Talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell/Archive 2

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

Recommend replacing the current biography infobox in the B-P article with a military infobox. It seems more appropriate and a more usefull tool in helping organize and providing better context to the B-P article. Any thoughts or objections? --Ctatkinson 18:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• OK with me. Rlevse 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC), Scouting project lead coordinator
• Good idea. I dislike the meagre biography infobox for a long time, but couldn't find a good angle at introducing the WorldScouting infobox either. This one is much better. I copy-edited a few things, and expect to do more in the future. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

The info box emphasizes the military career of Baden-Powell. William Harcourt's biography was subtitled "The Two Lives of a Hero". Indeed Baden Powell was know as a man who had two lives. His role as founder and later Chief Scout of the World brought him more prominence than his military career. I would suggest that before the heading "other work" there should be a heading Scout Movement and a note about his being the founder and Chief Scout of the World with appropriate links. Other work should included Author, Actor, Artist, Journalist, Kanuk 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

{{

If he doesn't define the issues, which I can't deduce any either, the tag can be removed after a day or so. Rlevse 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

rm'd. Rlevse 19:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dutch lemma on this bloke mentions he was a great admirer of Hitler and Mussolini. Shouldn't that be mentioned here too? (if it is true of course) --Maarten1963 02:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi all, I have taken care of all technical issues with this article, as suggested by peerreviewer script, and various WP guidelines. Now we need to take care of the last things that we ourselves think necessary before we can seriously propose this article for FA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

• (1) I think the 'prolific writer' rather weak: it is merely a long list. Perhaps each subsection needs an introductory paragraph (prose).

Shouldn't there be a wikilink for Scouting for Boys in this section? Maybe even an image of the cover? I found this one on the B-P article in Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Portadaescultismoparamuchachos.JPG Ctatkinson 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

SfB is linked in the lead and shouldn't be linked again.Rlevse 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, CT, nice ideas. Added both ideas. And to keep Randy happy, I deleted several other wikilink so SfB elsewhere in the text: there should indeed only one or two in the whole article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

• (2) In the lead text is information that isn't in the article itself. As the lead is only the summary, that info needs to be included in one of the article sections themselves.
• (3) What links here: many redirects link here. That should be corrected, so that all wikilinks link to this article directly.

Feel free to add.

Excellent work here Wim. I'll try to help. As founder, it'd be great to have this as FA.Rlevse 10:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked several FAs on writers. Many have a "List of works" or "Bibliography" section, such as Tagore. What do you think? I worked on layout some.Rlevse 01:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Issue of redirection: There are close to 500 articles linking to this. Most link directly, and some link via the
  Lord Baden-Powell, and similar. I think thi solves item 3 above. I'm not happy about 1 and 2, though, and I'll keep on working on those. Anyone else having an opinion on the article quality? Wim van Dorst (Talk
  ) 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

• The infobox explains that B-P held a command post in the Second Matabele War, earned a campaign medal for his work, and in the author section it states that B-P wrote a book in 1897 about his experiences. Yet, B-P's service in this war is not even mentioned in the article itself. I'll take a shot a correcting this ommission.Ctatkinson 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Here is the text change I propose (new text after the 2nd sentence):

Baden-Powell was posted in Malta for three years, also working as intelligence officer for the

• • As far as I can see, all the above issues have been delt with. The article is now nominated for FA. Be invited to leave comments (see FAC template on top). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

I really can't believe this section is even in here; hardly worthy of the title "encyclopedic." Considering that no one ever said a peep about it until it was "discovered" very recently, can't we just assume this is really just an attack on the BSA for their stance on homosexuality and omit it? Far from being factual, this is merely historical rumormongering. Darentig 19:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check the archives (to the right of the contents) for past discussion on this, as well as on Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. The section needs work, and I have made some comments on the main article talk. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, Ed. Reasonable text! Would some ref from the article be added, please? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 08:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks- this has been irritating me for some time, as you may have noticed. I must admit to filing the serial numbers off of text in several other WP articles to come up with this, so it is not quite original on my part. I added the Jeal ref- one should be good for this short section. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk/books.htm Search that page for the word "homosexual" to find the right spot. Having found absolutely no evidence whatsoever, he just decides for whatever reason that someone is a repressed homosexual. If the only source for this bit is from one guy who has no real evidence of this, and may have just included it perhaps to make his book sell better for all we know, then is it crediable enough to include in this artical? Do we vote on deleting this part or not? If it was an artical about anything else, and the only referance to a fact was from a single writer whose creditials and motives were unknown, would it be included? We can find books stating that the holocaust and moon landing didn't happen, or that aliens replace every elected president with a robot, but despite the fact that some people believe the nonsense, doesn't mean we let them vandalize those pages. Dream Focus 10:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This section has been heavily pared down from the three or four paragraphs it used to be. The main article was forked from this one. If you check the references, this has been discussed by at least two well regarded authors. We may not like it, but it is there. Please see the archived discussions here and in the main article for more information. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the mishmash of date formats previously in this article, may I take the opportunity to remind editors of the guidelines found in

• Hi Pete, thanks for this opportunity for improvement. May I recommend that you do date format conversion with accuracy? I'd rather have a correct date than a nicer date format for the wrong date. I reverted your earlier effort for errors, as noted in the edit summary. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

All that namingcruft in the lead can't possibly be appealing to the average reader. Please consider just using the most common name in the lead instead of abiding by naming guidelines dictated by peerage aficionados. This is the kind of stuff that clearly belongs in footnotes.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We tried that and the British Peerage Project got all uptight. It's also in wiki written policy somewhere that it be there.Rlevse 21:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why the Hell does a small minority of completely inconsiderate aficionados have such a major say about issues that should be decided by community-wide consensus, rather than their own WikiProject? This sucks.
Peter ^Isotalo 18:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem? It is his full name, his proper title, his honors and his nickname of B-P. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Reality check! It's not the name that people know him by... It's namingcruft and very obvious lead clutter. I wouldn't mind if it was included in a less prominent place, but here it's smeared all over the lead. It makes it look as if the article has been written by a bunch of peerage nerds that are too obsessed with irrelevant details.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the various names he was known by are you suggesting? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Contact the peerage wikiproject, they'll gladly explain it in detail and point you to the official wiki policy. I agree with you, but I've fought this battle before.Rlevse 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All of this has been discussed before in the first talk archive. As listed, it it the proper name per Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps we should add a short section on names? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop this discussion of naming. All simple variations that B-P is known by redirect to this article. As B-P himself was his whole life an active supporter of nice naming (e.g., Jeal about the 'Baden' addition to Powell, and also about B-P's use of Gilwell in his name), I think B-P would be pleased with this highly correct naming of the article. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 12:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

The other Wikipedias seem content to call him

• B-P himself never did. And although most article titles are just 'Robert Baden-Powell', all give a serious effort in the lead to get it right, too. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

What's with the ndash cleanup? There used to be a campaign to use them, now we dont't?Rlevse 12:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was before the character table after the edit window was added. Someone just cleaned up the mdashes, so I was just trying to be consistent with the ndash. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, see

WP:DASHRlevse

13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I did :) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

PreviewRlevse 13:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The John Smith link in See also is just stuck in there with no context. Is there a reference for this? If so, this should really be placed in both this article and the Jon Smith article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I just took it out.Rlevse 14:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smith never had any (acknowledged) children, so I wondered about this. The relationship appears to be "tenuous at best."[1] What is interesting is the bust of Smith sculpted by B-P that is now in the Library of Virginia in Richmond.[2] --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this will be the main page article this week, I would like some discussion on the use of flag icons in the infobox, as seen in

• I'm glad you bring this up because there seems to be a general trend on WP to go in this direction (other examples: The Wall Street Journal; Ernest Hemingway; Douglas Adams; Salman Rushdie; Leonardo da Vinci; Bill Gates; Malcolm X; George S. Patton; J. Edgar Hoover, etc). I don't have a strong opinion on this, although I do think the flag icons add brighten up the appearance of the page. Also, if there are several different flags, it also shows some variety. Ctatkinson 01:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I think only a few, like for nationality. Too many gets distracting.Rlevse 02:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What is with the Mein Kampf reference- this is just stuck in here with no context. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I rv'd it twice and then a third person modified it and put it back in. The pertinent part is on pp 555-552 of the online preview of the Jeal book, see link on this talk page. You are correct, this needs tied into context or removed. Rlevse 17:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since this has not been placed into context, I am redacting it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gadget850 barely beat me to it, but Stephe is correct, it is on page 13 of the Jeal book, see here. Rlevse 00:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Did BP really use a grocer's apostrophe in "Aids to Scouting for NCO's and Men"? I would hope not...... Epeeist smudge 06:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was formerly common to use an apostrophe to indicate the plural of an acronym (there are missing letters after all). Compare also with the usage 1980's, CD's etc. which are still sometimes seen, although it's probably more common now to wrtie 1980s, CDs etc.. David Underdown 07:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes No! No! The examples you give are blatant examples of the Grocer's Apostrophe. Depsite frequent use, they were never correct at the time. An acronym becomes a word on its own and there are no missing letters to think about before the S is added (if we were considering the missing letters in the acronym we would put an apostrophe after every letter!). The actual Book Cover uses: N.-C.Os and Men [3] which is correctly taken from Non-Commsisoned Officers. Modern useage in Commonwealth English would be more often simply NCOs, and in American English more often N.C.O.s although either is acceptable in both varieties of English. Dainamo 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence, "It should be noted that the controversy surrounding this has more to do with the narrower definitions of what is acceptable behaviour for heterosexual men in the twenty first century, than anything to do with Baden-Powell's actual words and deeds during his life," removed from the Sexuality section of the article, begs the question of his sexual orientation or inclination. It also elides the fact that his behavior was also beyond the bounds of what is acceptable for a homosexual man in the twenty first century, as well as the fact that the controversy is especially acute due to his expressed interest in photographs of naked boys, in light of his position as founder of Scouting. Haiduc 10:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The intro section contains the paragraph "Some biographical works after his death have made claims that Baden-Powell was interested in the fascist movement that was gaining momentum in contemporary Europe. He was also interested sexually in men and young boys.". As far as the first claim is concerned, "Some ... have made claims" is something that shouldn't be in any Wikipedia article. The second sentence just claims an unproven fact and does not even pretend to be NPOV. I therefore think this paragraph should be removed. The controversial claims themselves already have their own section, which is well visible in the contents section, so they do not need separate mention in the intro. 83.64.208.98 15:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought this up:

1. You are right that "Some ... have made claims" is something that shouldn't be in any Wikipedia article. However, it isn't in the article. It is in the lead para. The full details are provided in the relevant section, but it would going into too much detail in the lead para to start discussing which biographers claim what.
2. " The controversial claims themselves already have their own section, which is well visible in the contents section, so they do not need separate mention in the intro"- you misunderstand, as many others seem to, what the lead para is for.
   WP:MOS
   clearly states that lead paras should summarise the content of the article - if content is "well visible in the contents section" as you say then that is justification for including a summary of it in the lead para.
3. "The second sentence just claims an unproven fact and does not even pretend to be NPOV". The second sentence probably does need toning down but every modern biographer of Baden-Powell that I know of accepts that he had an erotic interest in children.

many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

So- we use half a sentence to summarize three sentences that are a summary of another article? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we use half a sentence to summarise the 100 sentences of an article section that had so much content and grew so large it had to be broken off into a sub-article. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in the MOS does it say that? Can you give me a link? I think it gives

undue weight to the claim. Leithp

But does the controversy section really need two sections when they are short paragraphs? Now that I look at it, we do need to expand the lead to include his writing and artistry. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

All the modern biographers are second guessing with circumstantial evidence. There is no concrete proof of his homosexuality whatsoever.Rlevse 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the main problem with wikipedia - the majority of people editing an article such are this are (from their userpages) self-confessed scouts, who have an interest in reducing the prominence of this kind of information. Thus articles are effectively censored via group editing. Ah well, - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The main problem with wiki is this--those who can't look in the mirror and see the their own agenda and hence attempt to increase its prominence to suit their own agenda, ah well. BTW, do you have any concrete proof of his alleged homosexuality? I highly doubt it.Rlevse 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh - I'm the one with an agenda, an editor who has never made an edit on a wikipedia article regarding scouting, fascism or sexuality previously? Or you, (from your userpage the "Lead Coordinator of the Scouting WikiProject.". I would say you were rather more obviously the one with the agenda and vested interest in keeping Baden-Powell's biographical article as holy and free of suggestion of imperfection as possible. I have read bibliographies and seen documentaries about Baden Powell and this article is a whitewash version protected by a cadre of pro-scouting editors. *That* is the problem with wikipedia. And why would I need proof of his homosexuality? I made no claims about his sexuality, I simply reported what his biographers and documentary-makers wrote about his sexuality - a topic on which there is enough material incidentally to create an entire sub-article on. Or was this just an excuse to get as much of that distasteful information as possible swept under the carpet and off the main article page on Baden-Powell? In any case, I have no further interest in this article or discussion - you can keep your whitewash version at the expense of wikipedia's credibility. - PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even rate a response.Rlevse 20:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to know that I am the one who re-wrote the sexual orientation section as it was before last night? And that I have staunchly defended against its removal by editors who would censor the article? It is material that is in print, so it should be included. The problem is that it is conjecture based on psychobiographical analysis by authors who are not psychologists; as such, it should not be given undue weight. I can go deeper into my opinions on the sexual orientation issue, but it really belongs in the main article.

As to the fascism statements- I would have to go review Jeal to make certain. I think Jeal used the term "naive", but my impression at the time was that B-P stubbornly tried to hold onto the swastika in its original interpretation, probably for too long. As I recall, the Nazis co-opted the swastika in 1921 and the British Scouts dropped it around the same time, but B-P hung on into the 1930s. The section as it is, is taken out of the context of contemporary English society. I do seem to recall that there were many who initially welcomed Hitler's rise to power, both in England and the U.S. There are actually many good points in Mein Kampf (yes, I slogged through most of it a long time ago), including some quite democratic ideas that were never put into practice. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at this a bit more, the current page organization does not seem logical:

• 1 Personal history
  • 1.1 Early life
  • 1.2 Military career
  • 1.3 Later life
• 2 Scouting Movement
• 3 Artist and writer
  • 3.1 Military books
  • 3.2 Scouting books
  • 3.3 Other books
  • 3.4 Sculpture
• 4 Sexuality
• 5 Awards

I would suggest:

• 1 Early life
• 3 Military career
• 5 Scouting Movement
• 2 Personal life
  • 2.1 Artist and writer (new section)
  • 2.2 Sexuality
  • 2.3 Awards
• 7 Works (list of books, etc.)

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur, that seems a more logical order, though I assume that the sections you have left out would be incorporated into the remaining ones? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes- I marked it up for clarity

As best I see, Family life was renamed to Later life simply so the fascism paragraph could be moved. The problem is that the section was crafted to cover his family- from his marriage in 1912 to his death in 1941. The only two parts that are not family relate are the fascism paragraph and his peerage.

Suggest:

• Move the peerage material to Scouting Movement and emphasize why he was elevated.
• Move the fascism stuff to a new section and deal with it there.
• Rename it back to Family life

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Later life and family"? It seemed a bit funny to include death in "Family life". Haiduc 11:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC) PS I would leave "Fascism" there as it is a feature of his later life. Haiduc 11:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point- perhaps "Personal life"? The problem with "later" is that the section covers thirty years. Leave the peerage in, but we do need to explain why he was honored. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last year I had been a proponent of keeping this section according to the

Until such a time as the Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation conforms to the lead-in guidelines and is stable, I must recommend that we ignore the Summary Style guidelines. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's also realize that as this is by far the most heavily edited paragraph in B-P's main article, this one, and given the topic of the material, no matter what we do it will continually be edited and unstable.Rlevse 18:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the original lead photo (#2) was of fairly poor quality, so I uploaded a new one (#1). It was reverted, however, because the other one is "iconic". I disagree. The new photo (#1) is considerably less fuzzy and larger, especially when viewed at its highest resolution; the older one (#2) is very low resolution, fuzzy, and makes it look like he has spots all over his face. Maybe he did, I don't know, but the new one is considerably more photogenic in my opinion. #1 also has better sourcing, as #2 is merely assumed to be public domain but may not actually be so; the photographer could have been a younger individual who may not have died until recently. I see no indication on the site that it was taken from that it is indeed PD. --Tom (talk - email) 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

PHoto 2, the original one, is simply a better picture of him. His face is better, he has his hat on, medals look better and it is indeed iconic. So, I vote for the original one. Also, the one you added has him looking half dead.Rlevse 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo 2 is much better.Sumoeagle179 14:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a bit... --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm suspicious of the second photo's copyright status. It can't be assumed that it is PD when there is no author provided. I've requested it for deletion. --Tom (talk - email) 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How about 3? I can crop it for more focus on the face. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom: Photo 1 has him with a

Photo 3 is fuzzy. Can someone find Photo 2 in the LoC?Rlevse 15:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not there. How about this one. [4] Is has artifacts, but I might me able to clean that up. He has age spots on his face in this one. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just can't remove the noise without destroying the clarity. He is wearing a black armband as well. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it better than photo 1, but I still prefer photo 2. 1&2 were taken about the same time, mid 1930s, so if one is okay on wiki, the other is. I've asked our image tag expert, User:B to look into this.Rlevse 16:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have searched for 2, but cannot find anything better. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

@Rlevse: The first image is from the Bain News Service, which gifted all rights to its photos to the Library of Congress and are free to reuse for any means. See [5] --Tom (talk - email) 16:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked for the second photo in the LOC and couldn't find it, though my search wasn't thorough by any means. --Tom (talk - email) 16:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand the Bain's thing, but the other tag on that photo says it was pub prior to 1923, which is impossible.Rlevse

It doesn't say that in all cases it must have been published prior to 1923, it says "often". --Tom (talk - email) 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That's really stretching it. Since this one wasn't published til 12 years later, explain how its copyright did expire.Rlevse 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be looking into this too much. The collection is free to use, and the rest of it is just semantics. --Tom (talk - email) 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the collection made it free and the PD 1923 tag only sort of applies as it's free independent of publishing date? I thought they were trying to say it's free for two separate reasons. It'd be less confusing if the PD tag were removed. I still think that photo 2 is free.Sumoeagle179 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I get it now too. Photo 2 just needs better documentation of its status. Sometimes this is better said than done-;) Rlevse 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the tag to PD-Bain, which doesn't have any misleading dates in it. --Tom (talk - email) 18:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Retouched and cropped

User:B/User:BigDTon commons, gives us this

Looks good. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[6] This one is even better. User:B is checking on license status. Rlevse 09:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, the current image is up for deletion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

When I was in the Army, I was told "attention to detail will save your life in combat." In the article it is remarked: "The son succeeded his father in 1941 to the Baden-Powell Baronetcy and the title of Baron Baden-Powell." The term "baronetcy" refers to the rank or dignity of a baronet, which is a hereditary knight and not a peer. The correct term for the rank or dignity of a baron is "barony." See Randon House/Wester's Unabridged Dictionary (2nd ed.).

James McConville

Been there, done that. Issue fixed. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is quite clearly referring to two different things: the Baden-Powell Baronetcy and the Barony of Baden-Powell. His son did indeed succeed to both, and so it's a perfectly correct statement. Proteus (Talk) 19:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. B-P was made a baronet (styled Sir Robert) in 1921 and a baron (styled Lord Baden-Powell) in 1929. Peter succeeded as 2nd Baron Baden-Powell in 1941 upon B-P's death. The current statement only works if Peter became both baronet and baron. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He did. Being given (or inheriting) an honour (peerage, baronetcy, or whatever) doesn't eliminate any previous lower honours, the lower ones just cease to be obvious. Similarly, if he'd been further honoured and created Viscount Baden-Powell, he would still also have been Baron Baden-Powell (and a Baronet), he just wouldn't have used those titles. It may seem an odd distinction (no longer existing vs subsumed by a higher title) but it can be crucial, especially when later holders are given higher titles: if the current Baron Baden-Powell were created a Viscount, for instance, and died (as seems likely) without an heir, his brother would not succeed to the Viscountcy, but would still succeed to the Barony and Baronetcy, the former of which would become visible again, with no higher title to cover it up. Having a Baronetcy, incidentally, does have some small significance, even for a Baron: it allows the use of a Baronet's badge on coats of arms, and entry onto the Roll of the Baronetage. Proteus (Talk) 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. Peerage is not something most of us Americans have any knowledge of, other than imported British TV. Looks like it works like our Cub Scout ranks. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

A synopsis of the changes from the TFA:

• Medals wikilinked
• Silver Wolf added to medals list
• 11 Stanhope Terrace added as current address of birthplace
• territory spelled correctly
• Field marshal cite added (needs to be moved to EOS)
• Section title Family life change to Later life (not correct though)
• Nazi section in Later life section
• Marks added to IPA pronunciation
• Removal of Eccles cake
• N.-C.Os
• What Scouts Can Do: More Yarns ref
• Statue image caption grammar
• Silver Wolf lineage

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice work Gadget, but the field marshall cite should stay where it is as it specifically discusses the field marshall issue. Both cites in that para talk about his resignation. I'd leave it as is. As for the the Later life section, I not so sure that is where the fascism data should be. Put it where you like and rename section as you see fit. Whatever you decide is okay with me. Rlevse 02:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting time. I kept an eye on it yesterday. I think the Field Marshall bit should be deleted. The reference merely states that "The baton of Field Marshal was within his grasp". Perhaps it was but I think it is highly unlikely. He had several steps to go first in the various General ranks. Basically the only way he could have become Field Marshall is if he had served on the Western Front in WWI and done well. With his experience in India and Africa I doubt that he would have been a good General on the Western Front, although I guess it is possible. It certainly needed a General with fresh idea. That is all by and by - the suggestion of Field Marshall is simply not supported by sources. --Bduke 03:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If he'd been

CIGS he would have likely been promoted to field marshal. I do tend to agree that it was by no means certain that he'd reach that rank, though. Leithp

06:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not have any mention of Baden Powel’s opposition to English politics and constant fighting. I am not fully aware of the extent of Baden Powell’s feelings on the matter, but it is an important issue to be addressed. To include this in the article, some sources need to be found that are available to the readers of the document. I know of one guy, in the Atlanta Area Council, who shared this in his Wood badge presentation as part of his patrol’s ticket service requirements. They are working closely with Kenya to better maintain Baden Powell’s grave, house, and they are funding (part or whole, I’m not sure) the museum being constructed near Powell’s grave. I feel he is a credible source, and I will dig up more on him, but an available online source would be great if anyone can find a credible site. Law freak 03:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• Baden-Powell statue on Poole Quay to celebrate the centenary of the first ever Scout camp on Brownsea Island

This link is basically information that a statue *will* be built and an appeal for donations. I've searched and cannot find any reference that it was actually built and emplaced. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I made an inquiry to the appeal, with no results. I am redacting this until some verification can be made. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The latest edits by User:77.101.75.15 are a bit perturbing. diff The change of "natives" to "Africans" is not particularly helpful— The white colonists of Cape Colony, the Transvaal, Natal and the Orange Free State could have considered themselves to be African for all I know. It would be better if we referred to them by tribe as we do the Zulu, but the refugee camp was a mix. Pakenham's analysis has been pretty much deprecated by Jeal in this instance. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• I also quite dislike the controversial texts: most are contrary to later well-referenced information (as pointed out here by Ed), or even open-ended. I would propose reverting these additions to a well-balanced article, and then an reasonable discussion on this page here about what to add back in (if any). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC).
  • you've got my support. Rlevse 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the preface to the 2001 edition of Baden-Powell, Jeal notes that Pakenham, in The Siege of Mafeking (2001), retreats from his earlier position that Baden-Powell had deliberately starved the natives. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Done. I retained some of the text, but give it an IMHO useful, balanced view. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC).

There's a disambiguation page at Baden Powell. Why? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC).