson Ltd. 1989 in UK and William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1990 in US) later issued as BADEN-POWELL (published by Pimlico and then Yale). (Pardon the bibliography, but elsewhere there seemed to be some confusion about various editions of this book.)

Please consider the following:

1. Writers should be clear about what Mr. Jeal said. In reviewing the close relationship between B-P and his best friend, Kenneth "The Boy" McLaren, he concludes that it was "physically chaste". [p. 83]. He summarizes his other work with this: "I found evidence to support the morally neutral idea that he had indeed been a repressed homosexual;" [Tim Jeal, "Baden-Powell at Mafeking," in THE SIEGE OF MAFEKING, p. 226 (Johannesburg: The Brenthurst Press (Pty) Ltd., 2001)].

2. Mr. Jeal's work in the area of sexuality is not authoritative. I have never found any biographical sketch of Mr. Jeal that gives him credentials in psychiatry or psychology. He cites one serious source explaining any reason why B-P's behavior might be consistent with repressed homosexuality, Freud's CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. [p. 101, fn. 98] After almost a century of extensive writing on psychology, and several decades of scholarly work on homosexuality, one would expect Mr. Jeal to present more science in support of his argument.

3. The entire field of psychohistory is debated among historians. There does not seem to be a concensus favoring it as a useful field for historical work, though it has some devoted adherents. With a few notable exceptions such as Erik Erikson and Peter Gay, both of whom studied psychoanalysis professionally, most of the proponents of psychohistory are historians, not psychiatrists or psychologists. For a summary of the case against psychohistory, see David Hackett Fischer, HISTORIANS' FALLACIES: TOWARD A LOGIC OF HISTORICAL THOUGHT (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), ch. VII.

In general, I believe Scouters are much better served by reading William "Green Bar Bill" Hillcourt's BADEN-POWELL: THE TWO LIVES OF A HERO. It discusses B-P's life and times, without the amateur analysis of B-P's motives. (I should mention that I am the managing trustee of the Hillcourt Trust, and proceeds from the sale of the book benefit the trust.)

Without criticizing Bill Hillcourt's book, Mr. Jeal suggests his work is superior to Hillcourt's because he is writing independent of any outside influence, such as Hillcourt's close relationship with B-P and Lady B-P (she was listed as co-author in the first edition) and his lifelong career as a professional and volunteer Scouter. [p. xi] Mr. Jeal takes the same tack in his biography of David Livingstone, pointing out that the famous missionary's other biographers had been clergymen. [LIVINGSTONE (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1973), p. xii] Since Mr. Jeal - who has written more works of fiction than history - is not obligated to B-P's family, or the Scout movement, or the academic community - it would appear that he is responsible only to his publisher and his readers. As such, we must be careful and critical.

I do not frequently read the comments to Wikipedia. If anyone would like to correspond with me on this topic, please contact me at nblock@winstead.com.

NBlock certainly makes a strong case for the need for much greater balance in this Article.

To be truly NPOV, such an Article on a highly controversial subject as this should draw upon the significant number of sources who take a completely contrary view. As it is, all opposing published works are airily dismissed by one source's unsubstantiated claim of a vast publishing industry conspiracy to cover-up. Nor does the Article mention the most salient fact of all: not one person ever alleged any specific instance of sexual misconduct on Gen. Baden-Powell's part. JGHowes 04:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would concur. The whole thing is built of so much air that I question whether this article should even exist. At any rate it should make clear that the whole thing is speculation. Herostratus 16:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The speculation of people more qualified than us to determine the substance of history is what Wikipedia is built from. Haiduc 16:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. Let's bear in mind that Wikipedia's stated purpose is to be an online encyclopedia of verifiable, sourced information presented in Neutral Point of View. In creating or editing a Wiki Article on a topic which by its very nature is highly speculative, it's essential to present both sides of the controversy, pro and con, lest the Article itself be seriously flawed as unbalanced and unencyclopedic.

The point here is that the Article, as it stands, manifestly fails to do so. Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the speculation itself is beside the point. JGHowes 12:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not refuted my point but reinforced it. I agree with you that opposing views should be represented, with appropriate indications to show that they come from "in-house" orthodox sources, where appropriate. Haiduc 18:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also note that history is never uncontroversial, and to treat every single viewpoint of history (or science, or literature, etc) as all meriting equal standing in a wikipedia article sort of defeats it's proposed purpose of being a source of citable information. CaveatLector^Talk 19:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear CaveatLector, certainly we agree that many historical events remain controversial decades or even centuries later, providing rich fodder for historians. Where we seem to disagree is how Wikipedia articles on historical persons and events should present such controversies. If I understand what you're saying correctly, may I suggest that you might consider Wikipedia's stated policy: "Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views, instead of supporting one over another...".

If a Wikipedia article quotes only a selected two or three sources that support one view, whilst ignoring the many other published credible sources contending otherwise, as this one does, how can it be truly "representing all views"? As an encyclopedia, any credible article on an historical personage should endeavour to compare and contrast the divergent interpretations of past events in the context of the times. Otherwise, all we have here is a glorified book report which leads the reader to the conclusion that the Article is POV, not history.

I still maintain that an Article such as this, purporting to be about a historical figure, needs a major re-write, instead of presenting a one-sided conjecture as fact. That is history more worthy of Wikipedia, in my opinion. JGHowes 17:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD closed

I thank the admin who closed the AfD for his careful consideration of the discussion. I have to register disagreement with one comment, though, the statement that "The theories themselves are a primary source, and per WP:V, the article should be reporting the analysis of reliable secondary sources that have reported on these theories." Any 'theories' are to be found in Jeal, Rosenthal, and other biographies or histories of B-P's life and times, and these works are by definition secondary sources. The theories, therefore, cannot be primary sources; they are interpretations set forth in secondary sources. I know this sounds nitpicky, but I would rather not have to deal with an argument that Jeal is a primary source, which would then lead to the contention that there are no secondary sources on the topic.

Otherwise, I think the closing admin provides some valuable suggestions for improving the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to discuss the theories as theories. Therefore, the theories are the real subject of the article, not Baden-Powell's actual sexual orientation which is in fact unknown. —Doug Bell ^talk 15:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to report the views of Jeal, Rosenthal, et al. without adopting them. But I don't agree that Jeal, Rosenthal, et al. are primary sources; for this topic, and any biographical topic, primary sources are diaries, letters, contemporary newspaper reports, things like that. Biographies are secondary sources. 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, then we are quibbling over semantics at this point. Probably I could have choosen more precise wording to make my point that you apparently did understand. —Doug Bell ^talk 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure were on the same page, by calling the theories "primary sources" (which I'll admit is not the correct label), what I am saying is that the article needs to be based on what other reliable sources have said about the theories. If no such reliable sources can be found, then the article probably does need to be deleted. This was the primary flaw with the article that made the decision between the choices of no consensus and delete quite close. Were this article to be renominated in its current form after a reasonable period of time, I would have to conclude that no such sources were available and decide in favor of deleting the article. —Doug Bell ^talk 17:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying. In the article as it currently appears, we have two sources that discuss the idea that B-P had homosexual desires--Jeal's biography, and Rosenthal's The Character Factory, which is a history rather than a biography. Both meet WP:RS. To these can be added a third source, Eminent Edwardians by Piers Brendon (London, 1979). These are all secondary sources by any conventional understanding of the term, and in my opinion they provide enough material on their own to justify a WP article.

Add to this several reviews of Jeal's biography, three of which are cited in the article. More reviews exist, and could be tracked down through the quotes on this page for the book at Powell's Books and this page at the Yale University Press (the book's American publisher). Many of these reviews focus on Jeal's discussion of B-P's sexuality, which I believe both establishes that the topic is notable in its own right and that Jeal's opinion is widely accepted.

While I agree with you that the article needs to describe what Jeal, Rosenthal, and Brendon say rather than present their opinions as objective facts (and in fact, these writers disagree with each other in some respects), I really don't see what's missing from the article's sourcing. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

<deleted my reply>

Right now I'm pretty tired, so I don't think I'm being as lucid in my comments here as I could be. Instead of further muddying the waters I should probably sign off this discussion for now. —Doug Bell ^talk 18:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In support of User:Akhilleus I submit exhibit One, the article on Gravitation which, despite the fact that it discusses theories of gravitation (since gravitation itself is unknowable if we are to believe epistemology) is not titled Theories of gravitation (a title obviously and correctly rejected). Every single article in Wikipedia would have to be titled "Theories of xyz" if this perspective prevailed. Haiduc 00:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad example. There is no subject about gravity outside the theory. This article is not about Baden-Powell's sexual orientation, since that's not known. It's a discussion of notable theories about his sexual orientation. Don't throw up straw men, ok? I think you're capable of better than that. —Doug Bell ^talk 02:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Step outside the nearest window and you will discover an aspect of gravity that quite transcends theory. Doug, I do not want my rejection of your analysis to take away anything from my appreciation of the obvious seriousness and sincerity that you have and continue to apply to resolving the questions surrounding this topic. I am quite grateful to you that despite obvious misgivings you had the integrity to work with the material and the persons involved in this dispute, and by and large I find your comments to be well thought out and constructive. With the exception of this one. Even reasonable people will not always agree, and what matters (to me at least) is the effort to communicate and be considerate, which you have amply shown. I will pay some attention to this article, now that its fate no longer hangs in the balance, and I hope that we will be able to at least partly address many of your concerns. Haiduc 02:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving any leftover issues from the AfD

I copy below the text of the admin's comments as a basis for further work:

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

1. Regarding point 1, as the article contains material of long standing in the main B-P article, which was the result of co-operation and debate between many editors, process which continued once the article was spun off, I do not see that it is relevant to the work here.
   
2. Regarding point 2, while additional scholarly commentary about B-P and Jeal and Rosenthal would certainly be welcomed, I see no precedent in Western scholarship or Wikipedia editing that would support the metamorphosis of scholarly critique and commentary on a historical figure into "primary source" material. The convoluted notion that this article is "about theories" is also contrived and without merit, as shown above. There is obviously some confusion at work here, which I have addressed in my previous dialog with Doug. As for much of the article being based on a single source, more sources are certainly welcome and I hope that they will turn up. I certainly will look around for more scholarly material on this but needless to say I would not accept any suggestion that the use of a single authoritative source is cause for deletion of an article on a historical topic.
3. Point 3 is well taken, and I will address that immediately, if any such phrasing remains in the article. Haiduc 12:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impressed

My decision of no consensus on the last AfD was partly founded in the belief that there was a notable, NPOV article possible. I'm impressed by the work that's been done here to correct the flaws and glad that I decided against deleting it. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)