Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/ArchiveTo30March2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Order of sections 2 Homosexuality or Pedophilia 3 Aviation 4 On His Interest in Boys 4.1 edit of 01:22, 05 Feb 2006 5 Merge from Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation 6 female interests 7 BP, B-P or B.-P.? 8 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Order of sections

Can we move "military career" ahead of "family life", to put the article in chronological order? Zaian 00:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK with me. It probably had family first as in most wiki bios they put early life, education, and family first. Rlevse 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality or Pedophilia

If he was interested in naked pictures of young boys, this is evidence of pedophilia, not of homosexuality. The two things are not one and the same.

Pedophilia is about a sexual interest in young persons who are unable to reciprocate on the same emotional level, if at all. Pedophilia is considered psychologically aberrant behaviour, and is repugnant to most people and illegal in all civilised countries. Even having pictures of child pornography is illegal, one does not even have to actually "do" anything with a child to break the law. Pedophilia is not necessarily confined to interest in young persons of the same sex - in most cases, it is different-sex attraction. An adult male who is attracted to young boys is a pedophile, not a homosexual. An adult male who is attracted to young girls is a pedophile, not a heterosexual.

On the other hand, homosexual behaviour between consenting adults is considered perfectly acceptable by most people, and has been decriminalised by all right-thinking legislatures. The mere fact of being attracted to people of the same sex has never been illegal (how could it be, one cannot legislate against thoughts or feelings). JackofOz 05:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not qualified to expound on the official definition of pedophilia, but I will say that your reading of it conflicts with what I know about the current definition. As for B-P, a close reading of a couple of modern biographies, like Jelks', may change your mind both about his possible pedophilia and his possible homosexuality. Haiduc 17:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm no expert either. The text in the article contains nothing that might suggest homosexuality, but it does contain possible evidence of pedophilia. Why the word "homosexuality" appears at all is beyond me. Cheers JackofOz 02:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this controversial topic should be moved to a separate page? Zaian 12:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia rules to "solve" controversial topic problems by moving them to a separate page. Haiduc 14:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering, why on earth is a Wiki article participating in speculation on his alleged "repressed homosexuality"? His sexuality has little or nothing to do with what he acheived and even if that did explain his interest in founding scouting, that can't be proved. Same goes for his wife changing her appearance for him, especially as fashion for women (especially through the 1920's) involved becoming more "masculine". And since when is it uncommon for married couples to move out of a common room? - 26 February 2006

Aviation

I have recently been reading a biography of Patrick Young Alexander. This mentions some aviation experiments by Robert Baden-Powell and his brother. The book leaves me a little confused about which brother did what. Can anybody shed any light?

His brother Baden had an interest in aviation and other subjects, such as Radio (he was a friend of Guglielmo Marconi, too). --Lou Crazy 02:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (btw, please sign yourself!)

On His Interest in Boys

The Wikipedia Help Desk received the following e-mail from a reader see

After researching information on Robert Paden-Powell on Wikipedia, it became fairly obvious that information entitled, ‘On his interest in boys,’ is nonsensical, in that the speculative information that is produced seems inappropriately issued, particularly under the guidelines set by Wikipedia. The article-segment is based on heresy as support to push a controversial topic, lacking legitimacy, (at times) proper context, and sufficient academic reference (i.e. citations, etc.). It seems to be particular to push the works of two authors rather than introducing meaningful and objective information to understand the life of the highlighted individual. Moreover, certain phrases are sweeping in breadth and generalize actions or thought, such as, “consistently praised the male body,” or, “always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked,” ignoring burden of proof. Speculative discussion and debate would probably find appropriate dialogue elsewhere, until more substantial and firmly-rooted information is produced. Currently, the loose views presented (as they stand now) are but libel, inappropriate for an academic forum. Until a higher academic standard is met, I’d request that the material be removed.

I realise that it is based on written sources but could more be done to establish verifiability. In the meantime, I will reply to the user telling him that his comments have been advised of the comments. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the writer means 'hearsay', not 'heresy', although perhaps I am wrong! 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? Zaian 13:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If there are people who are obsessed with putting this section in the article at all, Zaian's last suggestion above seems like a reasonable compromise. If that breaks a rule as Haiduc replied to Zaian's earlier discussion topic, then the only other solution I can see is to swamp the section by adding tons and tons of other factual information about the man. Right now the pedophilia section is out of all proportion, IMNSHO. Kkken 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have enough respect for the man and his feelings to not project our discomfort on his life. The article is about B-P, not about our notions of propriety. And this has nothing to do with pedophilia, by the way. Haiduc 20:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Zaian, separate section into article elsewise we will have to set precedent and include all theories and works on notables from Abraham Lincoln to Richard Gere. It is speculation and out of proportion. Chris 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Jeal's research is definitely relevant to the topic of the article and should therefore be noted. Obmitting it would be not NPOV. LARS 13:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Noting it, perhaps, but as much attention as is given to it presently has far more weight than it warrants. In interests of NPOV, it needs to be linked to a separated article. There is precedent for this, as Controversies about the BSA was separated from the main BSA article but linked, as it drew focus away from the main topic of the article. It is theory yet, and B-P is not here to present his side.

Found this last night reading through Colonel J.S. Wilson's Scouting 'Round the World 1957 edition, page 14, quoting from B-P's own Aids to Scoutmastership (1920)-in B-P's words "The term 'Scouting' has come to mean a system of training in citizenship, through games, for boys or girls. The girls are the important people, because when the mothers of the nation are good citizens and women of character, they will see to it that their sons are not deficient in these points. As things are, the training is needed for both sexes, and is imparted through the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Movements. The principles are the same for both. It is only in the details that they vary."

So I still vote to separate the section, linking it, but not detracting from the rest of the article. Chris 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a difficult issue that I have been following for some years. I have not read Jeal's book but it is clear that it is well researched and scholarly. I think we are bound here to include something in the main article. The controversies in scouting around the "the 3 G's" (God, Gays and Girls) has a life of its own and I think it is reasonable for that to be a separate article. The case of B-P is different. It is about him. NPOV demands that it is included. Having said that, I think the current section of the article on this is far too long, but I'm not game at this time to try to shorten it. Over the years it has been discussed on the usenet group "rec.scouting.issues", along of course with the 3 G's, but the group is a terrible mess at present (as is most of usenet!). --Bduke 21:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If this section was titled "On his interest in dogs" you might have an argument about removing to its own article. It would not be relevant to the main thrust here. As it is, it reflects precisely on that one aspect of his life for which he is best known and remembered. Here's a man whose whole life came to revolve around the lives of boys, whose best friend for many years was an unusually youthful and boyish fellow whom he nicknamed "Boy", who employed boys even in warfare, whose very wife looks like a boy in the picture in the article. And what is the theory put forth in this section? That he did it all for love. And because of that you all seem to be falling over yourselves in haste to cover up this embarassing fact, musing about whether you can drown it out in a flood of spurious data, remove it to a safe distance, or abbreviate it. "Difficult issue"? That our heroes are human should not be seen as a difficult issue. There is nothing inherently difficult, nor shameful in anything he did (though I was disappointed in the way he dumped "Boy" when the latter married below his station, and in the way he sent those African boys into danger - many died, if I remember well). You want difficult issues? Perhaps those are difficult issues. Betrayal is difficult. And risking boys' lives is difficult indeed. Why is there no debate on that, no effort to distance the great man from the truly shameful things he did? But love?! The vulnerability of repressed desire? Being true to an ideal of chastity in the face of great temptation - if Jeal is right? That to me makes him more of a hero, humanizes him, makes him real, and makes us real reading it. We do not need hagiographies. What in god's name is everyone here afraid of? Haiduc 03:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not afraid of anything to do with this issue. I also only used the term "a difficult issue" because it is very clearly is for the Scout Movement as a whole. I wish it was not so. Too many people want to deny it, when the content of Jeal's book is raised. I have been through many such discussions on the rec.scouting.issues usenet group. I agree with you and hope you can convince the Movement that it is not a difficult issue. --Bduke 04:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase We are told, however (by R. Jenkyns), that the album ... is problematic and does not belong in an article as such. Who is this we? This subject appears to be highly speculative with little direct evidence. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase is a figure of speech, to break up the monotony, and belongs at the discretion of the editors. The "we" is a rhetorical device for representing the readers. Are you perhaps suggesting the form is ungrammatical? As others have indicated above, Jeal's bio and conclusions are authoritative and supported by others, rather than highly speculative(!). Haiduc 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks quite odd to me, but I am a technical writer by trade and we is never used. I've read most of the Jeal stuff: I think he mainly found what he wanted to find. I will readily admit that my personal POV is slanted.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I took it out, at times my style is archaic. Haiduc 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the amount of space this section has is way out of proportion to the overall article size (it must be 20-25% of the article). I strongly feel it should be cut down or even eliminated. Rlevse 14:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered adding important material on BP's life in order to balance the article? There must be many more things of value to say about him. Haiduc 14:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, in fact this is the current collaboration effort of the Scouting WikiProject, which is one reason this article is getting attention right now. Even with more detail on other topics added, I still think this section is overly emphasized. It is also does not use proper footnote referencing. Rlevse 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll dig up the Jeal again and provide page numbers. Haiduc 15:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Rosenthal and Jeal publish separate works or a combined single work? I'm going to work on the cites in this whole article and try get them in line with the project. See History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) for an example of how we do this in the Scouting Project. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not picking on the Jeal section, I'm just starting there. Again, this article is this month's collaboration for us. As others have noted, this perhaps be a separate article, with a link from here, as it has no proof and is very speculative. As for me, I'll mull this over. Rlevse 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeal authored the bio alone, it is in the references to the article. I am somewhat surprised that you would advance the claims you have without having read the book first. I recommend it highly, it is a deep and compassionate treatment of a complex and remarkable man. It is not clear how you can contribute constructively to this topic without some familiarity with the book. Haiduc 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeal authored the bio alone, it is in the references to the article. I am somewhat surprised that you would advance the claims you have without having read the book first. I recommend it highly, it is a deep and compassionate treatment of a complex and remarkable man. It is not clear how you can contribute constructively to this topic without some familiarity with the book. Haiduc 16:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Jeal the sole source for this? I certainly can contribute with reading it because you (prior to recently at least) quoted things containing little or no concrete proof. You just added Casada and only ref'd his college. You are also totally ignoring Wiki and our Project referencing standards. Also note that while two others in this talk page support you in keeping the section, no one supports the amount and length of detail you devote to it. 16:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my technical fuddy-duddiness. Please point me to the requirements you mention. Yes, Jeal is the main source, though others support him in his conclusions. Do read it, you will find it hard to put the book down - the man led a fascinating life. As for the size of this section, not only is it moderate and within general encyclopeadia standards, but it seems that the arguments for reducing it come from a sense of embarrassement with the topic rather than genuine editorial considerations. Again, I encourage you to complete what is missing, rather than reduce a properly elaborated section to the more sketchy level of some of the rest of the material. The solution to inequality is to raise the general level, not reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. Haiduc 16:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Some may be embarrassed by it, but I'm not. It simply seems genuinely disproportionate to me. What he did for Scouting, boys in general, and in the British Army are far more important that how he was fascinated with boys. Can you find another youth leader on Wiki with a similar amount/ratio of content on this aspect of their personality? If he's so fascinating to you, why are you so zealous on this on aspect of him and not the other aspects of his life? For technical aspects of refs and footnotes, see the article I mention. If you're genuinely stuck on it, let me know.Rlevse 16:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems simplistic to focus on what he did and not on why he did it. Wherever he went, the theme of boys dominated his life. As for comparisons with others, they are meaningless, everyone is unique. The size of the section on this aspect of his personality is wholly commensurate with the size of the other sections. As for my interest in him, it revolves around protecting his persona from censorship and prudishness. Are you suggesting it is inferior to others' interest in him? Haiduc 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered these questions.Rlevse 17:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quite a busy dialogue today! As the Libra who first pointed out the issue of balance, I'm glad to see I'm not alone. (I especially liked Chris' Jan. 26 comment, although I get cold chills at the thought of an army of deconstructionists taking up the suggestion.) Btw, I wonder in passing why Rosenthal and Jeal are cited at the beginning of the section, but then no more Rosenthal citations--not even in the bibliog--but 9 more for Jeal. Anyway, according to amazon, Jeal's book is 670 pages, so maybe someone who has a copy can say what proportion of that was spent on this repressed-pedophilia/homo/whatever claim. Here's a viable, pared-down, NPOV alternative for the Wiki editors to consider (if they feel the need to include the section at all):

"On his interest in boys: In a latter-day biography of Baden-Powell, author Tim Jeal says that although B-P had a classical appreciation for the beauty of boys, he did not tolerate scoutmasters to indulge in 'escapades' with their charges. Moreover, in keeping with the times, he was adamant about the need to restrain the sexual impulse in general." (I removed mention of Rosenthal only because we don't have any reference for him.)

And bury it in a list of similarly titled longer sections such as, "On his interest in religions," "On his interest in social status," and so on.

There's a good, lengthy, balanced review of Jeal's book by Steven Crumbaugh on amazon ( http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300091036?v=glance ). I got a chuckle out of his paragraph that begins with, "The thing that put me off was Jeal's amateur psycho-analysis of the inner 'Stephe'." Kkken 22:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. His final summary seems to capture the essence of the matter. Rlevse 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

His interest in boys can be said to be spread through the whole book, but much of the discussion of his desires and repression is concentrated in the whole of chapter 3, pp. 74-109. I find it remarkable that Jeal, a respected academic who immersed himself non-stop for years in the study of this man should arrive at the conclusion that he was driven by love and fascination with young males, while people who have not even bothered to read his book - a much quicker task for most people, presume to know better than him what is and is not balanced. Really, read the book and speak from knowledge, anything else is unfair to him and to yourself. Haiduc 23:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So Jeal's infallible and perfect in every way? I'm beginning to think you're Jeal.Rlevse 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to think it is a mistake to have so many exchanges in one day, it is too easy to get carried away by our emotions. And this is nothing if not an emotional subject. We are here to document what academically recognized sources have to say, so let's familiarize ourselves with the material so we can present it fairly. Over and out for the day. Haiduc 23:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously obsessed with this one aspect of BP and this one book. We are not here merely to document what an academic says (though you may be); we are here to present the whole picture of the subject of an article, in balance and proportion with NPOV. It is obvious to me that you are too emotionally attached to this one aspect of BP and this one book and your agenda is to push the views of this one author and ignore the rest of the article. On the other hand, I will agree it's time to let this subject rest for the day-;) Rlevse 23:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"I will agree it's time to let this subject rest for the day," ...with these unemotional, objective measurements: (a) Proportion of chapter 3 to whole book: 5% (perhaps less if "amateur psychoanalysis" is identified and thus disqualified). (b) Proportion of current section to whole article: 22%. (c) Proportion of my edited version above to whole article: 3%. Kkken 23:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good morning. Kkken, be careful of emulating Jeal, he features B-P's sexuality at the beginning(!) of his book, not at the end, like our article here. Someone suggested earlier to remove Rosenthal's name from the article. Bad idea, he is a reference for readers wishing to follow up on their studies of B-P. (And they are not the only two to raise these issues. In a recent paper, Kenneth Morgan at Oxford refers to his "probable pederasty" though I disagree with his slant.) Rlevse, I hope you will not be disappointed if I neither defend nor attack in response to your suggestion that I am obsessed. It is too bad that we encounter in these circumstances, I am sure there are far more ways we agree than disagree, but this is what is. Please consider again my suggestion that it is unwise to make radical changes to this discussion in the article without reading up on the man. I was frankly surprised by my reading of Jeal (I have not gotten to Rosenthal yet but I will), surprised by his thoroughness, strength of documentation and depth of investigation. His work raises many issues that go beyond the fact that B-P showed strong life-long emotional involvement with young men and fascination with their beauty, and distaste of the female form. Most of all his work highlights how different one historical period is from another, and how much we change as people over the generations. So, no, B-P is not a "pedophile," no, he is not "gay," but he certainly is anything but "straight." He does seem to be a lot like those men of antiquity who desired boys and became infatuated with them but kept their love chaste (not frigid, chaste) and pedagogically productive. So yes, his tastes could be said to be "classical" but we all know that to be an euphemism, confusing to a majority of readers, and thus inappropriate here. I will restrain my contributions here to one a day, so I am off bicycling, look forward to your comments. Haiduc 12:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact you only try to use 5% of what you feel is an outstanding book proves you're obsessed with this one topic. What you should do is write a review of the ENTIRE book and make it a separate article with a lead in from here. In fact, I just created that article for you at: Baden-Powell, Founder of the Boy Scouts (book). Turn it into a formal book review. I'll even help you format the referencing if you like. I've also tagged it as part of the Scouting Project and Portal because it is an important piece on BP and Scouting, so it should it own full-scale article. I even agree to not touch it unless you want me to help format it or something. I've put kkken's paragraph in this article. Jeal's Rlevse 12:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the moving out of this section. I also found Jeal's book authoritative. It is latest research knowledge that Baden-Powell sexual orientation was probably not ordinarily hetero-sexual. I can imagine that this cannot be accepted by scouts idolizing B.P. but demonizing homosexuality, but Jeal did an extraordinary piece of research here, which wikipedia can only ignore at its own peril. LARS 13:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No one demonized it. They can read all they want in the book's own article, which has a paragraph and direct link in this article. So your claim that it's being ignored are baseless as is your claim that it's being demonized. Now, if it had been totally deleted, you'd have a basis for these claims, but it wasn't, so you don't. Not to mention the disproportionate amount of space that was devoted to it. Look at Truman Capote's article, it only has a paragraph on so on this general area. If LARS and Haiduc think Jeal did such a great job, why has there be no effort at all to mention the remaining 95% of his book? Rlevse 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Votes" I just counted the views on this, based on this talk page. This is what I found: 2 for full inclusion, 3 for the para with the direct link, 3 for full removal. Rlevse 14:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Chalk up another vote for "the paragraph with the direct link." - It was WAY out of proportion, this was the correct action to take. --Naha|^(talk) 15:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal: On wikipedia, we don't disregard research because we disagree with it - if it is controversial, we make a note of that by finding and referencing authoritative sources that disagree. We don't remove sections because they are disproportionately long - instead, we lengthen other sections. The only time sections are moved to their own articles is when they are long enough to warrant their own articles. People with specialized interests are an asset to wikipedia, not "obsessed" or "agenda driven" (that runs very close to being insulting, which is not okay at all). As far as the issue in question, I'd vote for expanding the bit in this article and keeping the book reference as its own article. -Seth Mahoney 21:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal...You just contradicted yourself. This section was already more than amply long for its own article (which it is now)--and it only talked about 5% of the book. Rlevse 21:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually read my vote? I'm not seeing any contradiction. And don't take that tone with me. -Seth Mahoney 22:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did, and don't you take tone with me. Rlevse 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I took no "tone" with you, but we're getting off the subject. You obviously didn't read carefully enough: My vote was to keep the section that's in the article currently, lengthen it so that it is actually a meaningful paragraph, and keep the rest of the text in a separate article, due to its length. No contradiction. -Seth Mahoney 22:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't say currently in your original paragraph; so I'd say you didn't write it carefully enough. But at this point that doesn't matter. Moving on, I do support lengthening the paragraph currently in the article and keeping the rest in a separate article. And I honestly feel that making the separate article a full book review of the entire book would be good. Rlevse 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah! -Seth Mahoney 22:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you probably think I was trying squash the whole subject, but I wasn't. If that was my goal; I'd have simply cut out the whole section and not created the separate article nor have made offers to help format it. I simply felt that prior version of the section was way out of proportion (see Naha's comment) and too narrowly focused. Rlevse 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you were trying to squash the whole subject (and my initial comment wasn't directed toward you particularly), though there were definitely some people commenting here who did give that impression here (oh wait, looking back, that was often enough you - but I didn't realize it at the time I wrote what I wrote, and I understand how feelings get expressed and misexpressed here). Anyway, I'm glad you're okay with including references to an important investigation into this man's life, and I'm also glad you're encouraging expanding the new article into a review of the entire book. I suppose that the book could be used as a reference for fleshing out other details of his life in this article, too, if that's what you mean by references to it being "too narrowly focused". -Seth Mahoney 22:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

yes, that is what "too narrowly focused" meant. Rlevse 22:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Then yeah, maybe expanding the review article and moving more information from there to here would be a workable plan. -Seth Mahoney 22:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This article on BP (as he's often referred to) should be the collecting point for general info on him (as with any person famous enough for a full article); with supporting articles feeding in bit and pieces as warranted and justified. If the the separate article on Jeal's book does become a full review, this is quite workable. However, the BP article itself should not become a review of the Jeal book; nor of any single source. Multiple sources should coalesce here. Rlevse 23:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, with the proviso that all info discussed in sub-articles should be adequately included here, which it doesn't seem like anyone disagrees with. -Seth Mahoney 23:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a better way to phrase that is "all topics" vice "all info". The only two possible points of contention I can think of are a) if someone felt a topic was over-emphasized (which is essentially what started this round) and b) certain words or phrases might be objected to. For example, some people would not like the phrase "BP was a repressed homosexual" (IMHO that isn't proven, but I think it's possible). But I think something like "In his book, Jeal makes a case that BP may have been a repressed homosexual" would not cause a ruckus as that is a verfiable fact. In essence, in the section "On his interest in boys", we all need to be careful of wording and backing up claims with verifiable sources.Rlevse 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the phrasing, and I think that sort of thing is covered by WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. It is also covered under Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality, which wouldn't permit identifying anyone as a repressed homosexual. -Seth Mahoney 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable yet with the pared-down paragraph that I offered, but I'm truly flattered that the editors (rlevse?) found my modest suggestion worthy.

I think the pared down article could be expanded by a couple of sentences, but I am not sure how to word it yet and still avoid avoid heated discussion. Rlevse 00:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Haiduc: your post today invited comments, so first I want to say that "read the book!" is always a solid rallying cry, and, even though my argument was mainly about proportion and emphasis, let me be the first to say that I've requested the book from our library and will try to slog through all 670 pages. Also, I was the one you referred to who suggested removing Rosenthal, but I wrote that that was ONLY because there were no references to check for his biographical contribution. The link to him only pointed to the Columbia U. page. No aspersions on him implied. And now, like you, I'm off for a bike ride--to the local outdoor hockey rink, to lock horns with some young bucks. Kkken 23:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

edit of 01:22, 05 Feb 2006

I noticed Haiduc's changes were reverted. Looking at them, there could be some wording changes, I think, but it looks a lot like what I was picturing: Short, non-assumptive, and referenced. I've pasted it below sentence by sentence so that we can discuss what the problems are.

A number of modern authors, upon examining Baden-Powell's life and papers from the perspective of late-twentieth century understanding of sexuality, have explained his life-long interest in boys as the reult of a strong erotic attraction to masculine beauty, principally in the form of young males.

Among these historians are Tim Jeal, the author of Baden-Powell: Founder of the Boy Scouts a widely praised biography which takes a compassionate view of a man he considers to have lived a life of repressed homosexuality, and Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University, in his The character factory: Baden-Powell and the origins of the Boy Scout movement.

Other historians have commented less favorably on his presumed attractions, such as Kenneth Morgan of Oxford who refers to Baden-Powell's "probable pederasty" as a character defect covered up by the media of his time.

Nonetheless, despite his alleged attraction to youths, Baden-Powell is thought to always have remained chaste with his scouts, and he did not tolerate Scoutmasters to indulge in 'escapades' with their charges.[2]

-Seth Mahoney 01:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I reverted this; a) top reason - it is not what was agreed to at all b) the link to the separate article was totally removed c) " strong erotic attraction " ... how do you know it's not just an artistic appreciation of human form and nothing more? d) "...a widely praised biography" is POV e) "lived a life of repressed homosexuality" could be more neutrally phrased as " may have been" f) "probable pederasty"???? (get real, I am fairly certain that violates the Wiki guidelines Sethmahoney mentioned) g) citations are missing (Rosenthal and Morgan) Rlevse 01:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it best if we post changes here first and talk before we put them on the main page.Rlevse 01:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

a) This reason isn't very specific.

b) This is a problem, but it could be fixed.

c) Look at it in context. This is exactly what you were talking about above. The sentence is of the form "These authors claim such-and-such".

d) Agreed. Whether or not the book has been praised (this would require references) should be addressed in its article.

e) "may have been homosexual" means something different from "lived a life of repressed homosexuality". The first may or may not refer to an openly gay person. The second definitely does not. According to the authors in question, he was a repressed homosexual.

f) It looks like a direct quote. I think it would be fine with a reference.

g) Agreed, but this is easily fixed.

-Seth Mahoney 01:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest a 24 hour cooling off period on this section? Edit the rest of the article as desired, but leave this part alone. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. -Seth Mahoney 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Kkken, I hope you will enjoy the book, it is a wonderful time machine. And it is good to know that we have at least some interests in common - it is all too easy to get caught up in the heat of the moment here. Regarding Rlevse's critique, let me simply point out that the published opinions of academics are fair game for the Wikipedia, really, the only fair game, and cannot be written off as "POV" simply because you don't like them. You actually have to go out and find another academic's contrasting opinion if you want to counter the argument. Since you all (the BSA people here) were so set on removing the discussion to its own article, I have done just that, at Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. The link set up by Rlevse for a book review is still there, but it is not the appropriate main article for this section. Haiduc 12:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have footnoted the "on his interest..." section of the BP article so it's in line with the rest of the article and made a wiki link. I am fine with it as it stands at this moment. Haiduc: you're missing my whole point, but I see no reason to belabor the issue right now. Rlevse 13:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the current version of Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell a good compromise. I think it should be said in some sentences, what it is about, and not only a link. But I also feel, that the details can go into a seperate article, to keep the proportion. Nonetheless we could think about the heading of the section. Perhaps "Sexual Orientation" would be more to the point. LARS 14:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing the section title is okay with me.Rlevse 14:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of different ideas and suggestions on how to deal with this section of the BP article. I get lost in all the different things people want to do or don't want to do. I was asked to comment on this so here it is: Basically, his "interest in boys," "relationship with boys," "homosexuality," "sexuality" or whatever else you want to call it, IS long enough to warrant its own article, as has already happened. A brief summary or introduction to what is in the Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation article should appear in the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article, with a link to it, again, as has already happened. I really don't understand why this has caused so much of a fuss. Its simple and well-known wiki procedure to move an overgrown section of an article to its own article and then link back. As far as content? Again this is not rocket science. You find as many credible sources as possible, summarize them and cite them. If there are clashing views, you try to represent each equally in the article. period. Lets move on, please. --Naha|^(talk) 01:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou all so much for fixing this part of the article - it was quite uncomfortable to read. I tried making some edits a while ago, but I couldn't work out how to make it better on my own - you've all done a great job! :) - 220.237.30.150 08:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

(copied from Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation)

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)

Strong Oppose. This very issue already was discussed over the last few days and the consensus was to have the Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell article contain a basic intro to the subject and with a pointer to a main article. To bring this up again, and less than 12 hours later is redundant and superfluous. A compromise was just reached and this just flares it up again. Just read the rest of this talk page. Now look at Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation--it is highly speculative and relies heavily on phrases like "presumed" "believed" and "suspected" -- in other words, they can't conclusively prove that BP was homosexual (ie, little or no hard evidence of it exists). The BP article and the article on his sexuality should remain as where; with a section in the BP article pointing to the article on his sexuality. This sexuality article is only a day old and already as raging discussions about being unencyclopedic, rhetoric, and POV going on. It's amazing so many people have an agenda to spend this much time on this one aspect of his life when there are several noteworthy accomplishments in his life. If you haven't read the sexuality article and its talk page too. Rlevse 20:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I also oppose, at least for now. We're all trying to get this article tidied up at the moment, and this spin-off article was a part of that. Maybe a merge can be considered at a later date. -Seth Mahoney 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - I just stated my stance in the section directly above this one on this talk page. See my comments there. This is getting out of hand. --Naha|^(talk) 01:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The suggestion is well intentioned but based on a misunderstanding of the topic. It makes no sense and is not helpful. Haiduc 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Kkken 07:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

female interests

Re Zaian's edit: "Family life - Jeal's biography describes several other female interests in B-P's earlier life." Do you have page numbers? Haiduc 22:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you just can not remove all reference to Juliette Low. It is clearly of interest. Expand to cover several female interests from Jeal's book. --Bduke 23:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstanding, it was Zaian who removed it. It agree it should cover more than Low and Olave, if there were in fact more.Rlevse 23:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was me, and I apologise for doing this too hastily. I read the book recently but no longer have it, so I don't have page references and I can't write this up more carefully. The book actually spends a lot of time looking at B-P's female interests so I felt it was inaccurate to say that Low was the only one apart from Olave. I believe this line was probably put there to support the claim of repressed homosexuality, along the lines of "by age 55 he had had only one girlfriend". What I read in Jeal's biography came across as too complex to put into one sentence. Zaian 06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I've barely cracked The Boy-Man, so I've barely read a fraction of what Zaian or haiduc have, and I'm not sure where this new thread is really coming from anyway, but I do have the book in front of me. So, to help answer the request for references to "more than Low and Olave, if there were in fact more," here are a few page references from a moderately quick scan. (Edit: added more names as I ran across them after resuming normal reading. See edit history for details.)

If "female interests" means only "romantic and or marital and more" interests, then there's p. 79 (Ellen Turner) and a few pages starting on p. 82 in the chapter mentioned a while ago, including p. 86 ("As will be seen, he considered many other women as potential brides. On the whole they fell into two groups--either... in their late teens or early 20s, or in their 50s"). There's pp. 145-146 (Caroline Heap), p. 155 (Edith Christie-Miller), pp. 347-352 (Rose Gough, Olive Ilbert, Muriel Muir, Muriel Chappell, Corisande Lady Rodney), and p. 427 ("As early as 1890, B-P had told his mother that the only girls for him were those keen on walking and shooting.")

But if "female interests" isn't a euphemism, and means all female interests, then so far in this book I'd add mom, sister/stepsisters, aunts, grandmother, governesses, Queen Victoria, the two wives of B-P's best friend, his best friend's daugher, the headmistress of a proto-feminist boarding school, countless young girls, his secretary who was like a second wife... and the list of page references gets a lot longer. Kkken 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're primarily interested in the romantic type. Rlevse 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

HTH Kkken 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you gents are not out to make the poor man seem like a Lothario. To say nothing of making much of near relatives, I don't even want to go near that. Thanks, Kkken for the page references. While there I was amused to pick up a couple more phrases on the topic: "Stephe probably felt relaxed with Caroline because he never considered her socially or financially qualified to be his wife." (p.146) Also, "As usual, his closest friendships were with much younger girls - children in fact." (p.145). About the Christie-Miller woman we hear that we hear that "her parents were very rich, very kind, but very common," which to me sounds not like "female interest" in the "seminal" sense you or I might take it but in a financial and social sense - a well heeled beard? Significantly, his "interest" was such that he proposed to her - eight years after the fact, when "she had other plans." However, removal of the phrase "he had no other female interests" is justified - I no longer remember where it came from, but it is interesting to note that Jeal (also on 347) mentions that it is part of the BP hagiography to maintain that Olave "was the first and only woman". In closing, please note, also on 347, "The key to understanding BP's lifelong onslaught on sex was his fear of the 'contaminating' properties of sexually active women." I would like to think that you are reading the book, not merely trawling the index for female first names. Regards, Haiduc 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who wanted others to read the book. Your edit summary of "playboy bunnies" is totally uncalled for. Why didn't you notice any of the females on the pages Kkken has referenced when you read the book?Rlevse 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not complaining, don't get mad if I rib you a little. Yes, reading the book IS a good idea, it reveals him to have been an interesting and complex character. I just don't think anyone should take things out of context. As for the phrase in question, I probably lifted it whole from elsewhere without checking or thinking. I have been feeling guilty about it for a while, and it was a relief to read the part about that idea being originally a conceit to honor Olave - it explains its existence, it is not as if I made it up out of whole cloth. But yes, it is obviously inaccurate. Haiduc 18:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BP, B-P or B.-P.?

A slightly trivial point, but do we use "BP", "B-P", "B.P." or "B.-P."? Of these, the first two are widely used on the talk page, but the last appears in the opening paragraph of the article. This was a recent edit by Lou Crazy, who claims that Baden-Powell spelled it "B.-P.", but it looks pedantic to me. I prefer "B-P". Periods are in gradual decline in abbreviations (CD, TV, ...), but are more popular in modern American English than modern British English, where even if "B.-P." was once used, it would certainly not be used today. Does anyone care, one way or the other? Zaian 07:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We should be consistent and agree so we don't have revert wars. I prefer "BP" --- it's the only way I've ever seen it used, other than in this article.Rlevse 10:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I just checked: Hillcourt uses B-P throughout Two Lives of a Hero, so I would go with that. PerAcronym and initialism#Written usage, the useage of the full stop is now deprecated. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If the sentence said, "he initialized his name as...", I'd agree with Lou's most recent comment ("Let's just write it the way he wrote it"), which would trump the deprecation mentioned above, irrespective of how it looks to someone else. With that criterion, I believe B-P. (not mentioned above) might win, unless someone knows differently. But the sentence currently says, "also known as," and every combination seems to meet that looser, external criterion. Now, if the sentence said, "commonly known as", then both B.-P. and B-P still fit the bill. Reasons listed below. (Btw, it doesn't seem to be discussed in the text of the bio I'm reading right now.)

• BP: I've never seen this except where someone's trying to save space, like in an index, but rlevse has never seen anything else. Go figger.
• B.P.: I've never seen it. Most people would say the hyphen is non-negotiable. Then again, I found pictures of the covers of Scouting for Boys where the name is spelled out as Baden Powell, unhyphenated. Go figger.
• B.-P.: This is what I was brought up on. It's what my Scout and Leader handbooks use. It's used by some Scouting Web sites. Winston Churchill used it in Great Contemporaries. Reynolds (1943) used it in his major bio ( http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-reynolds.htm ). I didn't find any reference showing that B-P himself used it, though. I wonder where it got started.
• B-P: The bio I'm reading shows it on a big banner in a picture of a parade in 1900 after Mafeking. It's also on the covers of Scouting for Boys (yes, the same ones that spell out the name w/o hyphen). I've found pictures of at least one of his drawings where he signed it this way. It's used by pinetreeweb.com. Gadget says above that Hillcourt used it.
• Just to round it out, I've also found B-P. on pictures of some signed illustrations, and B.-P at the end of his forward to brother Warrington's Sea Scouting for Boys. Kkken 12:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

All this means there's no clear-cut precedent, as many variations have been used; plus the fact that style changes are leaning toward BP/TV/CD, etc. In other words, we can do whatever we want, but we should reach a consensus agreement. When that is done, I'll add it to our Rules page. My vote: BP or B-P

Conditional vote for B-P: IF the sentence is changed to something like, "also known as B-P (with various punctuation)..." Anything less would be an error of omission.

Was the preceding vote from rlevse?

(Digression: it never occurred to me till this thread that the Scout motto has the same initials. It must've occurred to B-P. I wonder whether it occurred to him before, during, or after coining the motto.) Kkken 13:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with Kkken's suggestion.Rlevse 14:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I just double-checked pinetree.com using their search engine. B.-P gets 1 hit, B.-P. gets no hits, BP gets 7 hists and B-P gets 414 hits. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In my copy of the 1922 edition of Scouting for Boys, he signs himself "B.-P.". Noted historian of the scout movement Mario Sica always wrote that this is the correct spelling. I'll look for more references this week end when I am at home. Of course the scout motto has the same initials. I think it was one of the reasons B.-P. punctuated it. --Lou Crazy 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, seeing I started this slightly trivial thread, maybe I need to tie it off. I haven't changed my mind thatI prefer B-P to B.-P., Lou hasn't changed either, and I'm not sure if anyone else cares seriously :) What I get from the discussion above is that B-P has more votes. I'm therefore taking Kkken's suggestion and changing it back to B-P (and, since I did this once before, hoping that no-one will accuse me of undertaking a revert war). If anyone feels strongly about this, perhaps this could be expanded on in a new section about B-P's name - there's a fair amount to say, given that we already have something on how to pronounce it, how to abbreviate it, and could add the Be Prepared link (also British Pluck, British Public), not to mention that 'some say' his mother added the double-barrel in order to increase the family prestige! Zaian 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy with whatever as long as we are consistant throughout every article. --Naha|^(talk) 19:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's up to you and me and the rest of us Wikipedia addicts! Zaian 20:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course if we disregard Baden-Powell's preferences on the subject of the spelling of B.-P., we might as well disregard them on the issue of the pronounciation of his name, and remove the paragraph Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#His_name. --Lou Crazy 03:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm chiming in belatedly, and "my 2¢ worth" might have depreciated to 0¢ by now, but anyway...

  Funny you should mention the pronunciation. That little poem had an umlaut over the "e" in noël. To me, that's pronounced "no-WELL" (like the Christmas carol), not "NO-uhl" (as in a male first name). Yet it's hard to wrap my head around B-P wanting his name pronounced, "poh-WELL."

  Back to the punctuation question. Zaian, I guess it wasn't so "trivial" after all, eh? (Like the discussion below about the full name, titles, etc., which Mackensen acknowledged "seems trivial" but really is just due diligence.) My "conditional" vote on Feb. 14 might have been misread, though. When I wrote, 'IF the sentence is changed to something like, "also known as B-P (with various punctuation)..." Anything less would be an error of omission,' the parentheses were inside the quotes. In other words, although we do want to pick one variation and stick with it, and we don't want to bog the article down by enumerating all the other legitimately and reputably used punctuation (some used by B-P himself), I think we do our readers a disservice if we don't acknowledge them. IMHO, that's the responsible thing to do on this slightly trivial question. - Kkken 09:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Further re pronunciation: the ditty in the article needs a citation, because I just ran across this at http://www.wrgirlscouts.org/WAGGGS/TermsandNames.htm : When Lord Baden-Powell was asked how to pronounce his name correctly, he responded with this verse:

"Man, matron, maiden,

Please call in Baden.

Further for Powell,

Rhyme it with soul."

which sounds like one syllable. - Kkken 10:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

1st Baron Baden-Powell

On a different note, what is with this "1st Baron Baden-Powell"? Shouldn't that be "1st Baron Gilwell" or the like? --Emb021 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This title was put in place by User:Lord Emsworth in July 2004 - I don't know if there was any discussion, but I suppose this is according to his scheme of naming pages about the English aristocracy. There are so many possible titles (Colonel, Sir, Lord, of Gilwell, Major-General, GCVO, KYBO, whatever), that I would personally be much happier if the page title was just Robert Baden-Powell without any icing. PS Happy birthday. Zaian 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote we rename it to: Robert Baden-Powell, I've always wondered the same thing, why it has this long title. Rlevse 00:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The proper title is: Sir Robert Baden-Powell, O.M., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.B., Lord Baden-Powell of Gilwell. Alternatively, one could write Sir Robert Baden-Powell, O.M., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.B., 1st Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell. But I think the title of the article should be short such as Robert Baden-Powell ;-) --Lou Crazy 03:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Almost, except that "of Gilwell" isn't part of his title, it's simply the territorial qualification that could be written after a comma. Some peers have titles of the form "Surname of Place" (e.g. Lord Falconer of Thoroton) but many, as in the case of Baden-Powell, have titles just created from a surname. (Some also have titles that are just a placename.) --JRawle 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved by Night Gyr. Excellent, thanks. There are a lot of pages that still link to the old Baron title, and these can be updated so that the point directly at Robert Baden-Powell rather than go via a redirect. Zaian 08:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Proteus (Talk) 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it could come under, "...for any other reason are known exclusively by their personal names, do not include the peerage dignity." It wouldn't have occurred to me he received a peerage. On the other hand, it doesn't really matter as long as there's a redirect. JRawle 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, B-P is know most commonly all over the world as "Baden-Powell", not any title of anything and certainly not "1st Baron Baden-Powell" (see Anthony Eden. Rlevse 02:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly neutral as to which title the page is at, but your last move has broken lots of redirects by turning them into double redirects. If you move a page, check that all redirects work and that you haven't created any double redirects! Also I should say that the question is whether he is known as "Lord Baden-Powell" or not. Barons are never know as "Baron", but the Wikipedia convention is to use this rank at the start of articles. JRawle 14:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it couldn't. And, to be honest, I don't care if you didn't know he had a peerage. "Lord Baden-Powell" gets 129,000 Google hits, and that's far more than is necessary to put his title in the article name. Proteus (Talk) 15:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on this page had agreed to move the page. We were aware of the Wikipedia policy that titles aren't required when the person was most famous for something other than their title. That's why we moved the page. You're out of line by moving it back without engaging in discussion first. Let's avoid a revert war on this, but I still believe strongly that Robert Baden-Powell is a better title. Lord Robert Baden-Powell redirects there. The Baron title is obscure and should not be used. (Regarding double redirects, it was Proteus's revert that created these, as I had already spent a lot of time working on preventing these. Another reason not to do things unilaterally.) Zaian 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real evidence of "consensus"–looks like someone suggested it and someone else did it. Regarding the move, Lord Baden-Powell is quite well known by his title. If "Lord Robert Baden-Powell" redirects here that's rather unfortunate as that's quite incorrect. The format Lord Firstname Lastname only applies when "Lord" is a prefixed courtesy style. The only people entitled to that are the younger sons and daughters (Lady) of Dukes and Marquesses. The Baron title is not obscure and the only unilateral action was moving the page in the first place. Such a move, as definitely bucks naming conventions, should have been announced on Requested Moves so that wider opinion could have been sought. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, in that case I propose that we let this cool off a bit and continue this discussion through that forum. Zaian 16:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

PROTEUS, you're way out of line moving it back and forth, especially when we DID have a consensus and you never participated. LORD ANTHONY EDEN gets thousands of hit too and so why isn't his article got Lord or whatever in it? This is the same siutation. The "1st Baron Baden-Powell" IS awkward no one refers to him as that anyway. He's not known for being a Lord, but a the founder of Scouting. Rlevse 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) PS: not to mention that 99% of the users who work on this article are Scouters. I haven't seen a single user who arguing for his peerage title being in the article title put one single edit into it. If those users care so much about this, why is this so? Rlevse 19:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lord Anthony Eden is so obviously incorrect that I'm afraid I have difficulty taking you seriously. He was made Earl of Avon, so it would be Lord Avon, (as you'd know if you looked at the article), not Lord Eden nor Lord Anthony Eden. The only consensus I'm aware of is the one which left this article at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell for years on end. Proteus is quite right to put it back where it's supposed to be. This should have gone through Requested Moves. More to the point, as a former scout, I can tell you that he was often referred to as Lord Baden-Powell, so this page is indeed, in that regard, in its correct location. Best, Mackensen (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Eden is used as an example in the wiki guidelines of when not to put the peerage title in the article title and yes, "Lord Anthony Eden" brings up several Google hits, try it if you don't believe me. I am not a former Scout, I'm still in it, for 40 years and I have rarely heard anyone refer to "B-P" as a Lord, generally only in writing. But, this is probably because I don't live in Britain, which is why I wouldn't know a Lord from an Earl. And no, Proteus is not right to put it back here. He only came in after someone made the first move, not paying any attention to the article prior to that. Rlevse 19:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm an American, but thanks for generalizing. Nationality isn't an excuse for ignorance about his correct name. He's British first, and he was generally referred to by his title. Moving right along, Proteus has actually edited this article previously: [1] [2]. As have I, for that matter: [3] [4] [5]. Clearly we've been paying attention to this article for the better part of two years. If you want to move this page against naming conventions, you need wider support than you appear to have. This should been discussed first. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Four of those edits were in 2004, and one in mid 2005, that's not what I call "paying attention to" the article. As for naming, you're missing the point, I not arguing his correct peerage name, but what the better name of the article. I've never heard anyone refer to him as "1st Baron Baden-Powell", most of the time BP or Baden-Powell, once in awhile Lord or Sir and based on the clause I mentioned before, this is enough to name the article Robert Baden-Powell, so this would not be in violation of naming conventions. This WAS discussed here first (thanks for generalizing and ignoring the rest of this thread); you and Proteus didn't jump in until someone else moved it. So, if you had been "paying (better) attention", you'd have seen it before someone moved it the first time. And oh, very convenient of you to ignore why Anthony Eden's article doesn't have his peerage title in it but you so adamantly want it in this one. Rlevse 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it; I helped write the policy which placed it there. I think you'd be doing both of us a favor at this point if you read the policy on naming conventions. Anthony Eden's peerage came at the end of his career, and he is almost universally referred to as either Anthony Eden or Sir Anthony Eden; almost never as the Earl of Avon or Lord Avon. You haven't heard him called "1st Baron Baden-Powell" because that's the best way of referring to his title in an encyclopedic format and is not the usual form of address. He is, however, often referred to as "Lord Baden-Powell", which is correct shorthand, and which produces about 130-140,000 Google hits, many of which are scouting sites. The article has been on my watchlist for nearly two years, which means I've seen every edit. I haven't touched it often because I haven't had to. Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself and proved our point.Rlevse 11:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I never disputed the article's name, but it is the silliest one possible. "Robert Baden-Powell" is perfect. "Lord Baden-Powell" (without Robert, of course) is second best. Another choice could be "B.-P.". Way, way down comes "Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell", which is at least more correct than the current one. And if we want to include everythyng, why not "Sir Robert Stephenson-Smyth Baden-Powell, O.M., G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O., K.C.B., 1st Baron Baden-Powell of Gilwell"? --Lou Crazy 23:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the silliness of the page title is exactly what we're on about, not it's technical correctness in the world of aristocratic titles. He is not notable for his title, but for his remarkable military and Scouting career, which is what this article is about. Even if the policy says that the page must include "1st Baron" (which I dispute), then Baden-Powell's page is a good test of whether that policy is sensible. However, I think what upset some of us in the "just plain Robert" camp is the unhelpful way in which the article was moved back without any real effort at explanation, and the rude tone of the postings (e.g. Proteus, "No, it couldn't" and "I don't care"). Note the light-hearted, inclusive tone of the discussion before that point. This could be resolved by discussion, and in particular I think that the experienced policy makers and administrators taking part have a responsibility to politely explain why they think we have got this wrong. Ad hominem attacks take us nowhere. Zaian 08:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

BINGO, Lou Crazy and Zaian. I couldn't say it better. Rlevse 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying above to explain why this page is where it is; let me try again. The naming conventions dictate that an article title should include peerage except in cases where a person is known almost exclusively by a different name. Two good examples of this are Anthony Eden (mentioned above), and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh. Eden, as has been pointed out, was created Earl of Avon, but he's never referred to as such. Therefore Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon is a redirect. Similarly, Lord Castlereagh was known almost exclusively by his courtesy title, Viscount Castlereagh; most people don't realize that he became Marquess of Londonderry a year before his suicide. Ergo, Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry is a redirect. There are 130,000 hits for "Lord Baden-Powell", and he's referred to as such in many reference works (and scouting manuals, if memory serves). Therefore, the peerage ought to be a part of the article title.

That brings me to the second point. His proper title was Baron Baden-Powell. The informal version of this is Lord Baden-Powell, just as the informal version of Eden's title is Lord Avon. We don't use the informal version of titles in article names because they're ambiguous. Similarly, we include the ordinal so that it's possible to discern which peer we're talking about. If you look at Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair you'll see why this is vital. Finally, to just have the article at Baron Baden-Powell or Lord Baden-Powell would be confusing. There are three people to whom that could refer; it makes sense to me and others to have that page be about the title itself and have links to all holders.

That, in a nutshell, is why the page needs to be at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. I hope I've managed to clear things up somewhat. Mackensen (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I for one am willing to concede at this point and accept the page title including the '1st Baron' part. I have meantime confirmed that this naming (with variations) is used by other encyclopedias. Britannica has Baden-Powell (of Gilwell), Robert Stephenson Smyth Baden-Powell, 1st Baron. To save others from fighting over this point in future, and since this page is read by a lot of people with little knowledge of aristocratic titles, I suggest that we add a brief section to the article explaining the title. Zaian 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. Towit: "except in cases where a person is known almost exclusively by a different name". B-P is known almost exclusively by B-P and Baden-Powell, especially outside of Britain, similar to Eden. B-P was not born with this Baron/Lord title; my understanding is it was bestowed upon him 'for Scouting in the early 1920s (aoubt 20 years before he died and about 60yrs old at the time), again, similar to Eden. So, I still don't see what's different in B-P and Eden. It all seems to hinge on what one considers "significantly different". However, I do support a brief explanation of this near the top of the article as very few people people outside of Britain/Australia/etc will understand it. Geez, there's even been dispute among British people as to his proper title. Rlevse 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for this view; in particular, this "dispute" over his proper title. I'm not aware of any dispute, nor any confusion. His title is clearly in wide use. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Try 40 years of being involved in Scouting in the USA. Again, I'm not arguing his proper peerage title, just what how I've commonly seen him referred to. This usage is clearly in wide use. Personally, I like "Lord Robert Baden-Powell of Gilwell", but I think you said before that is not proper peerage titling-;) Rlevse 00:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the BSA website does refer to Lord Baden-Powell quite often. I've done some surfing, and I see there is a very active Wikipedia project on the peerage, and they take a robust interest in how these people and the articles about them are titled. It's quite common for non-project people to think the titles are silly and rename the pages to drop the titles. In turn, the project members always revert the changes. Silly as the policy might seem to some of us, it has significant backing. Also surfing around, it doesn't take long to notice that Proteus has often been rude to other Wikipedia contributors. Zaian 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

BSA uses it indeed, but Mackensen says "Lord Baden-Powell" is not correct. I also noticed Proteus is often rude (by my surfing around) and I've also noticed he's conspciuously absent from most of this discussion. I'm thinking Mackensen may have been asking about refs for him being made a Baron/Lord later in life. If so, I'll look for it. His title may indeed be in wide use, but B-P and Baden-Powell are in even wider use. Rlevse 00:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Baden-Powell is in wide use. So is Lord Baden-Powell (which, as I've said before, is the less formal way of denoting Baron Baden-Powell, his formal and correct title). It can be said that he has two names. As a side note, it's also considered rude, or at least bad form, to suddenly move a page that has been sitting in the same place (and, by most accounts, the right place) for quite a long time. We're interested in having these articles in the right place because it looks professional (in fact, we're better and more consistent about it than the paper encyclopedias, see Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia#Titles of Scottish peers for an example). I know this seems trivial, but it's about getting someone's legal name right. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

First Hit On Google brings us: "For his services to the nation and to international scouting, Baden-Powell was knighted in 1909 and created a baron in 1929." So, I was close. He was born in 1857, so he was 72 when he became a Baron. Rlevse 00:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Per Two Lives of a Hero, he was knighted on 3 Oct 1909 (pp 298-299) and received the KCB in November (p 300). The peerage was conferred during the Third World Jamboree on 1 Aug 1929 (p 381); also see [6].

The B-P bio that I'm slogging through right now has an appendix showing both KCB and KCVO in '09 (I don't know how one is knighted a month before being given the initials) among 37 medals, decorations, knighthoods and other orders, plus six honorary degrees (so I think the "Awards" section of our article needs some work).  It also says:

- Baronetcy (1922)

- Peerage: barony (1929)

so that accounts for rlevse's confusion.  Now I'm confused too.  The book text says B-P was awarded his baronetcy in 1920 (not 1922 as the appendix says; the appendix looks like it was poorly edited), but he was "ennobled" and granted a peerage in 1929.  After some Web browsing including Wikipedia and Onelook.com, I think baronet is a sir but not a noble, and ranks between knight and baron; a baron is a noble but not necessarily a peer or a lord; and a peer is always a lord.

Working my way backward through the conversation...

Mackensen wrote: "Proteus is quite right to put it back where it's supposed to be. This should have gone through Requested Moves."  Fair enough, let's take note of the protocol so people won't get drawn into multiple "ruffled feathers" modes next time.  But Proteus (if you're listening), you could've noted the Wikipedia Project Scouting banner and conversed civilly with the project coordinator off line or here before hitting the big red button.

I agree with Zaian that this could be a test of the "policy" that Mackensen contributed to.  It's a lottle confusing.  In addition to the naming conventions link above, there's Wikiproject Peerage ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage ), written by Proteus with off-line consultation with Mackensen after Proteus tried to get a vote and the other talk contributors disappeared, and a separate Peerage page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage ) that seems to be older but still kicking around.

Just for fun, has anyone ever searched the Web for "the many names of baden-powell"?  There are a lot of hits.  This short, nonauthoratative essay shows up in a lot of them: http://members.aol.com/randywoo/bsahis/hist.htm#Names .

- Kkken 12:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Many excellent points today. I'll call us the "Scouting" group and the "Peerage" group for simplicity's sake. I want to remind everyone there was a consensus by the Scouting group prior to the first move (which I did not make). It was only then that the Peerage group became active and moved it back, with no discussion at all. At least the Scouting group talked first and at least Mackensen is now talking to us. I will agree a Request for Move would have been a better route for the Scouting group, but so would have participating in the discussion in the beginning by the Peerage group. That being said, I'll mull things over a bit more. Rlevse 17:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with the above; the policy has been in place for over two years. This isn't some new thing in need of "testing." The full naming conventions are here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names. The "Peerage Group" (we prefer, if anything, the appellation "Team Peerage") was responsible for the article being in the correct location in the first place. You really should have read up on the naming convention before moving it.

Allow me to clarify other points. Proteus wrote what appears on Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage based on what had developed as established practice over the past two-three years. If you peruse the talk page you can get a sense of what went into this. This shouldn't be confused with the actual article on the Peerage, although it was written by many of the same people. The former is the collaborative effort to standardize peerage practices, and is meant for internal consumption, the latter is an actual encyclopedia article (one of thousands which relate to the British peerage).

A baronet is not a noble nor a knight. A baronetcy is a hereditary honour which grants the holder the privilege to be addressed "Sir." A baron is a noble, and a peer, and thus in the more general sense is a lord (except for Scottish barons, but that's a whole other matter). Nobles below the rank of Duke (Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron) may be informally referred to as Lord so-and-so.

Allow me to stress that I regret we all got off on the wrong foot, but that any article on a peer generally falls within the concern and interest of the Peerage Project. There isn't any notice to that effect on the talk page here because we've been at this before such practices existed and it seemd superfluous. By definition, any peer is subject to the naming conventions which we devised and the community endorsed. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to think that this is a storm in a teacup and that we should follow the WikiExperts on peerage. Having said that, I was born in England and spent nearly 40 years there, while most people commenting seem to not come from the UK. It seems to me that the full technical term "Baron" is hardly ever used. The first three Chief Scouts were always known as Lord Baden-Powell, Lord Somers and Lord Rowallan, respectively. I agree that nobles below the rank of Duke can be refered to as Lord, but such referal is less common. Earls are generally called "the Earl of X". In contrast, Barons are almost always called "Lord X". I would prefer the title to be "Lord Baden-Powell of Gilwell" which is how he is most frequently refered to formally. But, as I said, let the peerage experts have their way, even though I think it is over-pedantic. --Bduke 21:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mackensen--by saying it was already in the "correct" place you're assuming that B-P's case does not fall into the exception group as Anthony Eden does, which an excellent case has been made for and that your titling is correct, which even people with British backgrounds don't agree on. But I shouldn't be surprised when B-P is apparently "1st Baron" but Diana isn't "#th Princess of Wales", just "Princess of Wales"-even though she's been dead 9 years, but a King is "George #th". So, yes, I must agree with Bduke that you're being overly pedantic and presumptuous. As for any peer article falling into the Peerage group....any article on a Scout or Scouter falls into the Scouting group, so what makes your views override ours? Is it because he's got a royal title and royalty rules over eveyone and everything else? Because you wrote rules down? We have our Rules and Standards page too. It simple boggles my mind that you want "1st Baron" in the title when he's hardly ever called that. I also find it very interesting that you said you're an American and you're the only one from Team Peerage discussing this, a British peerage issue. B-P got his title from Scouting and that's how his article should be titled, based on Scouting. This is end of my discussion on this. Rlevse 23:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not done discussing the matter. I think you misunderstand my role in this. First and perhaps foremost, it's not "my view." It's the naming conventions, which are part of the manual of style and therefore site-wide policy. It's not a question of one project trumping another, it's a question of coming up with a good reason why the naming convention should be overturned in this case.

Now, allow me to address your other points. Baden-Powell was a hereditary peer, which means his title can be inherited. This means there can (and is) more than one Baron (or Lord) Baden-Powell in history. In fact, there have been three thus far, and the third baron is also called Robert (Robert Baden-Powell, 3rd Baron Baden-Powell). Diana was styled "Princess of Wales" because she was married to Prince Charles, Prince of Wales. That was not a hereditary title. Baden-Powell's wife was styled "Lady Baden-Powell" for the same reason.

The next point is that Baden-Powell's title is noble, not royal. I thought that was clear from the start. It's important not to confuse the two.

As to your third point, the only reason half a dozen other editors haven't descended upon this page to tell you the same thing is because I haven't asked them to and they haven't noticed the goings-on here. If you really want, I can ask John Kenney, Lord Emsworth, Dbiv, Deb, Newprogressive, and bunch of others to show up and repeat what I'm saying, but I've found it's easier to carry on a one-on-one discussion.

The only issue which really concerns us here is whether the exception under the naming conventions applies. To clarify, there are two possible article titles, and only two: Robert Baden-Powell and Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. The former, as I've noted, is ambiguous: it could refer to the third baron. Also, as I've demonstrated, he's well-known by his peerage title which argues for that title's inclusion in the article title. The only cases when the naming convention exception kicks in is when a person is simply not referred to by their title. Good cases are Anthony Eden, Bertrand Russell, and Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh. Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. Just to note my agreement with Mackensen on most of this. I thought I'd try to re-explain the peerage naming policy, to see if I can get more understanding. Contrary to what Bduke says, peers below the rank of Duke are most normally called simply "Lord X". Looking at 19th century prime ministers, we talk about "Lord Palmerston," "Lord Salisbury," and so forth. For my dissertation, I'm currently looking at the memoirs of Lord Augustus Loftus, the British ambassador to Austria in the mid-19th century. He refers to the Foreign Secretaries to whom he reported as Lord Clarendon and Lord Malmesbury. He also alternately refers to his colleague in Paris as Lord Cowley and Earl Cowley, with the former more common. That said, barons, in particular, are unique in being pretty much always called "Lord X," and almost never "Baron X". Nevertheless, it was determined that it would make the most sense to use "#th Baron X," rather than "#th Lord X", because, I think the latter format is kind of an odd combination of formal and informal. So, at any rate, as Mackensen said, there are essentially two options for Lord Baden-Powell. If he is commonly known as "Lord Baden-Powell," he goes at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. If he is not commonly known as "Lord Baden-Powell" he goes at Robert Baden-Powell. Unlike Mackensen, I don't really think that Robert Baden-Powell is sufficiently ambiguous as to that being a real obstacle to naming the article that. That is simply a matter of normal disambiguation, and this Robert Baden-Powell is clearly much more well known than his great-grandson. But, I think it is demonstrably true that he is quite frequently referred to as "Lord Baden-Powell." As such, our naming policies say "he goes at 'Firstname Surname, #th Baron X'". Obviously, when the peerage title is the same as the surname, this looks a bit silly, but it is nevertheless our policy. See Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener, Conrad Russell, 5th Earl Russell, and so forth for similar examples. john k 17:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)