our old friend Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) ... created solely as a means of pushing his usual agenda of "pedophilia is normal".

Anal Sex Anal Sex Anal Sex Anal Prolapse (Anal sex) Anal Sex Baden Power Anal Sex.

Nice collection of contributions. Very encyclopediac. The only time he took a break was to write about Cockchafers and even then it was to mention children playing with them.

Arseholes.

In fact counter-arguments were agressively removed with editors (including me) being told to leave it alone so as not to upset the "gay lobby" (I always wonder whether that is the name for a room at the front of my house...).

(Revert to early January version. The article has been twisted into nonsense AND THEN submitted to an AfD.)

The possibility that Robert Baden-Powell was not exclusively heterosexual is considered controversial[citation needed]

Haiduc (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's main stomping ground is Historical_pederastic_relationships (T-H-L-K-D) where the "pedophiles are historical" thing is pretty much crammed down everybody's throat. The 20th century section is a disaster waiting to happen (can you say BLP?)...If you don't agree with Haiduc's view of "history", you obviously have an agenda. Pot, meet Kettle...

This stuff really needs to be flushed in a big way...

:::'''Schrandit is right! There IS nothing of substance here any more since the article has suffered a hatchet job over the past few days. So how do you people have the nerve to come in, deface an article, and then submit the dregs for deletion??? This is the stratagem that you are trying to impose on Wikipedia, and you are trying to pull it off by ganging up on the article and bulldozing your way through it. Let's see if you succeed.''' [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 13:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::'''EXAMPLE: Here is some of the original text:'''
+
::::::::''While early works on the life of Baden-Powell tended towards the hagiographic[2], two modern biographers, Michael Rosenthal of Columbia University and Tim Jeal in his book Baden-Powell, have reached the conclusion that he was probably a repressed homosexual.[2][3] Baden-Powell "…consistently praised the male body when naked. At Gilwell Park, the Scouts' camping ground in Epping Forest, he always enjoyed watching the boys swimming naked, and would sometimes chat with them after they had just 'stripped off.'"[2] Jeal cites an account by Baden-Powell of a visit to Charterhouse, his old public school, where he stayed with a bachelor teacher and housemaster who had taken large numbers of nude photographs of his pupils. Baden-Powell's diary entry reads: "Stayed with Tod. Tod's photos of naked boys and trees. Excellent." In a subsequent communication to Tod regarding starting up a Scout troop at the school, Baden-Powell mentions an impending return visit and adds: "Possibly I might get a further look at those wonderful photographs of yours." (According to R. Jenkyns, the album contained nude boys in "contrived and artificial" poses.)[2]''
+
::::::'''And this is what the "rescuers" have butchered it into:'''
+
::::::::''Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation has been brought into question by two biographers, Michael Rosenthal[1][2] and Tim Jeal. They contend that Baden-Powell had homoerotic interests, based on their analysis of circumstantial evidence. [...] Tim Jeal in his 1989 book Baden-Powell claimed that Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual.[4] Jeal based this on the fact that Baden-Powell had publically praised the nude male form and sometimes talked to boys that had stripped naked for swimming.[4] Jeal also cites Baden-Powell's praise of a friend's photos of naked boys.''
+
::::::'''Jeal based his conclusions on FAR more than what you make him out to have done, and sets out years of research in hundreds of pages of evidence. But your "new" version grossly misrepresents Jeal and makes him sound like an imbecil. And THIS is what has been submitted for deletion? Who are you trying to fool?!''' [[User:Haiduc|Haiduc]] ([[User talk:Haiduc|talk]]) 13:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We are forgetting that Wikipeida is a form of entertainment.

Why he's allowed to continue is a mystery to all...

I didn't even know that Benjiboi was back at work, after a 5-week hiatus. My dinner mate last night informed me of Benji's return. I like how he elected to make his grand re-entrance, with an edit to the discussion on "List of male performers in gay porn films".

Seriously, don't these guys have any other male-oriented encyclopedic interests, like chemical elements, or rivers, or Civil War battles, or cigars, or wristwatches?

Well, if you want more to work from, there's always Category:Sexuality of individuals.

Wow, that page is blocked by Websense at my office. I guess some information doesn't want to be as free as others.

Basically, it says only 12 people in history had interesting sex lives and they were all white authoritarian males. Including Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson is white??? o_0

Wow, that page is blocked by Websense at my office. I guess some information doesn't want to be as free as others.

This category is for articles that focus on the sexuality of specific individuals.

==Pages in category "Sexuality of individuals"==
The following 11 pages are in this category, out of 11 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).
* Alexander the Great's personal relationships
* Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell
* Sexuality of David and Jonathan
* Sexuality of Adolf Hitler
* Personal relationships of James I of England
* Sexuality of Jesus
* Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln
* Personal relationships of Michael Jackson
* Relationships of Elvis Presley
* Sexuality of William Shakespeare
* Relationships of Frank Sinatra

[edit: Oh, I get it. David and Jonathan count as two, never mind.]

Of course, the Wikipedian response would be that in the future we should write up the details of everyone's sexual biography and then we can be equal ... "I mean, there's nothing wrong in that, is there?" to paraphrase a Jimmy Wales quote into a more specific context.

Don't worry, though - the article's safe!!

... seeing as Cyclopia has now copied it over to Encyc

Well, that certainly says something about all the smoke he's been blowing up people's asses here. Basically, he's saying "The guy's dead, so let's have at accusing him of being into little boys."

I am not accusing mr.Baden-Powell of anything, nor I actually agree with what it proposes. However it is sourced information about a weird and poorly known, but discussed in RS, controversy, and I wanted to save it to be sure.

Given that someone (probably from here? Just wondering) seems not to like the article there (which is really funny, see the Encyc article about Brian Peppers if you want some real BLP hell), it means I will keep the article for myself, no big deal

I'm a little alarmed at the content deletion, but too tired at the moment to come up with any sort of leadership. Maybe I'll just give Cyclopia the admin tools and let you two wheel war or something.

Good grief! The Emperor has truly abdicated (his responsibilities)

What exactly is the problem here? You okay with anyone writing any ol' garbage up there? That makes encyc a number of levels worse than Wikipedia, which is in itself, a stinking BLP morass.

You'll remove this edit of mine, describing the infamous Wikipedia 'pearl necklace' article, per "I'm willing to do without this content in the interest of not shocking our readers", but Brian Peppers is just fine?? What is wrong with you??!!

Just give me the word, Emperor. Is this what you're about? Because if it is, just go ahead and block/desysop me now, because I'm outta there. You can clean up your own shit

Good grief! The Emperor has truly abdicated (his responsibilities)

What exactly is the problem here? You okay with anyone writing any ol' garbage up there? That makes encyc a number of levels worse than Wikipedia, which is in itself, a stinking BLP morass.

You'll remove this edit of mine, describing the infamous Wikipedia 'pearl necklace' article, per "I'm willing to do without this content in the interest of not shocking our readers", but Brian Peppers is just fine?? What is wrong with you??!!

Just give me the word, Emperor. Is this what you're about? Because if it is, just go ahead and block/desysop me now, because I'm outta there. You can clean up your own shit

You need a chill pill, Alison.

I believe Baden Powell is kinda...dead.
And has been for a long time...seriously.

Just replace "Emperor" with "Jimbo" and you would be hailed as a hero here on Wikipedia Review, Alison!

I was just talking about Brian Peppers, who's very much still alive last time he was spotted

Just give me the word, Emperor. Is this what you're about? Because if it is, just go ahead and block/desysop me now, because I'm outta there. You can clean up your own shit

it means I will keep the article for myself, no big deal

So, what, you declare a "win" because you copied the article to some personal wiki, where it can be yours forever? Do you stroke it and call it my precious ?

Say, hypothetically, that there was no speculation of homosexuality, and an article was nevertheless created about the man's sexuality. Say it discussed his romantic life and marriage at some length, asserted that he was a happily married man, and uncontroversially sourced it all to important, published biographies. Do those who oppose the current article think that my hypothetical article would be acceptable? If yes, then this is about nothing more than discomfort with the subject matter. If no, then this is about deletionism and the other arguments are being used to disguise that. Either way, there's no basis for deleting the article--the existence of a controversy doesn't constitute a reason to delete content.

Say, hypothetically, that there was no speculation of homosexuality, and an article was nevertheless created about the man's sexuality. Say it discussed his romantic life and marriage at some length, asserted that he was a happily married man, and uncontroversially sourced it all to important, published biographies. Do those who oppose the current article think that my hypothetical article would be acceptable? If yes, then this is about nothing more than discomfort with the subject matter. If no, then this is about deletionism and the other arguments are being used to disguise that. Either way, there's no basis for deleting the article--the existence of a controversy doesn't constitute a reason to delete content.

Say, hypothetically, that there was no speculation of homosexuality, and an article was nevertheless created about the man's sexuality. Say it discussed his romantic life and marriage at some length, asserted that he was a happily married man, and uncontroversially sourced it all to important, published biographies. Do those who oppose the current article think that my hypothetical article would be acceptable?

One distinction is that Baden Powell was married to a woman, so to claim that he was gay is to claim that he was living a lie. That connotation doesn't exist in your example.

So, what, you declare a "win" because you copied the article to some personal wiki, where it can be yours forever? Do you stroke it and call it my precious ?

Say, hypothetically, that there was no speculation of homosexuality, and an article was nevertheless created about the man's sexuality. Say it discussed his romantic life and marriage at some length, asserted that he was a happily married man, and uncontroversially sourced it all to important, published biographies. Do those who oppose the current article think that my hypothetical article would be acceptable? If yes, then this is about nothing more than discomfort with the subject matter. If no, then this is about deletionism and the other arguments are being used to disguise that. Either way, there's no basis for deleting the article--the existence of a controversy doesn't constitute a reason to delete content.

Biut it is not and never has been illegal to be happily married in England, no?

Biut it is not and never has been illegal to be happily married in England, no? But in Baden-Powell's lifetime it was illegal to perform homosexual acts. I havent read the article but if it claims that he had sex with boys that would still be illegal, no? There is much difference between saying that a man had a legal sex life from alleging that he was a criminal. And while he is indeed long dead his memory is revered by millions around the world who would be much upset by these claims.

Haiduc was just banned by arbcom. Steve Smith announced it at ANI.

Good riddance

QUOTE

What could be more interesting than to have an analysis of the life of an important and still influential figure that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects?

I hadn't noticed the above comment on the AfD

Haiduc was just banned by arbcom. Steve Smith announced it at ANI.