Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation[edit]

This page serves virtualy no purpose but to smear the founder of Scouting. If this page remains it will set a precedent for other people create pages containing nothing but speculation on long dead people's sexual activity. Such pages would include how Mohamed raped Aisha, and how John Lennon had sex with his mother (and no I'm not going to write that about Lennon).

grazon 04:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Before you call this article a WP:POVFORK, look here, at the section called 'On his sexual orientation' in the main article for Robert Baden-Powell. You can see that the topic is summarized concisely in the main article, and that the article under nomination is linked from the main article as a spinout due to length. After looking at that, and maybe at the discussion on the main article talk page, if you still want to say it's a POV fork, be my guest. :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Why so much detail? Why isn't the short statement in the article enough? How much information do we need on something like a person's sex. orientation? I think this much is too much. --DanielCD 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too much information isn't part of the deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an old comment of mine. But yes, there are situations where too much information can turn an article into crap, regardless of what the policy says. Quality writing/communication of information involves knowing what to leave out as well as what to put in. In fact, the whole idea of writing anything involves defining what you are trying to say, and to say we should just add all the information we can means to throw out the definintions. Articles are crammed with crap all the time, and the concequence is that they become unreadable garbage. I'm glad I'm not crass crass enough to put some of these assumptions to the test. --DanielCD 21:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And another thing to set the record straight: I'm tired of people taking my comments and trying to imply that I'm wanting to delete legitimate info., as that is not what I've said anywhere. I simply can't fathom that people don't understand the concept of economy. --DanielCD 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I hate these sorts of revisionist smear articles. Also, this may be a POV-fork from the Robert Baden-Powell main article. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Comment: It's only a "smear" if you assume that any variation in sexual orientation is a bad thing. I don't believe this to be the editorial position of Wikipedia. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: everything in context. I believe, in context, that reducing the founding of the Boy Scouts to the alleged pedophilia of its creator is a smear. I suppose others may disagree; pedophilia is not normative in our society, however. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Keep Fairly written article exploring a controversy, with a number of sources. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Accusing someone long dead of having a sexual attraction to children is revisionist smear. Or are child molesters just another "variation in sexual orientation"?grazon 05:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have some facts to back up that Baden-Powell was a "child molester (sic)"?? Carlossuarez46 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an NPOV discussion of a significant set of studies of Baden-Powell. However, it might be better merged in his article. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as above.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Well-sourced compilation of research on a controversial topic, but should probably be in the main article. Night Gyr 07:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Appears to cite sources and is NPOV, doesn't appear to original research either. Too long to merge into main article but seems to stand alone well enough. - SimonLyall 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . It does not appear to be a personal attack, and while some are opposed to homosexuality, there is no valid reason why that alone should be a criterion for deletion. TNLTRPB 08:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What part of Child Molester isn't getting through to people?
  • Delete Why do we care if he was a closet gay or not? His sexuality was his business not mine. The rest of the article about his supposed attraction to youths seems largely unsourced. Jcuk 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge into Robert Baden-Powell if desired; it can't be left like this, as it's a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I didn't do my homework; specifically, I didn't look at the relevant debate on the Baden-Powell talk page. I don't think there's actually a POV dispute; no one disputes that Jeal wrote this book and that the assertions that are in the nominated article are drawn directly from that book as sourced. The article is summarized in the main work and linked to therefrom. Therefore, changing my vote to Keep as is, which is to say a reasonable article branch due to length, not as a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As per Ikkyu2, POV forks must not be left as standalone articles. However large the main article is, this does not warrant its own article. Having an article about someone's sexual orientation because they may have been homosexual is a POV decision in itself; where are the articles about people who are purportedly heterosexual? Do not encourage POV forking. Proto||type 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been asked to re-examine my vote. I have done so. I stick with merge, the differences of opinions being expressed here alone is enough to conclusively prove that this is a POV fork. Proto||type 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no need to delete. After reading Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell I am convinced that the article is not a POV fork; its creation was debated extensively and the consensus was to split the content. Someone immediately proposed a merge and was overwhelmingly shot down. And now it's on AfD? Please. Melchoir 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A POV fork is a POV fork, even if there was a consensus to create said POV fork. A bad precedent to create these articles. Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
This article does not present a POV different from its main article, and if anything it seems to be an attempt to de-emphasize the subject in the main article. It was not intended as a POV fork and it doesn't look like a POV fork. The principle that really bugs me here is that AfD is being used as a super-consensus that trumps the ordinary consensus without even understanding it. I don't mean to insult, but it is clear to me that the voters previous to me were not aware of the origin of this article. Melchoir 19:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Jcuk and ikkyu2. -- Kjkolb 11:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, as it appears that it is a well-sourced view that has been split off because some people are uncomfortable with it. If they wish, they should provide their own evidence disputing the position. -- Kjkolb 05:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As I am the user who originally gathered and posted the material in the main Baden-Powell page (and then consented to the POV fork so as not to have an unbalanced article, since a fair synopsis was left behind), I have some thoughts on this matter. First of all, it is the farthest thing from my mind to "smear" Baden-Powell or his memory. As I already expressed on the talk page of the main article, this kind of analysis does not "smear" the man, it makes him more real, and humanizes him. "Revisionism" is what historians do, as our base of information grows. The material was carefully sourced, it is based on the authoritative biography of the man, and the theme of his homoerotic attractions (coupled with his misogyny) has been shown to run strong throughout his entire life. This is not some chance apocrypha blown out of proportion, indeed I could have written an article twice the size and adduced much more relevant information, had I had the time. But this suffices. Now, however, not only are the Scouts here not happy with having removed the "incriminating" material to a separate article, they are trying to further mask it by burying it into an unnecessary "book review" article when what is of encyclopaedic interest here is NOT a book review but the homosexual leanings of a man who founded the greatest youth organization in the world (the American branch of which has turned homophobic and militantly religious). Thus what needs to be deleted is the book review article itself, and this article on his homoerotic inclination preserved. Haiduc 12:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your additional input. FYI, this can't be speedied while there are any dissenting opinions outstanding. -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Should not have been forked in the first place. David | Talk 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not POV fork and original research. --Terence Ong 14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I can't see why this isn't part of the Robert Baden-Powell article both metaphorically as it surely should be in that article though with length reduced, and also literally as I can't load the relevant talk page due to work network restrictions. Whatever can be sourced and NPOV'd should be in the main Baden-Powell article. MLA 14:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after pruning of more wild accusations. --MacRusgail 15:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the non-gossip content into the main article. Homosexuality is not a smear. Changing vote to Keep as per the arguments put forward by Rlevse Vizjim 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual attraction to underage males is approaching a smear though. --MacRusgail 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Proto. And the people shouting "child molester" need to look up "molest" in a dictionary. It does not refer to having an attraction to someone (or a class of someones). Carolynparrishfan 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the sourced content. Merge only if the "pruning" makes this aritcle incredibly short. It just shouldn't take up this much space in the main article. That would be much more of a de facto POV fork than having a subarticle. Its only smear if you think that being gay is a scandal. As an Eagle Scout I am not offended. We shouldn't have articles on everyone's sexual orientation, but some instances seem obviously notable. Lincoln comes to mind. Baden-Powell would meet that level of notability as well. After rereading the article and some of the comments here, I'm convinced a merge would be inappropriate. savidan(talk) (e@) 16:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative research POV fork on non-notable issue. Weregerbil 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by speculative research you mean extensively sourced from secondary reviews, by POV you mean that no one has actually raised a POV issue, and by non-notable you mean that books have been written on it... then yes. Melchoir 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This was heavily debated on the talk page of the article on Baden-Powell and the consenus was to have the separate article with a summary in the main article. The book review page should stay too, it simply needs expanded into coverage of the full book, not just 5% of the book. After the fork from the main article, a merge was proposed and shot down quickly. Merging the content back into the B-P main article would simply reignite an already debated issue. This sexuality article is not a POV fork. Just so everyone knows, I am Scout leader and I am obviously NOT trying to bury the entire issue. My feelings are: the book review should cover the whole book, the sexuality article should stay where it is because no one can conclusively prove he was a homosexual--it's all second guessing and supposition, and the summary on his orientation should stay in the main article.Rlevse 16:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My son and I are BOTH EAGLE SCOUTS and my views on this afd have nothing to do with BSA's current policies. Rlevse 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am in agreement with Rlevse, and I retract my previous statement that the fork was POV. I do not think that was the main factor, but the disproportionate length of the discussion in comparison with the whole article. Merging would be a mistake. Haiduc 16:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep the article is well sourced and well written and THIS Eagle Scout also feels as though the content is highly relevant considering the Scouts' current policy discriminating against young gay men. It is not a smear, and certainly not 'revisionism'. CaveatLector 16:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. I'm so sick of this nonsense. Look, people, there was a lot of talk over on the main Baden-Powell article, and it was decided by everybody, and there were more than a few users involved, that this was the best way to handle things. So now you, a bunch of users who haven't been involved with the main article, who haven't spent substantial time editing it, are going to say that you have a better understanding than those people who have? Jeez. -Seth Mahoney 16:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every wikipedia user brings a different perspective to the table, Seth. Some of us know little about Scouting (I was only Second Class myself), but we have spent time learning about the Wikipedia deletion policies and processes. Sometimes that perspective can be just as valuable in a deletion discussion as that of the editors involved in the creation of the articles. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete whatever his orientation, there is no need for a separate article. We dont have Winston Churchill's sexual orientation or George Michael's sexual orientation, etc etc ::Supergolden:: 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people who actually worked on both articles disagree. Are you disputing their reasons or are you unaware of them? Melchoir 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because the facts of this article can be found in the Robert Baden-Powell main article. (The rest of this has nothing to do with why it should be deleted.) IMO, this article just adds some pretty sleazy and meanspirited insinuations which would easily be libelous if the man weren't dead. Baden-Powell grew up in Victorian England, attended a public boarding school, and served in the British Army for much of his life. That kind of life would make any man seem a little odd from a contemporary viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianGCrawfordMA (talk • contribs) 09:47, 27 February 2006.
    • Yes, many of the facts can be found in the main article, because that's where they came from. Have you wondered why? And, "sleazy and meanspirited"? Did you read past the title? Would you make that accusation to the faces of the contributors who wrote it? Melchoir 19:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Merging would likely over-balance the main article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that is a smear is not supportable. The content comes largely from the book by Jeal, which is very well researched. I agree with User:Haiduc that this gives us a more rounded view of B-P and allows us to respect him as someone who is truly human, who faced challenges about his sexuality and lived honourably with them. To many people he is a hero and they can not face up to the fact he had weaknesses. There has been much debate about this among those who have contributed to the article on Baden-Powell. They reached a difficult consensus. To delete it or merge it back into the main article would be against that consensus. --Bduke 21:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --Colonel Cow 21:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, I shouldn't have voted so quickly. Keep, actually, per the wishes of the editors (note talk page). --Colonel Cow 22:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for reconsidering. Melchoir 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: claiming he was gay is one thing claiming he had a thing for little boys is smear and that is what the author is claiming.
  • This is so irrelevant, but look: Claiming he "had a thing for little boys" is not smear if it is true. -Seth Mahoney 21:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: and this book just happens to be published in a decade when homosexuals are having "issues" with the BSA? The authors have an agenda and it is not to just write about Baden-Powell.
  • Again, so irrelevant, but look: Agenda or not is irrelevant as far as determining the truth of the claim is concerned. Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end. -Seth Mahoney 21:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is getting rather unclear. That 'homosexuals are having "issues" with the BSA' is POV. You could just as well say that 'the BSA are having "issues" with homosexuals' - an issue that Scouting in Canada, Australia and Europe do not have. If the "author" refered to is Jeal, the author of a well researched biography, then he had no view on the BSA issues. He is British I believe and wrote the book before the BSA issues came to a head with Dale. You can not sensibly call the conclusions of a well researched biographer a "smear". It is clear that Jeal had no such intention in writing his book. --Bduke 22:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • * Comment: Yeah I could have phrased it the other way but that would have beeen POV as well.
And I checked into when Jeal's book was published and you're right.
I don't know why I thought it had been published within the last five years.
Was there are large # of articles that sited the book as proof that Baden-Powell was a child molester published in the last four ::years? 132.241.245.49 22:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a difference between being a child molester and being attracted to boys. The article (and book) is claiming the latter, not necessarily the former. We should be careful with our wording in order to be very sure that people who swing by this page and drop off an impulse vote know what they're voting about. -Seth Mahoney 22:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do not believe there have been articles suggesting he was a child molector. Let me make one point very clear. The article we are discussing does NOT say that Baden-Powell was a child molester. Jeal does not say that either. --Bduke 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there a term for someone who gets sexual joy from viewing nude photographs of children? 132.241.245.49 22:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pedophile' would be one such term. Note that this is still different from 'child molester'. -Seth Mahoney 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok then 'Pedophile' is what I should have said instead of 'child molester'. 132.241.245.49 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though I'm not even sure the claim being made was that strong. -Seth Mahoney 22:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? 132.241.245.49 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article up for deletion? While it notes that some authors have raised the question of pedophilia/pederasty, others suggest the possibility of a latent pedophilia, possibly not even something RBP was aware of on a sexual level, and still others describe him as a repressed homosexual, an even less restricted category. Like I said, I'm not even sure that the article is quite making the claim "RBP was a pedophile". -Seth Mahoney 23:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jeal claims B.P. was attracted to Kenneth McLaren because he looked like a boy of 14.

BTW [1] it looks like the book was reprinted in 2001. 132.241.245.49 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it's not a POV fork, why can't this information be in the main article? Why can't the main article simply say, "Baden-Powell was most likely a homosexual..." etc.? The fact that there is a felt need to move this material strikes me as odd. We don't have Abraham Lincoln's Sexual Orientation even though creating such an article would have solved an edit war at the Abraham Lincoln page a year ago. Again, a terrible precedent-- work it out on the main page. 199.111.227.177Please Don't Block
Have you actually looked at the main article? The information is concisely summarized there in a couple of paragraphs, and a link to the article currently under AfD nomination is present there too. That makes this a spinoff article due to length, not a POV fork. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a terrible precedent to follow Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles? Melchoir 04:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The Wiki guideline you quoted says: "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious." Now, read the article up for afd and the talk on the main article. This is exactly what occurred: the new article was created to keep the main one harmonious and per the guide this is perfectly legit as long as all POVs are represented in the new article. As for the case in question, I'm fine with that. Rlevse 08:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would shout amen, except... "not necessarily"? What, are the guidelines usually a bad idea? So... confused... Melchoir 09:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he read, "It's a terrible precedent to follow the spinout summary style articles," as a statement, not a question.  Your question mark at the end kind of got buried between the end of your long link and your sig.  Would that unconfuse the confusion? - Kkken 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:POVFORK. -- Krash (Talk) 16:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been over this. Melchoir 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's well written, well documented, and clearly important. GRuban 17:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm against merging because the s.o. article is so long that the rest of the B-P bio article would have to be made nearly book length to keep it properly proportional.  I'm against deleting for some different reasons than those given so far, though.  One is that I see two arguments going on at cross purposes here: (a) What should the s.o. article say? and (b) Should the article exist?  IMHO, "a" is more suited to the s.o. article's talk page than this AfD page, but that can't happen if the article is deleted.  Also, I answered the challenge in earlier discussions to read the 670-page biography that the s.o. theme depended so heavily on.  Although the book is "sympathetic" and well researched, and thoroughly dismantles all the bios that have accused B-P of outright homosexuality or whatever, its own psychobabbly conclusion of "repressed" homosexuality is easily countered using information provided in the book itself.  Unless the last 80 pages have a surprise in store for me, I'm going to submit a rewrite of the s.o. section in the B-P bio article, with a very different story line (but not till I get back from ski week).  However, I'm only interested in the B-P article.  After my rewrite proposal for the s.o. section in it, others might want to discuss the s.o. article's content on its own talk page–and again, that can only happen if the article hasn't been deleted. - Kkken 00:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not directed to anyone in particular, as it has been said several times that this should be decided on the talk page. I think that in this case, deciding the article's fate here, or some other location, is appropriate because decisions should always be subject to review, otherwise we would not be able to rectify bad ones. -- Kjkolb 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a separate issue, I think that his sexual orientation as described in the article is as a pedophile or ephebophile, not a homosexual. The fact that the person is attracted to a sexually immature person is what is most important, not the sex of the other person. A man attracted to young girls or a woman to young boys would not be called a heterosexual, at least not as a complete description. I mention it here instead of the talk page as it has not been satisfactorily resolved there (the main article's talk page), but the talk page should be the place for further discussion. -- Kjkolb 14:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest delete Unencyclopedic material. To start making articles on the variancies of individual peoples' sex lives is nonsensical. People, get a grip. --DanielCD 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DanielCD above. Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete content covered in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. This level of detail is not needed and is unencyclopedic in nature. FloNight 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article length, NPOV, needs to be said... all these things are irrelevant. The issue here is more fundamental than any of this. If it doesn't fit into the main article, even if it is in no way a POV-fork, it's still not encyclopedic. It also opens up doors to people making all kinds of goofy articles I leave to the imaginiation. And no, the already stressed deletion/AfD system can't just be left to sort them out. I'd prefer not to let this buck get passed. --DanielCD 17:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment I am not sure I understand your "If it doesn't fit into the main article, even if it is in no way a POV-fork, it's still not encyclopedic." I am sure you are not questioning the practice of spinning off sections which are overlarge. That is the only reason it was spun off, as far as I am concerned. As for the material not being encyclopaedic, I beg to differ. In today's intellectual environment is it of the greatest interest to examine closely the habits and motives of our ancestors, especially (and unfortunately) when it comes to the sexuality of important figures who are role models in today's world. Many scholars have studied and written about the sexuality of Lincoln, or Alexander the Great, and there is no argument in scholarly circles that there is value in that research - as opposed to, say, the sexuality of Lincoln's chambermaid. If Jeal (and other scholars) focus at great length on the erotic motivations and impulses of the founder of the Boy Scouts, who are we to claim that this research is irrelevant, and should be kept out of encyclopaedias?! Forgive me Daniel, I have a lot of respect for your work here, but I think you are the one who is passing the buck with this approach, and promoting a culture of denial. Haiduc 17:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I mean fit as to both size and relevance. You can get overdetailed on some things, and I simply believe that this is a case of that. If we are squeezing in so many details that they need to spill out, perhaps some should be pruned rather than making a new article on something so specific.
sexuality of Lincoln, or Alexander the Great: Are you serious? Look, I understand what you are saying here, but make me a case that this guy is that important. Would you make an article on George Bush's sex life? This is not an historical figure. No one said anything about it being irrelevant. Examining the sexual habits of our "role-models" is just not something I agree is productive. Cuture of denial? That isn't my intention here, and I hope it's not taken that way. About passing the buck, I mean in the sense of not passing it to the Wikideletion system have to deal with articles popping up on every Jim, Jake and Bob's sex life because this could set a prescendent.
I don't mean it's irrelevant or unimportant; I don't mean to imply that at all. I know this is important to some of you and likely to many others as well. I just think it can be reconceptualized a bit. Perhaps an article on the controversy overall around this guy? I'd need to read into it with more detail, but I hope you can see what I mean. Instead of gearing it to be about so-and-so's sex orientation, how about "So-and-so and the Scouts" or "The So-and-so Controversy" or something that is not quite so focused and in which some other material could be added to round out the subject.
Believe me, I'm not trying to censor or deny anything. I'm just trying to help make it fit better into the encyclopedia as a whole. I mean the concept of the article is unencyclopedic, not the content. I changed my vote to a simple delete.
All this is beside the point as to whether it is POV or not; I haven't given that aspect much thought up to now. That's why I said POV or not; the concept is what I'm questioning, as well as possibly undue weight. --DanielCD 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's incomprehensible to me that we could delete material for being too detailed. Wikipedia articles are meant to grow. Once a subject is notable enough for an article, he is notable enough for as many sub-articles as the sources will support. You say " make me a case that this guy is that important". So you think he's just important enough for mediocre coverage, and that's it? Melchoir 21:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said either guys. An encyclopedia gives an overview, and yes, there is some information that will have to be sacrificed. You can't fit the entire world in here and have a book for every article. Why don't we have a description of Abraham Lincoln's fingernails? It's valid info, right? It's the truth. And yes, there are levels of importance among individuals. This guy is not going to get the same level of coverage as Napoleon. People go to Books for information in this kind of detail, not to an Encyclopedia. --DanielCD 21:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If he doesn't get the same level of coverage as Napoleon, it can only be due to either lack of interest or an overabundance of people who think like you. People go to books for this kind of detail only because we haven't provided it yet. Melchoir 21:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I flatly disagree with that. I hate to break your heart, but this isn't a book-writing project. The preferred sizze to article is 30kb or less. And they have info trimmed from them all the time to make them fit. Info is frequently not thrown out, but it is rephrased or reworded. The articles aren't meant to grow forever. --DanielCD 21:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trimming articles is not the only way. Or shall we list Wikipedia:How to break up a page and Wikipedia:Summary style for deletion? More relevantly, shall we eliminate Wiki is not paper? "The purpose of a normal encyclopedia is to provide the reader a brief overview of the subject, while a reference book or text book can explain the details. Wikipedia can do both." No one is forcing you to increase the depth of Wikipedia articles, but I have a big problem with deletion of in-depth content just because. Melchoir 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one ever said that either. My point is to use judgement, and all those policies assume people will. Why don't we nominate five hundred articles a day to the AID, even though only one can be reviewed in a week?. Nothing says we can't. And this case is not even a wish-washy one. To add too much detail can turn an article into shit. --DanielCD 22:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Judgement? You don't like articles on individuals' sexualities. That's just too bad. This article does not violate any policies, and it is a positive addition to Wikipedia with great potential. Melchoir 22:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me? I'm not sure where you are getting this "don't like articles on individuals' sexualities" stuff from. And no one is talking about violating policies. I'm bugging out ot this conversation as it has gone out o a limb and I think the limb has just broken off. My point never ever was to delete anything but the title concept. My point is to re-conceptualize this article - something with which I can't fathom why anyone would have a problem with. But I'm not going to get hostile over it. If it's deleted, the world won't explode, and if it's kept, my brain won't melt. Have a nice day. --DanielCD 00:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re-conceptualize? You voted "Strongest delete". Where am I getting "don't like articles on individuals' sexualities"? You said "To start making articles on the variancies of individual peoples' sex lives is nonsensical." I don't make this stuff up. Melchoir 02:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't continue to micro-explain every word I say. It just goes on and on. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or anything, I just think our debate has peetered out in its usefulness. I yield, sir. --DanielCD 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the encyclopaedic content of this article amounts to "two people have speculated on latent homosexuality despite his being married and father of three children." It's a POV fork as stated above. It's also based on speculation, albeit apparently well-informed. The correct way to deal with this content is to include a suitably neutral statement in the main article - exactly as we decided recently in respect of Jack Hyles and the associated controversy fork. Just zis Guy you know? 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a POV fork, and reviewing published material isn't speculation. So it needs more sources; doesn't (almost) every article start with just one? Melchoir 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV Fork at worst, undue weight at best. cmh 20:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC) changing my vote see below cmh 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankfully it isn't a POV fork. It would be undue weight if it were merged, but not if it's kept. Melchoir 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's not a POV-fork. But giving so much weight to a person's sexual orientation is too much focus (IMHO). Please note my comments above regarding re-conceptualizing. --DanielCD 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a Content fork, even if it isn't a POV fork, and those are bad too. Let's talk about BP on his own page. If its too long to accomodate this information then that is a signal about this information's importance so lets get rid of it. My previous vote stands. cmh 21:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Let's talk about BP on his own page": That's an awesome idea. It's been done. Melchoir 21:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I didn't communicate clearly. My point is that BP's sexual orientation is material for the BP page. I am not referring to discussion on editing BP entries, I am referring to my opinion that the page in question should be deleted because the material belongs in a different entry on Wikipedia (and in fact is present there already). cmh 22:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, sorry. What do you mean by "If its too long to accomodate this information then that is a signal about this information's importance so lets get rid of it"?? Melchoir 22:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I take it that one reason the BP page doesn't have all this info in it right now is because it was perceived as bloating the BP page. My point is that if it was bloat on the main page, it's bloat on its own page. Therefore we can do without it.cmh 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has any ever heard of subpages from main articles? That's what this is. Rlevse 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any discussion that isn't on this page isn't relevant. This is where the debate is guys. --DanielCD 22:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Undue weight --Ryan Delaney talk 22:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean? I assume by "undue weight" you aren't agreeing with the decision to split this content from the main article in the first place? Melchoir 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - oppose merge on the basis of "undue weight" (it would swamp the parent article) but it appears encyclopaedia. Guettarda 23:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging it into the parent article isn't the issue. I suggest no one use the term "undue weight" anymore as it's deliberately being interpreted in a fashion that is clearly not its intent. It's undue weight in the sense of overfocusing overdetailing something that could easily be reconcieved into a better package. --DanielCD 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ad infinitum We should drop the whole thing simply because this conversation is not worth the space it is taking up. But, as a couple of closing thoughts . . . different time periods will have different perspectives on what is encyclopaedic and what is not. The ancients would be laughing themselves silly over this whole to-do. "What is the big deal," I can hear them say, "the fellow obviously loved boys more than anything else in the world, gave his life to them, and for some reason kept his hands off them. And did not care much for women and only put up with them when he had to. What else is new, he's just like us!" But we are not among the ancients, we live in a real culture of denial, one that has disneyfied a complex and very bright man into some paragon of modern middle class virtue, when really he belongs much more among the ancients than among us. This has led several top notch historians to put great effort into debunking that myth.
The reason Jelks and (presumably) Rosenthal felt obligated to dwell at such length on this topic is because it is counterintuitive to most readers and thus instinctively dismissed, for reasons I will not go into over here, but having to do with the natural conservatism of most people. Thus if you are going to present such an eccentric point of view, you better be able to back it up. They, who know the topic better than any of us, obviously felt they could back it up. For us to casually mention the outcome of their research, without summarizing the argument in enough detail to convey its strength, cheats them and the reader of their due.
Than being said, I share your discomfort with the apparently prurient nature of the article. I would not object to changing the title. But how to make it encyclopaedic and easily findable? And how to get away from the clinical terminology without obfuscating the point that it is his erotic drive that raised him to greatness? We could call it Baden-Powell and pedagogic eros or some such, but that begins to look like original research. You suggest discussing general controversies about him. But I am only aware of this one. The Scouts will not be pleased to have all this land back into the main article, and I too think it is a bit too thin to accomodate lengthy discussions. What to do? Haiduc 03:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are dealing with a kind of unique situation here. As long as we can make a caveat that this person's sexuality was important to this historical organization, it might be ok. We can try to work together, all on the same side of this, and brainstorm and see what ideas we can come up with. How about "Homosexuality and Scouting"? Perhaps too broad? Let's make a new section below and see if we can't better define this event happening before us. --DanielCD 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it seems people want to keep this crap but get rid of anything questioning Hitler's sexual orientation.
  • Keep It's long enough to stay on its own, but the sourcing, POV, and writing needs to be improved, but that can be delt with later. Crumbsucker 09:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like this a lot. It should be expanded, actually, if possible. Encourage expansion of content on notable subjects, including breaking off content into subarticles where it is appropriate. Obviously people on the "delete" side are coming at this from two directions: some think it is excessive information (deletionism), and some people suspect POV in the basic nature of the article. I don't think either is correct. Deletionism is a worthless philosophy for reasons that have been stated and restated; the POV issue is irrelevant to me, because I figure you could branch out articles on several other aspects of the man's life, if you had enough information to work from and it was in a notable context. I'm not going to have a bias against this because it deals with a controversy; it's only natural controversial stuff gets the most attention. If I'm trying to grow a garden I'm not going to go and pull up the first plant that sprouts because it got things looking uneven by sprouting earlier than the rest: some things will get done sooner, some will get done later, and some will never get done. Everyking 10:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-conceptualize Changing my vote from delete, as I don't see that as quite the point. I think it should be considered that, while intentions here may be noble, having an article purely on (or at least titled) a person's sexual orientation would lead to others making articles with much less noble intentions, and would simply like to make a plea to giving some thought to that aspect. I'm not sure what to suggest. --DanielCD 14:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its sufficently long and informative that it can not be merged to his article. JeffBurdges 16:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination is POV...why should only the straight, and in some people's point of view good be written about Baden-Powell. So he was gay, and the millions-strong organization he founded frowns on that orientation. Seems encyclopedic to me. The censorship of this article would be a smear on homosexuals: should we all live in the closet to please the nominator? Carlossuarez46 18:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I still think this is a content fork (non-POV), but don't want to give the idea that I think the material is unencyclopedic. I just think that a balanced treatment of this issue should be read along with the core biographical information on his life. If this information was located in a broader article treating the issue of homosexuality in scouting I might feel differently. But I think that biographical information on BP is best placed on the BP page to put it in the proper context. I do not feel that bidirectional linking is strong enough to tie the material together. Note that there is good treatment of the issue on the BP page already, so there might not be much more to merge, but I vote Merge nonetheless. I don't think the issue is serious enough to require deletion of the page history. cmh 18:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) (ETA: further, I agree that asserting his homosexuality is not a smear although speculating on his pederasty is surely loaded. Also, since we're all representing, I was a Chief Scout here in Canada. cmh 18:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
You'd have to be the Governor General to be a Chief Scout. (Adrienne? Ed? Is that you? ;-) )  I know, you meant you earned the Chief Scout's Award.  Just couldn't resist.
  • Keep. A POV-fork is an article that discusses only one side of an issue. If it were "Robert Baden-Powell's homosexual orientation", it would be a POV-fork, but as it is, it should discuss in a NPOV fashion a facet of his personality, i.e. his sexual orientation. If one thinks that it is NPOV or not, that is another story -- in any case, it should not be on AfD. bogdan 20:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think that title difference is correct as far as assessing whether it is POV or not. And I certainly think it is crass to imply that articles of this nature should be immune to question. --DanielCD 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change or keep name?[edit]

  • Comment Homosexuality and Scouting sounds like a good idea to me. Perhaps not that exactly, but something close. These two things are both historical and important and affected each other to an extent that an article might be a good idea. Then it could be rounded out into (what I feel would be) a more rounded article, where you could give much more context and related material and give the reader a better overview of the situation while still retaining the details. --DanielCD 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts? Though, I dunno. I mean, we have this one issue, and tons of gay jokes, and current anti-gay actions by the American Boy Scouts. Is there anything else to cover in an article like that? -Seth Mahoney 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although, would an article like this open the door (maybe appropriately) for articles like Homosexuality and the YMCA, Homosexuality and the YWCA, etc.? Setting this sort of precident is, I think, something to consider. -Seth Mahoney 22:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's all looking like that. Perhaps as long as we can make it clear that this is a unique (I use that loosely) situation in history, and that it's directly because of its historical importance that it exists, then it might be ok. Perhaps it's a problem we can't solve right now; maybe we'll just have to do it and see what happens. Then next time we'll have more ground to stand on. Opinions/objections? --DanielCD 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't see why combining this with the current issues would be a bad idea. That might make a good article. Perhaps this has some material of use: Controversies about the Boy Scouts of America. --DanielCD 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homosexuality and the human race?! Haiduc 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm missing your point with this one (seriously). --DanielCD 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
current issues = "current anti-gay actions by the American Boy Scouts" etc. --DanielCD 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried to raise two points above, which it looks like is confusing people, so I'll try to separate them out more carefully:
  • 1. What content could Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts cover? It seems to me like there isn't all that much, but I'm far from an expert.
  • 2. Does anyone have a problem with creating an article that would set a precident for other similar articles, like Homosexuality and the YMCA (I don't - in fact, I think that would be a good article, and I've already got some sources somewhere).
-Seth Mahoney 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear from the Scouts here before forming an opinion. Haiduc 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just hit an edit conflict, but I'll power through it:
How about a new article on Sexuality and Scouting? Controversies_about_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Sexuality would be a good seed for a section on the Americans. Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is relevant to the topic, but only a couple of paragraphs directly concern Scouting. A new article could focus on modern policy and culture, and RBPSO could be linked in a section named "History". Melchoir 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, sorry for being obscure. It was just my clumsy way of pointing out that we should not be too inclusive so as not to lose focus. Also, this issue of eros as inspiration (or corruption) in Scouting history is by no means limited to the Americans - they are just the ones who have taken the topic to extremes, maybe for lack of historical information. Haiduc 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of B-P's sexuality is of interest to people around the world. Scouting has no problem with homosexuality in Europe, Canada and Australia. The clash with the BSA is a minor irrelevant matter to them, so do not swamp the content of this article in the BSA controversy mess, please. --Bduke 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Simmons' sexual orientation --> Gawd, I'd hate to see that one come up!

Well, I'm all out of suggestions at this point. Like I said above, perhaps it's not a problem we can solve right now; maybe we'll just have to do it and see what happens. --DanielCD 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation&oldid=1138306884"