Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/Archive 4

message: A section of the article states that he was a Nazi sympathizer and admired Mussolini.  Is that true or another stupid act of vandalism?  Montgomery' 39 (talk)
:Read the two sources given. They are very good biographies. Remember that attitudes to Hitler in the UK in the 1930 were complex and difficult to understand in hindsight, as indeed in different ways they were in the USA. Many people admired Hitler then, as we did not fully understand what he represented. The article has it pretty well clear. I tend to agree more with Jeal than Rosenthal, but I will check the latter as I have it here. --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but a reader should not have to crack open a reference to understand statements that are out of context. The statement on Mein Kamp references Jeal, so let's take a look at the surrounding text:
It is fortunate for Baden-Powell's reputation that Michael Rosenthal appears not to have read his diary entry for 6 October 1939. The Second World War was in its earliest phase, and Baden-Powell had recently borrowed a copy of Mein Kampf; had he been an admirer of Hitler he would have acquired one many years earlier, but now he wanted to get to know the enemy. He wrote: `Lay up all day. Read "Mein Kampf". A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc. — and ideals which Hitler do not practise himself.'
As the story of an adventurer with a capacity for action unrivalled since the age of Napoleon, Mein Kampf — if not 'wonderful' — is certainly a remarkable document. Writing in his private diary at the age of 82, Baden-Powell would not have seen the need to choose his words carefully. It would be ridiculous to suppose that his use of that exceptionally ill-chosen adjective implied approval of Hitler's territorial ambitions, which had plunged Europe into war and which were so clearly signposted in the book. When Hitler had occupied what was left of the Czech state in March 1939, Baden-Powell had concluded that the dictator had 'developed megalomania'." So Baden-Powell's failure in the diary entry to comment upon the evidence of megalomania in Mein Kampf does not mean that he thought of Hitler in any other light.
— 
WE went through this when this content was first added, but it has been reworked a number of times. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk -  12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 'Kay, thanks for that info.  Have a nice day and happy editing!  Montgomery' 39 (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was consensus against move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BP Sympathies 

message: I added "Jeal's conclusion has never been subjected to a scholarly critique, but may need one" but it was reverted with a request to discuss it here. I used the reference quote "However,in the almost twenty years since he presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, though it begs for one.", from Nelson R. Block, Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century, Ed. Nelson R. Block and Tammy M. Proctor, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, 2009, pg 6. ISBN: 1-4438-0450-9. This book is the result of the first conference of academic scholars on Scouting, so it is an extremely important source. In his contribution, Block looks broadly at historical accounts of Scouting and says that many get it wrong. He gives reasons why Jeal may have got it wrong arising from Jeal's absence of expertise in psychoanalysis, so he gives a reason why a scholarly critique  may be needed. In the absence of such a scholarly critique, Jeal's views are clearly notable. Block's statement "Jeal's conclusion has never been subjected to a scholarly critique" is authoritative as he gives a massive reference list of books about Baden-Powell. That the most important independent biography of Baden-Powell has not been refuted by scholars shows that it is the key source for this material. Of course, if there is in future a scholarly critique, then we have to take note of that, but let us not "crystal ball" this. I think a reference to this should be in the article, but I am conscious that my wording could be better. Could someone improve it. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we want to add content that talks about something that hasn't happens, it's needless expansion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is a valuable source and the absence of a scholarly critique is important and notable. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

text: We don't add content so as to add a citation, in is talking about something there has not been, we could add a lot of things there have not been, the fact that there has not been a scholarly critique is clear, reputed scholars are not going to waste there time considering something like this which is nothing more actually than Jeals obsession, with absolutely nothing to support it in the way of facts. This is a good reason to restrict any expansion of this content at this article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we clearly just disagree here. If Jeal was not noticed by anyone, then the absences of a scholarly critique would be how you indicate. But Jeal has been noticed massively by non-scholars, so the absence of a scholarly critique is important. I should perhaps have said that Brock's previous sentence is "While the professional history community generally considers Jeal's conclusions on this topic to be speculative, the mainstream press seems to have taken them as fact". It is the latter in a sense that makes Jeal's views notable. BTW, Brock does give a kind of critique but stresses that it is Jeals's absence of expertise in psychoanalysis that is the problem, so it seems he wants someone with that expertise to write the scholarly critique. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can't say Jeal's theory wasn't noticed. I found plenty of refs during Kenneth McLaren's AfD: , ,  etc. Just search for "Kenneth McLaren" "the Boy". Pcap ping 08:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course Jeal has been noticed. That is what I said. That is the whole point. Since Jeal has been noticed so much, the absence of a scholarly critique is notable. Scholars have not noticed Jeal in scholarly publications. Your search results are valuable. --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The titillation of wondering whether someone from history may have been gay or not because he had a good male friend is not going to attract many scholars. Off2riorob (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Bduke, in this section alone Jeals name has been mentioned fifteen times, fourteen by you ... in this small discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So? This discussion in this section is about the sexuality section and this new book. It is about whether a quote from the new book about Jeal should be added. What is wrong with that? That book will be a marvelous source for Scouting articles, but only one contribution refers to Jeal and B-P. Jeal is the foremost biography of Baden-Powell. That is why the one chapter that discusses B-P's sexuality is so important. The biography overall is so good. Have you read it? Do you have any broad knowledge of Baden-Powell studies? Your comment above that this will not attract scholars is not, I think, shared by Brock, who appears to be surprised that there is no scholarly critique. He gives a small one himself, but says it is not the main theme of his contribution which is broader and he is looking for a a scholar who has expertise in psychoanalysis. --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Did you say you were a friend of his? Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreeing with rio.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean "Am I a friend of Jeal or Brock?" Of course not. I have never meet either of them. Please assume good faith. I have been around WP for a long time. Jeal's biography is by far the best biography of B-P as the quote, "a balanced, definitive assessment which so far transcends previous treatments as to make them almost meaningless", in the lead of Baden-Powell (book) says. Note that the part about B-P possible homosexuality is only a small part of the book and is the only part of the book that anybody has disputed. I ask again, have either of you read the book? It would really help the discussion if you had, but it is does not appear that you have read it. Brock's collection of conference contributions is recent and seems to be difficult to obtain in some countries. It contains much of value that is quite separate from this discussion. --Bduke  (Discussion) 20:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Brook is giving no proof, no facts about his statement, without the possibility to check. If nobody wrote about it, how does he know that scholars does not agree with Jeal? which scholars? are they experts in the field (a complaint against Jeal)? He should at least tell which scholar considers Jail's conclusions speculative. Otherwise you only know that Brooks tells that other people tells... Therefore it is a primary source, not tertiary (a tertiary mentions its secondary source). Why did Brook himself not write the article?. And is Brook a neutral source, related as he is with BSA? I think that most scholars are not interested if Baden-Powell is homo or not. They don't want to spend their time on a minor personal quality, with only much interest from anti-homo's, which they don't like to be connected with. DParlevliet (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a valid published third-party source.  Sorry for brevity but I am becoming increasingly bored with replying to nonsensical comments from the above author in their crusade to prevent any criticism of Jeal appearing on Wikipedia. DiverScout (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I see no reason why the artciel cannot mention the lack of Scholastic response to the Jeal's (lets see if I can word this in a in a non contencious way) assertions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Scouting Frontiers cite is best left in the Baden-Powell book article as a response. I don't have Scouting Frontiers, but the content as quoted neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality, it just states that there has been no critical response to Jeal. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: This is bizarre. Why should an article on robert baden powell have a sentence or two saying that an aspect of one of the biographies of BP has failed to attract academic comment? What on earth does that say about Baden-Powell (the answer is of course "precisely nothing.") That sort of commentary on Jeal and Jeal's book should go into the article on.... jeal's book. What a concept!Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, I now notice that Bduke entered a shorter citation as I expected, so my previous comment was about another text, so can be disregarded. But: "may need one" is a personal opinion of Block, which he does not support by evidence. So that should not be in. What is left is true, so I have not removed it in the Book article, but is somewhat redundant. It there would be a later article, it would in wikipedia. And if one starts mentioning from all items how long no new article was written, Wikipedia would grow quite a bit. DParlevliet (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref to ''Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century'' 

message: Let me deconstruct the current content:
* Tim Jeal has speculated that Baden-Powell was a homosexual as have others.
** Redundant with the next Jeal statement.
* Eminent Edwardians by Piers Brendon, says that such speculation has focused on his close friendship with Kenneth McLaren, though the books says: "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge".
** Brendon has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: (regarding McLaren) "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge."
* Michael Rosenthal, in his study of Baden-Powell and the origins of Scouting, also speculated that Baden-Powell and McLaren were lovers.
** Rosenthal has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: "Whether a physical relationship accompanied the deep affection Baden-Powell had for McLaren, it is impossible to determine, though it is clear that 'The Boy' occupied a very special place emotionally for Baden-Powell."
* Jeal says his research found no evidence of a physical relationship and argues that Baden-Powell was likely a "repressed homosexual."
** This is at the heart of the issue. Baden-Powell has an entire chapter devoted to B-P's sexuality. Chapter 3 starts off by discussing prior claims by Brendon and Rosenthal and their lack of supporting references. He then discusses B-P's relationship with McLaren and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." (p. 82) The chapter then discusses B-P's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." (p. 103)
* Baden-Powell did not tolerate Scoutmasters who made sexual advances towards their charges.
** This has no relationship to B-P's sexuality; it neither confirms nor denies his own sexuality.
* Another biographer, Scout movement leader William Hillcourt, who collaborated with Olave Baden-Powell in the writing of Baden-Powell: The Two Lives of a Hero (originally published in 1964), makes no mention of any homosexual tendencies and said of Baden-Powell's courtship of his future wife, "From the moment Baden-Powell met Olave [aboard the ship Arcadia in 1912], his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before."
** Again, this neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality.
*** Do you possess any reasoning capabilities? Of course the above tells us much  about Baden-Powell's sexuality. Please don't be ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamejudd (talk • contribs) 23:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Current content

message: I think this would be a good summary:
Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual."
References as discussed. Details on Jeal's views belong in Baden-Powell. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a mouthpiece for jeals book, there is a article for book reviews, this is not it, his obsession with bp's sexuality is nothing but speculation and his thoughts and opinions should not be given excessive weight here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Confused — I have no clue what you mean by book reviews. There are only three publications dealing with B-P's sexuality. Brendon and Rosenthal are very minor, with one unreferenced statement each, whereas Jeal has an entire chapter with a few other bits scattered throughout— all well referenced. Therefore Jeal is the only author who has actually discussed the issue and the two quotes sum up his conclusions. By using the quotes, we are not interpreting, but stating Jeal's views. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Add the quotes there, Baden-Powell_(book) the book review, there is a link to the article. This article has a mention of Jeal and his book, that is plenty, if anyone else is interested they can click on the link and go there and read all about it, this speculation about BP's sexuality should not be given excessive weight here. Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Trying to keep this a short summary of Jeal's conclusions. The book article can have as much detail as anyone wants to add, as long as it does not become a coatrack for the sexuality issues. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The problem with adding details of Jail's story is that you have to add all. Otherwise you get the problem with the previous article with its nude photo's and BP like to see boys naked. The result will also be too dependent on what and how you cite. That is strong about Bduke text. It gives just the final statements of several scholars (not only Jeal). That is also better to defend then edit wars about details (see his simple analysis). If one want more detail, then read the 40 pages. DParlevliet (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time you write something like the above, it reinforces my opinion that you have not read Jeal's book and that you are looking around for references that support your POV. That reviewer says Jeal is fascinated by whether or not Baden-Powell was a practicing homosexual. The reviewer is totally incorrect. Jeal very quickly and analytically rejects the suggestions of Brendon and Rosenthall that he was a practicing homosexual. He then investigates whether B-P was a latent homosexual. He is interested in that question, because he sees it as helping him to understand B-P better, but he is by no means fascinated by the question. The whole of your comment above is merely a set of assertions, unsupported by a reading of Jeal's book. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I am not an expert intellectual and we are not supposed or required to write articles in that way, in fact we are required to write them for the general public so as they may be able to glean some easily sourced information from an article, it does not required to be an in depth analytical view of a speculative book.IMO you are in the wrong place attempting to add this content here is undue weight to a minority position, it is well covered na couple of sentences and requires no expansion here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first comment is correct. We are writing for the general public (although you would not think so reading some mathematics articles!). In this case they may have seen a fuss about all this and want to know what it is about. However, we use sources and we have to read the sources and think about them, otherwise we can accidentally cherry pick sources that give the wrong impression. I do not want this section to be long, but I do not want it as you just left it, bunching all three authors together as "speculated as to whether or not their relationship had homosexual aspects". I want it to differentiate briefly the different views. Brendon lets the cat out of the bag. Brendon and Rosenthall both speculate about a physical relationship. Jeal refutes that argument but suggests latent homosexuality. That is just a set of dot points for what I think should be covered. On the use of the term "speculate", I agree that Brendon and Rosenthall merely speculate. Jeal however makes a lengthy reasoned argument, so "suggest" is better. Of course he could be wrong, but it has not been properly refuted yet. Biographers of course do not stick to facts and even facts are often under dispute. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I welcome alternative versions to be constructed here, so we can discuss the merits, instead of changing the article every few hours. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Thats the thing, each time someone wants to enlarge this article with a book review  , I get the desire to look again at the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, Off2riorob, that even if you are right, you are not allowed by Wikipedia to write that in their articles. We are editors, not writers. We are only allowed to write here what scientific scholars wrote in a scientific way. And Jeal and his book are regarded to be that (which does not mean he is right in everything). That is the rule of Wikipedia. The only way is finding good literature against Jeal arguments. Gadget's text is strong because it is simple, it just quotes what scholars told with good reference. Without details which can be charged. What editors wanted has happened: the article is deleted, transferred to the main article, in Gadget's version much shorter so in agreement with its minor importance. DParlevliet (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: The sexuality of Baden Powell article was deleted not merged. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination), many comments were to delete and merge. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: There were a few comments for merge but the general consensus was against merge imo. Off2riorob (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no support to merge the whole content to here, but there was a lot of delete comments that argued that the section here would be sufficient to cover this topic properly. That is what we are trying to do, and we most certainly do not want it to get larger than what is was. Currently it is rather shorter, so it could expand a little. --Bduke  (Discussion) 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: As far as long term notability for this incident goes, I was looking and thinking to take out the second half and delete what was left and merge with the previous section. 02:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Also, shorter is good, less is more. Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated content

message: How sad. Bali ultimate wrote a post directly abusing and attacking me as an individual, something I did not do to anybody, then again misrepresented me while hiding and attempting to lock the discussion. 
I did NOT style anybody as my opponents when I made my point on this matter. I did not actually express an opinion on the content of the changes I regarded as unacceptable because of their timing. I simply opposed ANY changes being made at that stage. 
Yes, I know I said I was withdrawing, and I will now. I simply felt the need to defend myself just a little. It's not nice to shoot people in the back.
To all of you, do please have a civil discussion. 
Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it implies that it proven, I would suggest replacing "Jeal's conclusion is disputed by scholars, but as yet no serious study has been undertaken." which reflects the situation better. Its not that they have failed, they have not tried. Also Block has refuted it in the sense that he has "denied the accuracy or truth of" the statement. Also it could be argued that as Block questions both the credibility of Jeals conclusions (in terms of stating that Jeal is not qualified to make judgements based on Psychological analysis) and his methodology (stating that Jeal uses too few sources to make his case a  rigorous example of scholastic work (and that he ignores literature)). Thus (depending on your view) he can be seen as having offered counter arguments designed to "overthrow by argument" its a matter of perspective if you think his arguments win out.Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with extra refenrences of Bduke and "but as yet no serious study has been undertaken.". I will add them tomorrow. DParlevliet (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the cites on a workpage, so I added them. I also added page numbers for the other cites. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of altering the text to better reflect that Block says.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Bali ultimate 

message: The last days there was not much comment in substance of Gadget's new version or his comments on the present one, so I have put it in the article. It is (again) much shorter, so less to fuss about. I added the references, deleted the citations (does not add to the content), added a sentence about the dispute of Jeal's opinion. Also as a remembrance I repeat Gadget's comment about the previous version:
* Tim Jeal has speculated that Baden-Powell was a homosexual as have others.
** Redundant with the next Jeal statement.
* Eminent Edwardians by Piers Brendon, says that such speculation has focused on his close friendship with Kenneth McLaren, though the books says: "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge".
** Brendon has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: (regarding McLaren) "The extent to which this affection was homosexual is difficult to gauge."
* Michael Rosenthal, in his study of Baden-Powell and the origins of Scouting, also speculated that Baden-Powell and McLaren were lovers.
** Rosenthal has one single unreferenced statement on sexuality: "Whether a physical relationship accompanied the deep affection Baden-Powell had for McLaren, it is impossible to determine, though it is clear that 'The Boy' occupied a very special place emotionally for Baden-Powell."
* Jeal says his research found no evidence of a physical relationship and argues that Baden-Powell was likely a "repressed homosexual."
** This is at the heart of the issue. Baden-Powell has an entire chapter devoted to B-P's sexuality. Chapter 3 starts off by discussing prior claims by Brendon and Rosenthal and their lack of supporting references. He then discusses B-P's relationship with McLaren and concludes "There is no evidence to justify the claim that the friendship between Baden-Powell and McLaren was physical." (p. 82) The chapter then discusses B-P's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, stating "The available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." (p. 103)
* Baden-Powell did not tolerate Scoutmasters who made sexual advances towards their charges.
** This has no relationship to B-P's sexuality; it neither confirms nor denies his own sexuality.
* Another biographer, Scout movement leader William Hillcourt, who collaborated with Olave Baden-Powell in the writing of Baden-Powell: The Two Lives of a Hero (originally published in 1964), makes no mention of any homosexual tendencies and said of Baden-Powell's courtship of his future wife, "From the moment Baden-Powell met Olave [aboard the ship Arcadia in 1912], his mind was filled with thoughts of her. His whole being was stirred as it had never been before."
** Again, this neither confirms nor denies B-P's sexuality.
DParlevliet (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it implies that it proven, I would suggest replacing "Jeal's conclusion is disputed by scholars, but as yet no serious study has been undertaken." which reflects the situation better. Its not that they have failed, they have not tried. Also Block has refuted it in the sense that he has "denied the accuracy or truth of" the statement. Also it could be argued that as Block questions both the credibility of Jeals conclusions (in terms of stating that Jeal is not qualified to make judgements based on Psychological analysis) and his methodology (stating that Jeal uses too few sources to make his case a  rigorous example of scholastic work (and that he ignores literature)). Thus (depending on your view) he can be seen as having offered counter arguments designed to "overthrow by argument" its a matter of perspective if you think his arguments win out.Slatersteven (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with extra refenrences of Bduke and "but as yet no serious study has been undertaken.". I will add them tomorrow. DParlevliet (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the cites on a workpage, so I added them. I also added page numbers for the other cites. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the liberty of altering the text to better reflect that Block says.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated content 2: New version

message: This is not a  jeal book review, we have an article for that, this version is more rounded and less opinionated, jeal said BPowell was homosexual, it is stated like he actually had a solid fact, he liked the male form, and he slept outside and he had a good male friend, rubbish, jeal has no qualifications in psychoanalysis or sexuality at all to assert anything,  but its the most respected book, its speculation, jeals book has got an article, I wanted to immmediatly change the header when I saw it to jeals speculations about bp's sexuality, feel free to ask the community as to which version is supported by general consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed this is not a book review. It is a brief paragraph on a notable aspect of how people have seen B-P's life, and Jeal has played a major role. Your argument regarding Jeal reads like a parody of what he actually said. I have reverted your change. There was consensus here for that change, after a long discussion. I would have liked more detail, but we reached a consensus so I support what I reverted to. If you disagree, please try to convince people here. You have not so far done so. --Bduke  (Discussion) 05:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeal jeal jeal 

message: ===Sexuality===
Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes that there is no evidence that this friendship was physical. Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. Jeal's conclusion is disputed, but not yet examined in any detail by scholars.
The section is full of blind comments that are totally unexplained, the previous edit was simple and opinionated. To explain the issues that this write has would give the whole issue undue weight. it also could have been written by jeal as an advertisement for his opinionated paperback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 
Let us look at these one at a time:
*Early discussion - that sentence is now sourced as I said it should be all along, to Brandon and Rosenthal, so by them.
*Tim Jeal's later - later than those two publications of course.
* - because that is exactly what those two authors speculated about briefly. Jeal shows there is no evidence after a serious search for letters between the two, even though he reports evidence that many letters were destroyed.
*Jeal - it is not all about Jeal. It is about B-P. We have 4 sources and the weight given to each is actaully less for Jeal in proportion than the attention each gives to the subject.
*,  - these are what Jeal examines in detail. he looks at many relevant features of his life. We do not have space to expand on them. The sexuality artcile could have done that :)
* - and you are qualified to give that opinion when you have not read the source?
* - where did you dream this up? Biographers do it frequently. It is of course refuted by Jeal, because his biographies of Livingstone, Baden-Powell and Stanley are clearly and widely considered to be scholarly.
*The discussion above suggests that some editors think this gets the balance right.
*What do you have against Jeal, particularly as you appear to have not read it? Several of the editors commenting above have read it; perhaps all have. It is the most scholarly biography of B-P to date. An article on B-P is bound to cite Jeal frequently. And, NO, again, I do not know Jeal or have meet or corresponded with him. The book is not, I think, anywhere a paperback. If it is, it is a very large one as it has 690 pages including the preface. To call it an "opinionated paperback" is just an ignorant slur on a very good biographer. --Bduke  (Discussion) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bduke's analysis. The section is concise, properly sourced and presents no original research. If you have issues with Jeal's statements, then you need to take that up with Jeal. If you have sources that refute Jeal, please provide them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it would appear that Jeal is generaly considerd a good biography, whith onoly his conclusions on thingy being a boner of contention.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As another who has read, then bought and read again, Jeal I agree with the above.  This passage makes sense in dealing with the issue raised by a few authors.  If you have counter-evidence to Jeal from sources available please add it to the page on that text.  I note from the discussion on that page, though, that you were very keen to remove such marginal evidence as is available when it was being added so I'll be interested to see what action  you next take.  DiverScout (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new text 

message: Early discussion of Baden-Powell's sexuality focused on his relationship with his close friend Kenneth McLaren. Tim Jeal's later biography Baden-Powell discusses the relationship and concludes that there is no evidence that this friendship was physical. Jeal then examines Baden-Powell's views on women, his appreciation of the male form, his military relationships and his marriage, concluding that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual. Jeal's conclusion is disputed, but not yet examined in any detail by scholars.
The section is full of blind comments that are totally unexplained, the previous edit was simple and opinionated. To explain the issues that this write has would give the whole issue undue weight. it also could have been written by jeal as an advertisement for his opinionated paperback.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs) 
Let us look at these one at a time:
*Early discussion - that sentence is now sourced as I said it should be all along, to Brandon and Rosenthal, so by them.
*Tim Jeal's later - later than those two publications of course.
* - because that is exactly what those two authors speculated about briefly. Jeal shows there is no evidence after a serious search for letters between the two, even though he reports evidence that many letters were destroyed.
*Jeal - it is not all about Jeal. It is about B-P. We have 4 sources and the weight given to each is actaully less for Jeal in proportion than the attention each gives to the subject.
*,  - these are what Jeal examines in detail. he looks at many relevant features of his life. We do not have space to expand on them. The sexuality artcile could have done that :)
* - and you are qualified to give that opinion when you have not read the source?
* - where did you dream this up? Biographers do it frequently. It is of course refuted by Jeal, because his biographies of Livingstone, Baden-Powell and Stanley are clearly and widely considered to be scholarly.
*The discussion above suggests that some editors think this gets the balance right.
*What do you have against Jeal, particularly as you appear to have not read it? Several of the editors commenting above have read it; perhaps all have. It is the most scholarly biography of B-P to date. An article on B-P is bound to cite Jeal frequently. And, NO, again, I do not know Jeal or have meet or corresponded with him. The book is not, I think, anywhere a paperback. If it is, it is a very large one as it has 690 pages including the preface. To call it an "opinionated paperback" is just an ignorant slur on a very good biographer. --Bduke  (Discussion) 09:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bduke's analysis. The section is concise, properly sourced and presents no original research. If you have issues with Jeal's statements, then you need to take that up with Jeal. If you have sources that refute Jeal, please provide them. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it would appear that Jeal is generaly considerd a good biography, whith onoly his conclusions on thingy being a boner of contention.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As another who has read, then bought and read again, Jeal I agree with the above.  This passage makes sense in dealing with the issue raised by a few authors.  If you have counter-evidence to Jeal from sources available please add it to the page on that text.  I note from the discussion on that page, though, that you were very keen to remove such marginal evidence as is available when it was being added so I'll be interested to see what action  you next take.  DiverScout (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: An anon editor removed the reference to Block and added material about Colin Walker. This was partially reverted by HiLo48, quite rightly, to remove POV. However it still left the reference to Block removed. I have fully reverted the anon IP edit. The Block reference is important as it talks about scholars. Walker is a great amateur historian, but he not a scholar. I thought about editing the material HiLo48 left about Walker to give:
:"Jeal's conclusions are also disputed by UK Scout Historian and author Colin Walker who in his review of Jeal's biography Colin Walker Scout History Website calls into question many of his assertions but also points out that Jeal himself admitted that, despite his considerably efforts, he never found any evidence whatsoever that Baden-Powell was a homosexual."
:The problem really with this is that Jeal of course never suggested that Baden-Powell was a homosexual, just a latent homosexual. Jeal's admission does not affect his conclusions. I am also aware of course that many editors feel that Walker should not be cited here as his web site is self published. I also think Walker's review is important. If we were to add anything, maybe it should be shorter and just "Jeal's conclusions are also disputed by UK Scout Historian, Colin Walker Colin Walker Scout History Website." The URL, of course, would be made into a reference. --Bduke  (Discussion) 03:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd run with the shorter entry.  While I agree that it is a shame that Walker is self-published, I am still slightly amused that he is widely accepted as a reliable source apart from, seemingly, on this one topic.  I would also contend that Walker's detailed study and knowledge of the area concerned (the history of the Scouting Movement) certainly qualifies him as a scholar, ie " a person who has done advanced study in a special field: a learned person" - but that is just a bit of an aside. DiverScout (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest to leave it as it was and not restart all arguments. Walker has been discussed before and did not reach the final version. I think that was right. It is not only the fact that it is self-published but Walker does not give arguments and is (I think) no expert on homosexuality. You don't rely on a scolar because he is a scolar, but because he works in a scientific way: proving his opinion by giving facts. For instance Walker view is wrong: it is Jeal's opinion that Baden-Powell had no homosexual relation, but a represssed homosexual is still a homosexual, also when he does not act on this. The subject was sexual orientation, not sexual practice. DParlevliet (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Very belated reply to DParlevliet - Jeal is also, as far as I know, no expert scholar on human sexuality, but a commercial biographer.  There is no evidence of any "scientific method" in relation to his claim (as science requires evidence, and Jeal states that there is none yet makes the claim anyway).  The blind hero-worship of this author, and acceptance of his POV, is worrying.  DiverScout (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is blind hero-worship of this author. It is that Jeal is the only independent biographer of B-P and is clearly an excellent biographer with very positive reviews of all of them. It is more that other biographers were Scouting people with a blind hero-worship of B-P as the founder. I have read many of them in recent years as an outsider. My last direct involvement with Scouting was 45 years ago, apart from being on a Group Committee in the 1990s. They really are blind hero-worship. Another independent biographer of B-P might give a different picture of him, but no new independent biographer of B-P will be able to ignore Jeal. --Bduke  (Discussion) 21:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bduke, and partly with DiverScout. I also think that Jeal is not right and no expert in this area. But that is my (and Diverscouts) POV. Wiki allows only general accepted scientific published information and Jeal is regarded to be so. Commercial of not does not matter (I think he is not). Anyway proposing homosexuality is not typical for "blind hero-worship" writers... DParlevliet (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I am not following you. What point of view do you think Jeal was introducing? It is a while since I read it, but I do not recall thinking he was suddenly introducing a point of view. --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: His point of view that B-P was a repressed homosexual despite there being no evidence whatsoever for this.  The statement is just thrown out there without any justification. DiverScout (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits to Sexuality section 

message: The marriage date stated did not match that in its citation. For now, I've changed it to match the source, but could someone confirm this is correct (or find an accurate citation). Obscurasky (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wed Oct. 30th, 1912, according to O.B-P's "Window on my Heart", p. 90 (end of Ch.8)  RobinClay (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage date 

message: As he was the founder of the entire Movement are we going to need to add all international Association categories for WOSM, WFIS, FSE, BBS etc.? DiverScout (talk) 09:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: B-P directly founded The Boy Scout Association, thus the category is appropriate. He did not directly found the others, so those categories are not appropriate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: B-P directly founded the Movement to which they all belong, and is therefore central to all of them.  I don't see how they are not appropriate. DiverScout (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:The Scout Association 

message: of B-P at Mafeking which may be of some interest/use: (Will need cropping - sorry, don't know how)
File:Robert Baden-Powell and staff at Mafeking.jpg
Stronach (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly uploaded image 

message: I was watching an episode of Fawlty Towers for the umpteenth time the other night, and I was struck by Sibyl (Prunella Scales)'s reference to Baden-Powell, where she pronounced the Powell part exactly as one would say "Paul".  Baden-Paul?  Is this a common pronunciation?  I've never heard it anywhere else.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  20:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 years ago (yes, I'm old) I was at an event in Australia visited by Olave Baden-Powell. She made a point of telling us how she pronounced the name. To my Australian ears it sounded like a cross between pole and Paul. Really only one syllable. HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the pronunciation at Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Scouting movement. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belated thanks.  That answers my question perfectly.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The W is silent", i.e. "Po-ell" (as in Noel), not "Pow-ell", so actually it is (almost) two syllables.  RobinClay (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of Powell as "Paul"

message: I just saw on Amazon a small book "Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell: Robert Baden- Powell, 1st Baron Baden- Powell, Piers Brendon, Kenneth McLaren, Tim Jeal" editors: Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken, which mentions "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". Does anyone know what this is and what the relation is with Wikipedia articles? DParlevliet (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting cover. See WP:Alphascript. The book is probably based on the short article Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell that was deleted in February 2010. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 05:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they allowed to use these texts? We have written them. I suppose Wikipedia has the copyright, but publishing by third parties and editing in a way you have no influence on is quite a step further. It is more then just the old article, that was not so much pages. Essentially what is now in the article is real Wikipedia. The discussions depends on the different states of the article which is unknow for the reader so can give misinterpretations. DParlevliet (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are allowed to use our material provided they say it comes from wikipedia and is released under the same license. I would like to see a copy but amazone seems to not have any. We need to take care that this book is never used as a source on wikipedia. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are allowed to sell material that uses Wikipedia content; see WP:REUSE. No content derived from Wikipedia should be used as a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 05:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Using the article would be no problem of course, but you don't fill 70 pages with that. If they also used parts of the discussions that is a different case. But perhaps the book is mostly filled with Jeal, etc. DParlevliet (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that myself. Perhaps they included some of the referenced website content. Only way to tell is to buy it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Last time I looked Amazon did not have any copies of it, and now they are reporting it is out of print. --Bduke  (Discussion) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beta script publishing 

message: I have restored the section about Baden-Powell's sexuality which was removed by another user. I believe that, as what is mentioned is well referenced, his sexuality is of some notability. Thus, it should be included in the article. I appreciate the view that his sexuality is not important (we would not have a section on the sexuality of every straight person); however, Wikipedia is not for making anti-discrimination statements. If Baden-Powell's sexuality has been discussed, then it should be in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed to death. The current section is a terse summary of the thoughts of a few writers that made a big splash. A separate article on the issue was deleted ages ago because it made a mountain out of a molehill. It took ages to get the section to where it is now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: They are based on reliable sources. This has been discussed at great length and there is consensus about the current wording. Whenever the section is deleted, as you did, it is quickly restored. --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I have already reverted it for the reasons you give. --Bduke (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put "opinion / speculation that does not appear in entries of other notable people, e.g. the Duke of Wellington)".  Obviously, I did not look at ALL "notable people".  And, No,  have not read the Abraham Lincoln article.   But it is a fact that the entire "subject" in this B-P article is opinion and speculation by three authors, none of whom is any kind of "expert" on the subject - and such unfounded speculation perhaps says more about them than about B-P.  Wikipedia is vehement that it does not allow opinion / speculation / "original research", so why is this case different ?    I have to agree with Nelson Block's quote (above)  Jeal's conclusions are questionable, that he is doing amateur psychoanalysis without having expertise in the area, and that even an expert using this methodology 50 years after someone's death would be questionable.  To me, "questionable" is an understatement.   And I agree also with diverscout (above)  is point of view that B-P was a repressed homosexual despite there being no evidence whatsoever for this. The statement is just thrown out there without any justification.   The "justification", of course, for all three authors, is to publicise the book andi ncrease sales !  RobinClay (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexuality 

message: Hi there, 
Can anyone please tell me why "Chief Scout of the World" has been directed to Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell? I believe he was made Chief Scout of the World at some point, but I am writing and translating an article about someone who received their Wood Badge from the then Chief Scout of the World (received just after the death of Robert Baden-Powell).  It would look rather strange if I write the person received their Wood Badge from the Chief Scout of the World and readers click on it to find that Robert Baden died before the event. I believe there was an article called Chief Scout of the World but someone redirected it. Any recommendations?
Thanks Tamsier (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: B-P was the first and only Chief Scout of the World; likewise, Olave was the first and only Chief Guide of the World. Looks like you may have a source problem if it indicates there was a Chief Scout of the World after B-P's death. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Gadget850, thanks for your contribution and sorry for the late reply.  Yes I know he was the first Chief Scout but was he the only? Check this article out Chief Scout (The Scout Association). Do you have any reliabe sources for your statement above? Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: B-P was acclaimed Chief Scout of the World in 1920 and held it until his death in 1941. This title was never assigned again. The Scout Association, and many other associations have a Chief Scout, but the  honor of Chief Scout of the World was never assigned again. Do you know of anyone else who has held the title of Chief Scout of the World? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Just to confirm, Gadget850 is totally correct in this.  There was only ever one Chief Scout of the World. DiverScout (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

text: Newspaper articles are not always as correct as you want them to be. Journalists often fill in the gaps. The person was likely described as the successor to B-P and the journalist assumed, because B-P was always described as Chief Scout of the World, that was also true for his successor. Or something like that. --Egel Reaction? 15:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well thank you all for your help. That has helped me a lot. I have updated the article in both languages. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chief Scout of the World 

message: The article used to have a header '"Baden Powell" redirects here. For other meanings, see Baden Powell (disambiguation)'. This was removed by User:Sharcho with no explanation. I restored it. I then realised that this user had redirected Baden Powell to the disambiguation page. I reverted that also. Then User:Egel reverted me with the message "Baden Powell doesn't redirects here anymore". However, it does! There has been no edit since I reverted User:Sharcho. There is some confusion.
I recall that this was discussed much earlier, but I can not find it. The consensus was that readers looking for Baden Powell overwhelmingly were looking for the founder of Scouting, so this redirect was set up deliberately. So can we revert Egel's revert? --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Do we really need the hatnote for Stephe? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need it as a redirect here? --Bduke  (Discussion) 11:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you put it to redirects for discussion? I am off to London tomorrow for a month so am very busy and will not be very active during that time. --Bduke  (Discussion) 20:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Baden Powell the musician was one of the most influencial Brazilian musicians ever. e.g. Baden Powell on YouTube about 80% of the results refer to the musician. Baden Powell on Amazon also shows 80% of the results towards the musician. All the other Wikipedia languages have Baden Powell go to a disambiguation. The Portuguese even goes directly to the musician. Definitely not "overwhelmingly".--Sharcho (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right, but just going ahead and changing everything without waiting for a consensus to develop is not, IMO, a good idea. I do not think, for example, that YouTube and Amazon represents a consensus of the readers looking for Baden Powell on wikipedia. However, as I indicate above I am about to start a wikibreak so I will leave it to others to sort this out. --Bduke  (Discussion) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of the English-language Wikipedia I am not too sure that the musician is all that well known in the English-speaking audience (other than among those who have a specific interest), whilst Baden-Powell the founder of Scouting certainly is, but wait to be proven wrong. I don't see that the Stephe redirect makes much sense though as how many people know that this was hif familial name?  DiverScout (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baden Powell]] redirect 

message: There is often a discussion about the use of Tim Jeals biography, so therefore a short overview. First on the scientific publisher page. Secondly Jeal is referenced several times in the article. Also what is written in wikipedia about the book and Tim_Jeal. This makes clear that his biography is the last one, the largest and most extended researched by a well-reputed biographer. This publication complies fully to the demands of Wikipedia. Of course it does not mean the Jeal is right in every subject, but if one wants to oppose him, then according Wiki-rules it must be done with other references of equal quality. DParlevliet (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Jeal is used in the article to refute both Pakenham's position on B-P and the treatment of natives at Mafeking and Rosenthal's portrayal of B-P as a Nazi sympathizer. --  Gadget850 talk 19:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous refusal to allow reference to published critical reviews of Jeal and an editors belief that this commercial biographer has written a scientific paper rather than a commercial text undermines what little credibility his arguments have.  Wikipedia does not place rank on reliable third-party sources and any such published source may be employed regardless of the desire of any editor(s) to fixate on one that is (even by this editor) widely respected. DiverScout (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What "published critical reviews of Jeal"? It is worth quoting here what Brock says in the reference to him in the article (ref 50, page 6) - "However, in the almost twenty years since he (Jeal) presented his case, not a single published scholarly critique of his argument has been presented, although it begs for one". That was in 2009. Has there been such a published scholarly critique of his argument since then? I agree it begs for one, and when it is written, we can mention it. Brock does go on to make what he calls "an outline of the issues", but says "A detailed discussion of Jeal's argument is beyond the scope of this essay". --Bduke  (Discussion) 22:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We can't refute Jeal's argument here because there is no published reliable work that does so. --  Gadget850 talk 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Book review, not academis review.  Sadly I also agree that no challenge to his published opinions has been published at this time. DiverScout (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This means very little, except perhaps that nobody thinks it's worth the effort. Federales (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: More relevantly, it means that there is no new material to be posted here on that matter. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Jeal biography

message: The sources for this article are weak in places. I've just removed three that are obviously not reliable. The article is tagged in at least three places for verifiability. The inline sourcing should be brought up to featured article standard or the article should be delisted. DrKay (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Every conversation I've been involved in that starts this way has ended with the article being delisted after acrimony and heartbreak. Fix it, revert to the FA version or have it delisted. --  Gadget850 talk 17:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "acrimony and heartbreak" Ain't that the truth! 198.6.33.13 (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review? 

message: Editorially, I don't understand why this list/tree of "Significant family members" (ie descendants?) currently appears (permalink) within the ==Personal life== section of his biography. Also, it's unclear to this reader at least why the named people who don't have articles on Wikipedia are deemed to be "significant" (other than for being direct first-/second-generation descendants). 109.155.60.103 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell#Significant family members|Significant family members]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050315092430/http://www.scoutbase.org.uk:80/library/hqdocs/headline/981113aa.htm to http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/headline/981113aa.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061003194851/http://www.wivenhoe.gov.uk/Orgs/WSGA/about_badenpowell.htm to http://www.wivenhoe.gov.uk/Orgs/WSGA/about_badenpowell.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131710595200/http://www.scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/b_p_s_last_message to http://scout.org/en/about_scouting/facts_figures/history/b_p_s_last_message
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121103055932/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31928/supplements/6176 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31928/supplements/6176
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110816203231/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197/page.pdf to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197/page.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131215/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24362/pages/4962 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24362/pages/4962
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131212/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24625/pages/5174 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24625/pages/5174
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141230152411/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25308/pages/244 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25308/pages/244
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130912/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26306/pages/4008 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26306/pages/4008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092040/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26726/pages/2028 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26726/pages/2028
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091846/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26848/pages/2367 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26848/pages/2367
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091914/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26850/pages/2535 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/26850/pages/2535
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141230151648/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/27194/pages/3253 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/27194/pages/3253
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092023/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28029/pages/4011 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28029/pages/4011
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610134038/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28305/supplements/8239 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28305/supplements/8239
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610091946/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32782/supplements/6 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32782/supplements/6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130629/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28296/pages/7493 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28296/pages/7493
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610131115/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28611/pages/3791 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/28611/pages/3791
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610132729/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32178/supplements/2 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32178/supplements/2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610092037/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32798/pages/1296 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32798/pages/1296
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610090711/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33280/supplements/3606 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33280/supplements/3606
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610130442/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33536/pages/6032 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/33536/pages/6032
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029195340/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/34396/supplements/3080 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/34396/supplements/3080
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150714110020/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31586/supplements/12415 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31586/supplements/12415
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610134810/https://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32095/pages/10197
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150703181931/http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32483/pages/7974 to http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/32483/pages/7974
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160102110604/http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Rasuwa++peak+named+after+Baden+Powell&NewsID=291408 to http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/fullNews.php?headline=Rasuwa++peak+named+after+Baden+Powell&NewsID=291408
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've raised the current lead sentence of this article as an example of bad practice at a centralised discussion and thought I would post here in case anyone feels like improving it. As you'll see from that discussion, I think there are way too many bits of metadata there, and it is also quite independently a really ponderous sentence. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right, it is not pleasant for the average reader, but this can only be changed if Wikipedia gives advise how to write these items. What is written now is its real full name like it would be used in official papers. OM, GCMG, GCVO etc. are not just metadata, but titles which officially are part of the name. Also with the pronunciation: if it should be added and how is something Wikipedia should advice.DParlevliet (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: For the record in 1939 Milden House, Folkestone, Kent seems to have been owned by Cicely Hilda Baden-Powell () who seems to have been born Cicely Hilda Farmer and was the widow of Warington Baden-Powell, Robert's eldest brother (after his death in 1921 she married, in 1927, Montagu Sneade Faithful Monier-Williams but reclaimed the name Baden-Powell several years after his death in 1931).  No evidence that Robert Baden-Powell bought it and in 1935 Hilda (she apparently preferred her second name) had just been widowed from her second husband.  Another of Robert's brothers, Francis (Frank), lived in "Milden House" in Wimbledon (Mildenhall was where the Baden Powell's came from). --Erp (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milden House 

message: The "Arms" section claims that the Baden quarter in Lord Baden-Powell's achievement "is not the shield of any Baden family in Britain but that of the Grand Duke of Baden in Germany, to which the Baden-Powells had no right." This is sourced to his ODNB page. It strikes me as dubious however, firstly because it's not the sort of thing the College of Arms would allow, and secondly because the Duke of Baden's arms actually bear no resemblance whatsoever to Baden-Powell's. What was the ODNB basing this on? Zacwill (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: His ODNB page is quoted accurately in the footnote, but it is talking about his mother not him. As a sixth son, he would not be entitled to his father's arms, which would go to the eldest son, and his own would need to be differenced in some way. Consequently, the article text is misleading because it relates a comment in the source about his mother's arms to his own. DrKay (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arms