Talk:Baden-Powell (book)

Correct title

My copy of the book is only titled "Baden-Powell".

Shouldn't we rename this article?

--Lou Crazy 02:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The title should be the book title and that is just "Baden-Powell". --Bduke 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's the same 1989 book by Jeal, yes. Also, I'd REALLY like someone that has actually read the whole book to update this article into a full review as opposed to what it is now, a review of only 5% of the book. Rlevse 10:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. After reading about this book for years in such detail that I seem to know it, I have finally got a copy of it. Reading it is'nt altering my position but I can now support my views, and it is certainly widening them. I need to finish reading it, but then I'll come back. This article is a problem. --Bduke 13:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the book but I only read some sections until now :-( --Lou Crazy 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Should the new title be Baden-Powell (book) or Baden-Powell (Jeal) or something else? There certainly are dozens of books titled Baden-Powell, and some of them might be worthy of an encyclopedic entry. --Lou Crazy 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So the first American edition was called 'The Boy Man' but all others, including the original British one, are called 'BP'? This confusing situation should be clarified in the main text. DancesWithGrues (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The various titles are listed in the Editions section. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge/move and major copy-edit

A complete discussion has taken place on talk:Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, and concensus has been reached to complete the merging/copy-editing and renaming move. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC).

Update

This article really could do with some content, especially considering that one chapter of it is the source of ongoing "heated debate". At the moment it reads like a second-hand book listing from Amazon.com Once a couple of other articles are put to bed does anyone fancy having a go at it? DiverScout (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Go ahead, don't let other people's hesitance keep you back. :). Wim van Dorst (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC).
  • But don't add content without reference. You can only add remarks about the chapter of Baden-Powell's sexual orientation if it is from a scientific article. Otherwise it is POV or Original reseach, which is are not allowed in Wikipedia.DParlevliet (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • So, quotes from the text are not welcome in an article about the text, but these exact same quotes are notable in the disputed article in Baden-Powell's sexuality? Scouting Milestones is totally acceptable and widely-used as a Wikipedia source, as reviews are not a scientific area of study. DiverScout (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Scouting Frontiers: Youth and the Scout Movement’s First Century appears to discuss Jeal's views, but nobody has yet used this as a source, even though it has been suggested. It is a major academic book on the first century of Scouting. I have ordered it and it should arrive soon. Scouting Milestones has been discussed as a source and generally found suitable, but it is self published. On the other hand, the author appears to be the foremost Scouting historian at present and he has unearthed some significant material. On Jeal it seems to give a balanced Scout view to set against some anti-Scout views. However Scouting Frontiers may be a better source. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a nice book, but apparently not available here in Europe. Reading the details on amazon does give me a very American view on Scouting, but I sure would like to read it, although 100 dollar is a bit to much for me (60 for the book and 40 for transport, duties, etc, etc.). After you've finished it, BDuke, would you care to let me have it at secondhand price :)? Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC).
        • See Wikipedia rules: "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable". So Scouting Milestones is not allowed as source. Scouting Frontiers I don't know. DParlevliet (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I was confusing too things. Scouting Milestones is a significant web site on Scouting history, and is a useful and allowable source, sufficient to support material in an article. However, it may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability to retain an article. These are two different things. There are also a series of books by the same author, Colin Walker, which are self-published but of a very high standard. Again, these can be used to source material in an article. The book on the Brownsea Island Camp resolves various problems that earlier accounts had, such as a disagreement about how many boys were at the camp. That problem is now resolved thanks to Colin Walker and his diligent work on sources. BTW, I suggest you are using scientific incorrectly. Biographies are never scientific, however worthy. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This source does look a bit weak, the work of one man who appears to have no authourity at all, the page seems to be also a sales page with the primary objective of selling some of the books, it is also the work of one single man, how are we to judge the value of his comments? Is he a noted reviewer anything? The comment in the article is attributed to the website and not attributed to him as it should be, hes a Colin 'jonny Walker. ? Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As Bduke has just stated, he is pretty much the primary Scouting historian active today and quite possibly knows a lot more about the source material than a newsaper's book reviewer? The page is a pretty comprehensive list of available texts, and the fact that he has included links to enable people to purchase those that are readily available is neither here nor there. Most book reviews tend to be involved in the sales process of a text. There seems to be a bit of a cult of "Jeal is unquestionable", which is becoming very irritating and shows amazing levels of POV. I feel that this was highlighted by the couple of weasel words that were present in this stub when I first looked at it. Let's not forget that Jeal's opinions are not cast in stone and are also the work of one man who has studied available material. DiverScout (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned Jeal, have you got a reliable source for your statement..that he is pretty much the primary scouting historian active today? Is he mentioned as such by anyone in scouting authority? Or is he mentioned as a noted reviewer of books? Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I mentioned Jeal in order to place this in context. Walker has frequently been in the media speaking on Scout history matters. He has possibly had enough coverage to make him notable in himself for an article, but that is not my intention at this time. He is certainly, however, an appropriate, reliable and educated source for a review on Jeal's text. DiverScout (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't notable, have you got some of these links media speaking about him, I didn't find any. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very certain, aren't you, considering that two editors have informed you that he is. Anyway, we're not debating an article on him. Just as an instant starter check the Scouting Radio website. You can also check through the range of Scout articles to find links. DiverScout (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With scientific I mean that research is done according scientific rules: good argumentation based on all publications and facts, taking in perspective and keeping a neutral position. In that way a biography can be, as all historical research, scientific. Walker regards a possible homosexuality as "a negative conclusion". He does not use any reference, new knowledge or facts and his conclusion is that "Jeal does not prove his case to me" and "I will leave you draw your own conclusions". I personally agree with his view, but still it is POV, not scientific, so cannot be used as reference competing Jeal. Another thing I object is that this content should be in the right article: about Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. Last week this was attacked by a group, which is now troubled by the absence of a good reference against Jeal. I am afraid this article is misused for this. But DiverScout, do you realize that according Wiki-rules: "Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources and should not be used as sources within articles". DParlevliet (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do and do not need policy quotes at this time, thanks. The Wikipedia article was not being used as a source. Material from a page that may be being deleted was being transferred to this article. The source was Jeal's text, and I was in the process of listing the appropriate page numbers (not included on the original article) when you deleted the text. I'll not be bothering to try to add it again, so if the material is now lost to Wikipedia or ends up becoming part of a sadly probable edit war on the main Baden-Powell article - so be it. I tried.

With regard to Walker, he is not being used to make any conclusions, and your public accusation that Walker sees homosexuality as a negative is something you may wish to be a bit wary of. Walker is a historian familiar with the same sources that Jeal employed who has written a review of the book which I have added to balance the false representation given by the existing choice of reviews (written by journalists with possibly no knowledge of the topic) that Jeal's opinions are universally accepted. His reasoning for his comment remains on his review and has not been added to this article so is of no matter here. As you describe Jeal as having taken a scientific approach and seem to have a genuine admiration for him, Walker, a respected historian whose focus is quite possibly more tightly placed on the topic than Jeal (although that would be a POV comment if added to the article), directly challenges this view I can see why you'd not like his quote. If one book review is permitted, however, so should others. The fact that you and others like the book (as do I, within certain boundaries relating to recognising the fact that it is a commercial text written to sell copies, not purely an academic/scientific study paper) does not mean that only positive reviews are permitted. Refusal to allow other editors to add such third-party content could be misconstrued as an attempt to own the article. Oops, now I'm quoting policy! :p DiverScout (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Walker presents Jeal's homosexuality statement as one of the two examples where "the readers make... a negative conclusion" (not a wrong conclusion.). I admire both Walker and Jeal for their work, and I told I agree with Walker, not with Jeal. But it is not about admiration, but about scientific research. Probably both did read most of Baden-Powell, but the difference is that Jeal explicitly explains in a whole chapter about what he used, his arguments and how he came to his conclusion. So you can discover in with details he is right or wrong. Therefore it is scientific, because you can use it go further, to agree or argue against. Walker only tells in few lines that he is not convinced by Jeal, not why, in which details or argument. You can't use it, can't argue pro or con, and therefore it is not scientific. And indeed, reviewers of major newspapers are regarded to be more reliable then (amateur)historians who can be good, but biased by his love for Scouting, having difficulty with critic. But no reviewer will state that everything in a good book will be good. It is for the knowledge researcher (professional or amateur)to battle Jeal's conclusion. But with the same weapons: scientific argumentation, so the reader can follow how one reached his conclusionsDParlevliet (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how you are continuing to attempt to contend that a source text and a review of a text require the same level of content is totally beyond me. Jeal WROTE the book, Walker has REVIEWED it. The review is describing Jeal's text - that is where you are supposed to go to find out more. To reiterate, the Walker text is a BOOK REVIEW.

I am not aware that Walker has yet published a paper exploring the issues raised by Jeal, and even if he had the article on the Jeal book would not be the place for that content to be presented. Of course, actual academic papers, such as Walker or I might publish, tend not to be especially commercially viable as they are a lot less "titilating" than commercial biography. That is all moot though, as no such paper has yet, as far as I know, been written. As a part of Walker's REVIEW of Jeal's text he reveals how he feels Jeal guides the reader to make specific conclusions while appearing to be "sitting on the fence". That part of the review is not even included in the body of this Wikipedia article, but is there to show why Walker holds that opinion - allowing people to decide whether or not they agree with him.

That you then go on to profess that journalists with no subject knowledge are better placed to comment on opinions expressed in a biography than a person who has had access to the same source material as Jeal and has dedicated his academic attention towards the topic for considerably longer than Jeal, coupled to the accusation that an involvement and interest in Scouting automatically makes one unable to accept criticism, makes it very hard for me to provide a civil reply. Suffice to say, that is your POV and you are entitled to it but don't expect me, as a graduate from the same university as Jeal, an interest in Scouting and Baden-Powell, and a couple of academic papers (and minor publications) under my belt, to even slightly agree with you. DiverScout (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then write the article, get a journal to publish it and it will be in Wikipedia. For Walker it is easy: Wiki does not allow (personal) websites. Serious newspapers don't use journalists as reviewers, but scientific employees (or external) which know about the subject. If not, you can remove them too. Also Walker is wrong: if Jeal is sitting on the fence, why the fuss about his statement that Baden-Powell is a repressed homosexual? It could give the impression, because Jeal is using so many information and arguments, both in favor and against, but there is always a conclusion. And letting the reader make their own mind: that is a perfect goal for scientific work. Jeal's book is scientific, not primary commercial, not written for the general public. So he can expect readers who should know how to judge. DParlevliet (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to not say this, but you are expressing personal opinion on Jeal and forcing it on Wikipedia. Jeal is a commercial text. Jeal is an author and biographer. Biographies are not a science. Walker is very clear in his statement that Jeal appears to sit on the fence, but is actually guiding thinking. His website is widely used on Wikipedia Scouting articles - but you appear to only want to challenge it because it goes against your own POV. That you do not like this review, and cannot seemingly take any criticism of an author you appear to wish to follow blindly, is fine for you but not for an encyclopedia. You are very keen to hide behind Wikipedia guidelines - but do so at the expense of providing allowing unbiased articles and against the spirit of Wikipedia itself. There is a guidance note on that action, too, but I have to go to work so do not have time to find it at the moment. DiverScout (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course my writing is POV, just as yours and the whole page. Therefore it is called Discussion and is not in the article. Wiki-rules are made to get reliable data, that is the spirit. Walker's review are his own pages, not checked by others. If you still want to use it editors have to judge the quality of the review, if he used good arguments and keeps a neutral view. My opinion (POV) is that it is not. He does not say that Jeal is guiding thinking (in a negative direction). That would also be strange, because most of the book Jeal is refuting strong accusation and he presenting Baden-Powell positive, as a likable man (as he was). Walker is not reviewing the book, but its readers. Also he is afraid it results in negative conclusion, not a wrong of positive conclusion. So he is afraid that Baden-Powell is damaged and that indicates a biased view DParlevliet (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also dispute walkers website as a reliable source for his comments, in a blp they are primary and would be out. I assume no one else has reported anything from walker in a reliable source. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of quote

I see no reason for the removal of this quote from Nelson Brock, a respected Scouting historian: "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 very nicely sums up the actual situation of views on Jeal regarding B-P and homosexuality. Removing it was not vandalism, but I think it should be added back. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I contend that the removal of sourced third-party material without giving proper reasons through talk is under the banner of vandalism. While I am trying to still assume good faith I am concerned that any even marginal criticism of Jeal's thinking seems to be being removed by an editor. "Removed POV from Block. There are no facts, no proof" is the POV of this editor, not an acceptable reason for deletion of a third-party quote. Whether or not vandalism is the best word is debatable, however it gets the message across, and the attempt to control content now tracks as an attempt to own this stub article and prevent its development. DiverScout (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Brook is giving no proof, no facts about his statement. If nobody wrote about it, how does he know that scholars does not agree with Jeal? Which scholars? Could it be scholars related to BSA so biased, as Brook himself, 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 tell that other people said.., not whom, not why, without the possibility to check. And why did Brook himself not write the article? In this sensitive topic one must be sure to use very qualified references, because what you do yourself, you cannot refuse others. For instance I found in a forum that Michael Rosenthal still argues that Baden-Powell was a racist. If someone puts that in the Baden-Powell page, you cannot deny them if you did put in Walkers web material. Another item is that this article is not the place to discuss this item. It is a small article giving a rough impression of the book. Specific parts must be handled where they belong: in the Baden-Powell article. Unless you have plans to make a complete list here of all items in the books which are yes/no handled by scholars since that time. (And some really POV as a scout: the book is a major restore of Baden-Powell's reputation by refuting a lot of severe accusations. Scouts should be grateful for that and not disturbed over small items. Beware the arguments can reverse: if Jeal is not qualified to judge about Baden-Powell's homosexuality, he is also not qualified to refute the previous scholar, with much stronger "accusations"). DParlevliet (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The author is Nelson BLOCK. I think the reference is good, but would work better in a Reactions or Criticism section. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The text is a third-party published source referring directly to this text. This is not an article about Jeal, about Baden-Powell or about anything to do with anything other than this text. There is nothing "sensitive" in writing an article about a book. You are using your own POV and blind devotion to Jeal to delete third-party sources that refer to this text in any way that you do not agree with. You then state that this published quotation cannot be included due to the fact that it, the published source, is POV. Also, how can you say that the article about the book is not the place to place information pertaining directly to the book itself? Where should we put it? Create a fork article on Criticisms of Jeal's Baden-Powell?

It is not for you to prevent this article developing nor to say that we should leave it alone because we "ought to be grateful" for Jeal's book. I like the book. I'd not have bought it if I didn't. That has nothing to do with the fact that people have gone on record to question parts of it (as do I, but that is beside the point). This quote relates to the book , to nothing else, and should be on this article.

For the record, I think that Rosenthall's book is a badly-researched POV pile of tripe, but I'd challenge anyone who denied his arguments from being included on appropriate articles no matter what I think of them as my own opinion is of no consequence.

Unless there is an actual reason why the quote about the text, from another published text, should not be restored could we please do so? DiverScout (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact I will restore it. Walker may be challenged under Wiki guidelines (when followed against all common sense and against the use of the web site on a huge range of Scout Wiki pages) but this Block a valid, reliable third-party source that expresses the same sentiment equally well. DiverScout (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No Bduke, you did not answer my arguments. Block is referring to anonymous sources and states himself that his article cannot be referenced regarding this subject. Then you are not allowed to use it. DParlevliet (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you really replying to me? My only post to this section is right at the top. However, I do not think Block does really say "that his article cannot be referenced regarding this subject". It is an academic conference proceedings after all and these are often referenced. We would simply be quoting the opinion of a respected historian of Scouting. His opinion gives an overview. We are citing this kind of material all the time. What can we source about a book? Reviews are not peer reviewed even if in academic journals, let alone in newspapers or magazines. We can use anything that comments on the book, but must not exclude views and must not give undue weight to some views, We write about each view of the book giving the same weight as overall the notice of the book gives. If 100 reviews say A and one says B, we do not give equal weight to A and B, but we do not ignore the B view. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You added the citation, so I think you are the first to discuss and restore this part, more then DiverScout. As you see I did not removed all, only the part where Block is quoting anonymous sources, probably from private talks because nobody wrote about it. That is not decent to refer here, because scholars will not accept that their opinion in private conversations is quoted. Without good sources Blocks opinion has the same value as yours. Block also tells that a scholar's reply is needed, so he regards his article not to be sufficient as reference. DParlevliet (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire quotation is from a published academic text and it is not appropriate for a Wikipedia editor to selectively edit quotations to serve their own agenda. I allowed you to delete Walker without raising too much of a fuss as he is borderline on acceptability, but this is not the case this time. To reiterate, Block's comments are from a published text, not a chat he had down the pub with Bduke and, despite desperately attempting to find ways to assume good faith, I am increasingly concerned by your repeated deletion of content and your comments on this talk page (such as your statement that we should "be grateful for [Jeal] and not disturbed over small items") that you are putting your own agenda, e.g. the promotion of Jeal, above that of the aim of trying to develop proper encyclopedic content. The text at the bottom of this article says, "This article about a biographical or autobiographical book is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Please contribute towards that expansion or, if you cannot, back off and allow others to do so. DiverScout (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not read Scouting Frontiers, but I do trust BDuke's judgment. The book meets the standards of a reliable source and the statements are a critique of Jeal's work. Any review or critique of the book from a reliable source is appropriate. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Baden-Powell (book)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rating aligned with Scouting rating. Article needs elaboration, arguments why this book is notable, more in depth information. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Last edited at 23:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)