...who has to close this mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Baden-Po...
A whole article devoted to speculation in a couple of books on the sexuality of the founder of Scouting, apparently because nobody could agree how little of it should go in the main article.
The word count given to such speculation between the two articles, is, according to my rough and ready count, more or less equivalent to the combined count for his military career AND the founding of the Scout Movement. Can we say "undue weight"? Guy (JzG)
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy Chapman aka JzG
...who has to close this mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R obert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation
A whole article devoted to speculation in a couple of books on the sexuality of the founder of Scouting, apparently because nobody could agree how little of it should go in the main article.
The word count given to such speculation between the two articles, is, according to my rough and ready count, more or less equivalent to the combined count for his military career AND the founding of the Scout Movement. Can we say "undue weight"?
I was looking up some recent historical figure yesterday - can't remember who - and the second para of the article was devoted to speculation about his homosexuality. I thought that was really weird. I'm not uncomfortable with famous people being homosexual, but I'm just not sure that we need to give such prominence and weight. It's almost as if such people are being used as posthumous pin-up boys for modern day homosexual folk, when the reality is that we are writing biographical articles about the careers and achievements of these people, not about who poked whom. This information should go at the bottom, maybe in a trivia section.
Peter (Skyring)
I'm not sure that info should go anywhere. Surely it's a fringe theory?
Anyway, I really don't get why some people are so obsessed with the sexual orientation of celebrities and historical figures. What does it really matter?
Besides, some of those will never have any conclusive proof. You could argue Caesar was homosexual, but unless someone finds his diary tomorrow in which he revealed all his secrets, you're never going to know. It's pointless to debate someone's sexuality when it has absolutely no bearing on what they're famous for.
Also, the word "homosexual" means the person described as such feels attracted to people of the same sex (hence: it's a feeling). You can say he kissed X and looked lovingly at Y, but none of it proves anything because it says nothing about their feelings.
Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why should it be at all important to Scouting?
Unless the celeb in question open admitted their sexual preference, speculation about the issue is totally pointless.
Mgm
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why should it be at all important to Scouting?
Probably due to the attitude scouting organisations in the US have to homosexuals.
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Unless the celeb in question open admitted their sexual preference, speculation about the issue is totally pointless.
It has the effect of making those who are uncomfortable with their own homosexuality feel more at ease. Homosexuality didn't just arise in the second half of the Twentieth Century apart from a few indisputable cases. Alexander the Great and his bosom buddies. It's always been around, even if not openly admitted. If the great men of the past can be identified as homosexual, then the less famous men of today can rightly feel more positive about themselves.
This is not to say that homosexual folk are any better or worse than anyone else, but I think we heterosexuals can attempt to understand their attitude when for so much of history they were oppressed, abused and vilified. Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for what today wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
I don't think that this is really good for the encyclopaedia, but if we can understand why this behaviour is occurring, then we can manage it.
Pete, getting to the root cause
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of MacGyverMagic/Mgm
Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why should it be at all important to Scouting?
Hmmm. That's the bottom line, is it?
Pete, just kidding
It looks like I may be the only person who reads this list who has been involved in this "mess".
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:03:05AM +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not sure that info should go anywhere. Surely it's a fringe theory?
No, it is not fringe. It is from the most modern researched biography of Baden-Powell. It does not state he was homosexual. It raises some serious issues about a man who started a major youth movement. These are important.
This was hived off to a sub article with the agreement of both sides who had been warring about what went into the main article. They then agreed on the content as part of the war was about how much to add to the main article without losing the balance there between different parts of his life
Note the nominator wants to get rid of it as a "smear" against Baden-Powell. It is'nt yet some Scouts see him so much as God that they can not bear to see any possible criticism. Actually I do not think the article is critical in any bad sense. It shows he was human, battled with a rather strange sexual orientation, yet won out and founded Scouting and had, late in life, three kids. It makes him more of a hero to me, not less.
Even if it is kept, some argument will continue, but it will in the end make a better article. If it is deleted it will just be back to war again on the main article. It is best kept. It is important.
However, I'm not an admin, so I do not have to sort it out.
Anyway, I really don't get why some people are so obsessed with the sexual orientation of celebrities and historical figures. What does it really matter?
Besides, some of those will never have any conclusive proof. You could argue Caesar was homosexual, but unless someone finds his diary tomorrow in which he revealed all his secrets, you're never going to know. It's pointless to debate someone's sexuality when it has absolutely no bearing on what they're famous for.
Also, the word "homosexual" means the person described as such feels attracted to people of the same sex (hence: it's a feeling). You can say he kissed X and looked lovingly at Y, but none of it proves anything because it says nothing about their feelings.
Bottom line. Even if Powell was gay, it doesn't make him a pedophile so why should it be at all important to Scouting?
Unless the celeb in question open admitted their sexual preference, speculation about the issue is totally pointless.
Mgm
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Brian Salter-Duke
It looks like I may be the only person who reads this list who has been involved in this "mess".
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 12:03:05AM +0100, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I'm not sure that info should go anywhere. Surely it's a
fringe theory?
No, it is not fringe. It is from the most modern researched biography of Baden-Powell. It does not state he was homosexual. It raises some serious issues about a man who started a major youth movement. These are important.
Deserving of mention, perhaps. But not to the extent where speculation and debate are given equal time to the real achievements of a historical figure.
Peter (Skyring)
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 19:30:54 +1100, you wrote:
This was hived off to a sub article with the agreement of both sides who had been warring about what went into the main article.
So was Jack Hyles Controversy. And a wider audience decided that it was a bad idea, for very good reasons. Right now this gives undue weight to a *theory*. An interesting theory, but a theory all the same. Guy (JzG)
On 3/1/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that info should go anywhere. Surely it's a fringe theory?
You'd think so, and that was certainly my impression before I looked. However the article itself refers to works by Michael Rosenthal and Tim Jeal, the latter being the writer of a mainstream biography that pops up first when you type in baden-powell. And at a glance this seems to have swung the AfD, which has, to my eyes, a very strong keep result.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:12:48 +0000, you wrote:
You'd think so, and that was certainly my impression before I looked. However the article itself refers to works by Michael Rosenthal and Tim Jeal, the latter being the writer of a mainstream biography that pops up first when you type in baden-powell. And at a glance this seems to have swung the AfD, which has, to my eyes, a very strong keep result.
Sure, it's a well-researched theory. But is it more significant than his military career and his foundation of the global Scouting movement, which is how it looks from the current balance of content? Guy (JzG)
On 3/2/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Sure, it's a well-researched theory. But is it more significant than his military career and his foundation of the global Scouting movement, which is how it looks from the current balance of content?
To someone who chooses to read the article, the answer is yes. The question is one of considerable public interest, in view of the controversial decision of some scouting associations, such as the Boy Scouts of America, to deny membership to openly gay men and boys, while others have a quite different attitude. Scouts Canada for instance has a gay and lesbian troop, Rover Crew 129, which has participated as a troop, in full uniform, in Toronto's Gay Pride march. This article would be, I dare say, of intense interest to members of the American and Canadian scout movement who are involved in this controversy.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:08:27 +0000, you wrote:
This article would be, I dare say, of intense interest to members of the American and Canadian scout movement who are involved in this controversy.
Ah, so it's useful in furthering a political agenda. That explains the massive pile-on in AfD, anyway. I guess it's like Christianity: Jesus is dead so we can all make a living pretending we alone know what he thought :-) Guy (JzG)
On 3/2/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:08:27 +0000, you wrote:
This article would be, I dare say, of intense interest to members of the American and Canadian scout movement who are involved in this controversy.
Ah, so it's useful in furthering a political agenda. That explains the massive pile-on in AfD, anyway. I guess it's like Christianity: Jesus is dead so we can all make a living pretending we alone know what he thought :-)
I think that's over-cynical. While the authors don't write in a political vacuum, there's no suggestion that they're just grinding a political axe. Just because, say, evolution is still a political hot potato in one or two countries, doesn't mean that we cannot write factual articles about research in the area, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should write off published research that is widely recognised. Looking at the references section of the article and comparing it to the contents page of Jeal's book at Amazon, I see that he devotes a whole chapter, 35 pages in a relatively brief biography, to the question.
I don't think there's any sense in failing to admit that this is a controversial subject for some people and in some countries. That this is no longer considered such a controversial subject in Baden-Powell's native England is not the point. So it seems to me that the question becomes: do we write about research in areas that may upset the religious right of the United States? Well I know my answer.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:11:36 +0000, you wrote:
Just because, say, evolution is still a political hot potato in one or two countries, doesn't mean that we cannot write factual articles about research in the area
For sure. Although I think our coverage of creation "science" is altogether too sympathetic (and that's speaking as a practising Christian).
Looking at the references section of the article and comparing it to the contents page of Jeal's book at Amazon, I see that he devotes a whole chapter, 35 pages in a relatively brief biography, to the question.
Yes, 35 pages of a large book. Here, it's about 30% of our entire coverage of the subject. Guy (JzG)
On 3/3/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 20:11:36 +0000, you wrote:
Looking at the references section of the article and comparing it to the contents page of Jeal's book at Amazon, I see that he devotes a whole chapter, 35 pages in a relatively brief biography, to the question.
Yes, 35 pages of a large book. Here, it's about 30% of our entire coverage of the subject.
Actually the book is only a little over 200 pages in length, so the chapter is a substantial fraction of the book.
I don't think it's even remotely correct to state that the article comprises 35% of all our coverage of Powell. Besides the Scout movement itself, Baden-Powell is most famous in Britain for his masterly defense of Mafeking, a garrison which, outnumbered 4:1, he held against the Boers for over 200 days with the help of a home made howitzer, a great quantity of non-existent barbed wire, some fake landmines and a biscuit tin. And if you think that sounds like something out of Black Adder, maybe you'll understand the brilliance of the tactician. The Boers gave up because they concluded that the garrison was too heavily defended.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 00:56:21 +0000, you wrote:
I don't think it's even remotely correct to state that the article comprises 35% of all our coverage of Powell. Besides the Scout movement itself, Baden-Powell is most famous in Britain for his masterly defense of Mafeking, a garrison which, outnumbered 4:1, he held against the Boers for over 200 days with the help of a home made howitzer, a great quantity of non-existent barbed wire, some fake landmines and a biscuit tin. And if you think that sounds like something out of Black Adder, maybe you'll understand the brilliance of the tactician. The Boers gave up because they concluded that the garrison was too heavily defended.
Tony, I know this. I am both English and a former Scout :-)
But on a quick and dirty word count the total in BP and BP sexual orientation devoted to this speculation is about the same as the total in BP on scouting and military career. It seems excessive given that these are, after all, only two of the many, many books written on BP - and it is still speculation. What's in the BP article itself looks to me to be sufficient. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:08:27 +0000, you wrote:
This article would be, I dare say, of intense interest to members of the American and Canadian scout movement who are involved in this controversy.
Ah, so it's useful in furthering a political agenda. That explains the massive pile-on in AfD, anyway. I guess it's like Christianity: Jesus is dead so we can all make a living pretending we alone know what he thought :-)
If Jesus was writing under GFDL, no one should object to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and even Paul) doing a little commercialization. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 16:08:27 +0000, you wrote:
This article would be, I dare say, of intense interest to members of the American and Canadian scout movement who are involved in this controversy.
Ah, so it's useful in furthering a political agenda. That explains the massive pile-on in AfD, anyway. I guess it's like Christianity: Jesus is dead so we can all make a living pretending we alone know what he thought :-)
If Jesus was writing under GFDL, no one should object to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and even Paul) doing a little commercialization. :-)
For 1600 years Rome claimed that they had exclusive rights... :)
On 3/1/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
I was looking up some recent historical figure yesterday - can't remember who - and the second para of the article was devoted to speculation about his homosexuality. I thought that was really weird. I'm not uncomfortable with famous people being homosexual, but I'm just not sure that we need to give such prominence and weight. It's almost as if such people are being used as posthumous pin-up boys for modern day homosexual folk, when the reality is that we are writing biographical articles about the careers and achievements of these people, not about who poked whom. This information should go at the bottom, maybe in a trivia section.
Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed at [[Freddie Mercury]] (I always thought he was openly gay, but apparently there are those who swear he was, and those who swear he wasn't), and at [[Paris]]. There was at one stage the following sentence: the current mayor of Paris is [[Bertrand Delanoë]] (sp), who is openly homosexual. Intriguingly, the entire article on him didn't mention the fact. Even more undue weight...
But then, you get similar stories with membership of religions, ethnic descent and so on. The Freddie Mercury article had a long section on his pride in his "Iranian" descent, the recent featured article on [[Edward Teller]] proudly proclaimed his Jewish origins in the opening sentence. The trouble when trying to put these things in perspective is you get accused of either trying to deny something (if you remove it altogether) or cover it up (if you simply reduce its prominence).
Shrug.
Steve
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:52:12 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed at [[Freddie Mercury]] (I always thought he was openly gay, but apparently there are those who swear he was, and those who swear he wasn't)
He wasn't until he was, if you see what I mean. At least that's how I remember it.
But yes, I do see echoes here of the lists which seek to claim historical figures as Jewish / Theists / White supremacists / People who broke their egg the small end. It all smacks of revisionism to me. Guy (JzG)
On 3/5/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 00:52:12 +0100, you wrote:
Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon that I've noticed at [[Freddie Mercury]] (I always thought he was openly gay, but apparently there are those who swear he was, and those who swear he wasn't)
He wasn't until he was, if you see what I mean. At least that's how I remember it.
Well "I'm as gay as a daffofil, my dear", in the NME (1974, the year of their breakthrough album) is pretty definitive. He was gay if you really needed to know, and if you didn't, he had a convenient girlfriend. If people want to quibble over "gay" and "bisexual" my observations are that (1) they need to get a life and (2) I've had sex with "straight" guys and I'm pretty sure that a lot of "gay" guys have sex with women.
On 3/5/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
Well "I'm as gay as a daffofil, my dear", in the NME (1974, the year
1. Yes but he was kidding!!!11! 2. Yes but gay meant bi!!!1!1! 3. No that interview was a conspiracy!111111111111111!!!!
of their breakthrough album) is pretty definitive. He was gay if you really needed to know, and if you didn't, he had a convenient girlfriend. If people want to quibble over "gay" and "bisexual" my observations are that (1) they need to get a life and (2) I've had sex with "straight" guys and I'm pretty sure that a lot of "gay" guys have sex with women.
Right. And I just don't see the problem with saying "Mercury was either bi, gay, or straight depending on who was asked, and when." in the article, possibly giving a few sources. Or even just avoiding the labelling and saying "It is uncontested that Mercury had sex with both men and women at various times". Similarly for the question of whether he was "Persian", just stating the facts then saying "Whether this makes him Persian is a question of definition that has often been disputed."
But some peope really lerve their labels.
Steve
On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 00:14:40 +0100, you wrote:
some peope really lerve their labels.
Ain't that the truth. A recent battle over where (and how prominently) the Spanish name of the Falkland Islands should be included is a case in point, albeit of considerably greater merit than most. Guy (JzG)
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Guy Chapman aka JzG
...who has to close this mess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R obert_Baden-Powell%27s_sexual_orientation
A whole article devoted to speculation in a couple of books on the sexuality of the founder of Scouting, apparently because nobody could agree how little of it should go in the main article.
The word count given to such speculation between the two articles, is, according to my rough and ready count, more or less equivalent to the combined count for his military career AND the founding of the Scout Movement. Can we say "undue weight"?
I was looking up some recent historical figure yesterday - can't remember who - and the second para of the article was devoted to speculation about his homosexuality. I thought that was really weird.
That wasn't Richard the Lionheart by any chance was it?
I'm not uncomfortable with famous people being homosexual, but I'm just not sure that we need to give such prominence and weight. It's almost as if such people are being used as posthumous pin-up boys for modern day homosexual folk, when the reality is that we are writing biographical articles about the careers and achievements of these people, not about who poked whom. This information should go at the bottom, maybe in a trivia section.
Or better yet, in a seperate article which lumps all of the various speculations about a hundred different figures in history together on one page, and *then* we will have a decent article.
And know, I'm not proposing it be called [[Historical figures who poked people they shouldn't have]].