Talk:Biggles/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial comment

This is a good article. It possibly needs sourcing but references at the bottom are fine. Capitalistroadster 06:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Film

its worth mentioing that a modern day film staring the biggles character was made-i belive peter cushing was in it. It involved some silly time travel plot as i recall —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.171.188 (talk • contribs)

That's Biggles: Adventures in Time, and it's already mentioned, about halfway through the "Biggles in popular culture" section. --Paul A 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Who are these dorks...

...who are vandalising this page, and what do they have against Biggles? --Newshound 17:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Who was Biggles modelled after?

A great article, but from my reading of the biggles books, his career seems to mirror the actions of one Albert Ball! Cyril Lowe may have been a good pilot but it was ball who challenged a german to a duel, it was also Ball who pretended to be hit and landed behind enemy lines when outnumbered only to take off again when his pursuers had broken combat. There are also a number of other stories from other pilots... as a matter of fact I don't think that one of the exploits of cyril has been reproduced yet dozens from other pilots have been...

As proof I quote from They fought for the sky by Quenton reynolds (1956 I think...) "One Afternoon Ball encountered two Albatrosses over the lines. He opened the attack, gave each machine minor wounds, and both headed for the safety of their home base. Ball followed and then ran out of ammunition. He took out his revolver and pursued them, but they managed to land safely. Ball, enraged and disgusted that any fighting airman would act in what he felt to be a craven manner, wrote a note on the pad all pilots carried strapped to the right thigh, weighted it and dropped it over the airfield. He said he would be over the base the next day at the same time, and he challenged his two late opponents to come up and resolve the battle.

Ball arrived promptly the next day and to his delight he found the two aircraft circling slowly. He flew straight towards the nearest one, intending to rely on the near-collision manoeuvre which had stood him in such good stead, but before he could close in he heard machine gun bullets whistling all around him and he knew that he had flown into a trap. He zoomed upwards and to the left, and now he saw that there were three uninvited guests at the joust. It was five against one now. He tried hard to get close enough to pick off one or two, but the Germans were wiley fliers; they swerved away, merely waiting for the chance to close in and finish him off. Ball chased them furiously, firing at longer range than he liked, but he always had to break off his run as one or two of the others manaeuvred above and behind him. Then he ran out of ammunition. Theoretically, he should not have remained alive for more than a minute. If he lit out on his ownterritory, he would be as vulnerable as a sitting duck for always three of the five stayed between him and allied territory. Then he improvised perhaps the most unorthodox and apparently suicidal manoeuvre ever attempted by a cornered airman. He put his plane in a crazy spin. The Germans, of course, were sure that he had been hit. Ball had observed a large open field below; he brought his neuport out of the spin and fluttered towards the ground. He landed. The Germans knew this was Albert Ball; Taking him prisoner would be an even greater triumph than killing him. Two of the german aircraft swooped down to land on the field; the other three flew over it, wagging their wings in derisive triumph, and then went to a nearby airfield to spread the story. Ball was slumped over the seat of his little neuport but his engine was still idling. The German pilots hopped out of their respective machinesand ran towards the neuport and its presumably wounded pilot. As they aproached Ball opened his throttle, pulled back his control stick and the little airoplane shot down the field, rose in the air and Ball headed for home without having recieved a scratch."

Maybe you should revise just a little. 220.101.103.200 04:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)p-hughes

You make a good point, p-hughes. But can you trust someone with such a strange last name? :)Johno 13:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding Johno... the guy in the book is called BIGGLESWORTH!

220.101.103.200 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)phughes

Thought I should just add that the "head on" tactic of Albert Ball is also described here. Another proof that Ball is more of the model used for the character.220.101.103.200 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)P-hughes

All the above aside, where's the reference for the Cyril Lowe connection anyway? Rojomoke 11:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the point that, when writing the early Biggles stories, Johns used lots of anecdotes and stories that he had heard of unusual events and inventive tactics? It's a little disingenuous therefore to claim that Biggles is "based on" any one pilot on the grounds that Johns used a real incident involving him in writing the story. According to the author's note of "The Camels Are Coming", he wrote Biggles at least in part to record for posterity some of the tips and tactics that proved useful, to potentially be useful in the next war. 82.163.43.10 (talk) 12:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Beiggelschwarz: Flemish/Dutch origin

Pearson's book is generally poorly regarded by Biggles fans, appearing, as it does, to be more based on speculation than research. Johns never referenced a Dutch ancestor in Aberdeen and I think it likely this has no basis. Rschroev's comment below further calls this into question. Does anyone have a good reason why the Beiggelschwarz sentence should remain in the article? --Ewanscot (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, the name Bigglesworth originates from the Flemish surname Beiggelschwarz, the surname of a Dutch ancestor (according to John Pearson's work "Biggles - the Authorised Biography").

However, I am Flemish and I'm pretty sure that Beiggelschwarz is not a Flemish or Dutch surname. It sounds rather German: 'schwarz' is German for 'black' (and would be 'zwart' in Dutch) and 'Beiggel' sounds German to me too.

Rschroev (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Flemish derivation, which doesn't seem appropriate. Cooke (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Biggles in later popular culture - Planetary

Biggles appeared in Doc Brass' pantheon of heroes in the first issue of the "Planetary" comic book series, by Warren Ellis and John Cassady and published by DC Comics under the Wildstorm imprint. Brass and his comrades were slightly altered versions of pulp heroes, including Doc Savage, the Shadow, Tarzan, Fu Manchu and Operator No. 5. Biggles appeared as an unnamed aviator hero.

It's not actually intended to be Biggles, though - the only British character in the group is Blackstock/Tarzan. The Absolute Planetary collection helpfully reprints the script as well as the issue itself, clearly identifying the character as "G-8 -- The Pilot" when he's first mentioned.

Accordingly, I'd suggest that the Planetary references are mistaken and should be deleted from this article. --81.151.218.14 (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

origin of name "Biggles"

The Shuttleworth Collection located near Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, was founded in 1928, WE Johns would have moved in same the circle of aviation society as Shuttleworth, his first stories came out in 1932... I have been ponderingb this since 1978! Nankai 03:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also always assumed the name was adapted from Biggleswade, it is such an easy step to make. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nedrutland's edits

Most of these are real improvements (thanks!) - but I have altered a couple back to something closer to my original text:

• 1. "Did not parallel closely" implies, I think, a rather wider divergence than is the case. Both Biggles and Johns entered the RFC from the army (as did many others, for instance Richthofen!) - there are also several apparent autobiographical snippets in the "WWI" Biggles books, although it would be speculation (at least OR) to actually list these. I think "not particularly closely" covers the case just a little better.

• 2. W.E. Johns' rank on leaving the RAF is by no means necessarily his RFC highest rank, as many officers in the RFC held an acting rank higher than their substantive rank, and took an apparent demotion if they stayed with the peacetime service, as Johns did. We don't know, of course, that he ever was an acting Captain - but it is at least possible. I think in fairness we should leave the possibility open by referring to "final" rank rather than "highest".

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also reinstated mention of Johns' observer being killed! Biggles also lost observers - one a tyro flying casually with Biggles while his regular observer is temporarily unfit for duty - and, later, his former observer is also killed after Biggles has transferred to single-seaters. This is one of the (quite rare) known "autobiographical" snippets in the Biggles books and is worth a mention, even if we don't labour it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"In Universe" style??

I think this article needs a warning that it is written in a largely "in uiniverse" style. Biggles is a fictional charcter. I don't think enough of this article makes that clear.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree - it is very clear indeed that Biggles is fictional really. Johns (the author) is NOT fictional, and we do touch on HIS life. Is that what you mean, the distinction between the two is a little fuzzy? We do "switch universes" as it were. By all means feel free to add a note to make things clearer if you want. I've no objection in principle (provided it's no too obtrusive, and doesn't further confuse the issue!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that it's necessary to "switch universes" to a certain degree when writing about any work of fiction. What I meant was, I don't think it's really correct to have headings like, "Early Life" and "First World War Service". Something along the lines of "Character's Backstory" and "First World War in Johns' Stories" might be more appropriate. Also, I don't think it's right to say "James Bigglesworth was born in..." It should be, "According to the stories about him, James Bigglesworth was born in..." I may yet do some editing of this article but the reason I am wriing this is that I think it could be better done by people who know much more about the character than I do. Anyway, I'm glad that somebody's read and responded to my comments.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Any well meant and reasonably sensible comment deserves a thoughtful reply - having said that I don't really agree that this is an important matter, or one that is currently likely to produce any real confusion. The article has apparently been framed as it is since it has been there (long before I first saw it). You might be interested in looking up some other fictional characters, to see if there is an overall "Wikipedea" pattern to this sort of thing. Hopefully some other Biggles fans will also notice this, too. Ideally radical change in an article is the result of consensus. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with Simon Peter Hughes. There is something strangely factual and biographical-sounding about the page. I put this down to the familiarity of the editors (including myself) with the Biggles books and its associated cultural setting. Agree with 'Character's backstory' or similar, after that his suggestions start sounding a little clumsy to me. Certainly it is not necessary to say especially if the headings/text make it clear that it is characters and plots that are being referred to. I note that I didn't notice this before, but SPH certainly has a point. Compare the Contents boxes for the Just_William_series or Jennings_(novels). Centrepull (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Taking Centrepull's comments into account, I have done a little editing. It shouldn't cause any controversy and I have no intention of entering into an editing war,Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Peter, although I can see your point I think this is a little awkward. What about Biggles' "early life" (with the early life bit in quotes)? I really don't like "backlife"! Together with the "According to the stories about him" bit this seems to cover the original objection. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Early life" seems like a decent solution. AFAIK, there is no such word as 'backlife'. Centrepull (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have changed Simon Peter's edit (I was giving him a day or two to do this himself!) - hope this meets with approval - and at least covers the original objection. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As we all know, anybody's free to edit these pages. A lot of what I have written has subsequently been changed for the better, which is fine by me. I certainly have no complaints with the article as it stands now, I'm pleased to see that the stories dealing with Biggles' "early life" have been named. I've really got nothing more to add here. Thanks again for reading and thinking about my comments.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Biggles' biographical queries

Can someone confirm or deny if in Biggles and the Blue Moon, Biggles refers to having grown up in Malaysia? Less uncertainly, when Algy turns up in Biggles, Pioneer Air Fighter he is described (elliptically) as being younger than Biggles. There is no mention of his having pulled the same trick as Biggles and joining up under age, so given the year of late 1917 or early 1918, he must be born in the same year as Biggles. Jeremynicholas (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't have a copy of that one - the synopsis at http://www.biggles.com/ is no help either. He may say something like being "brought up in this part of the world" - classing Malaysia as being "near" India? Or it may be a slip of Johns' memory. Or even of yours? Can you quote "chapter and verse"? But after all Biggles IS a fictional character. In The Boy Biggles and Biggles goes to School Biggles' early life is described quite closely, but in a different novel he may very well have an "adjusted past"!! As for the other query - without searching for my copy of Biggles, Pioneer Air Fighter, which I do have somewhere, the Biggles series has a very strange system of chronology - people certainly don't have to be born in the same year to be of the same age! A discrepancy of a year or two is nothing compared with the time stretching we are asked to believe overall.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Blue Moon comes from memory (parents threw out my Biggles collection when I was in University...the only 2 left are Pioneer Air Fighter and Biggles of 266). And the British dominions included Burma as part of India, so not too much stretching of the imagination required. I'm not pedantic enough to want Tolkein-level coherency of the fiction. Jeremynicholas (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is silly to expect great consistency in Biggles chronology etc. - Johns certainly never sat down and worked everything out to the nth degree like Tolkein! In fact the point is made in the article, isn't it?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

'parents threw out my Biggles collection'. dear me, do you still speak to them? I have scanned the early chapters of Blue Moon and you have a remarkable memory. While Biggles doesn't refer to growing up in Malaya - he does say I'm looking forward to a dish of Malay curry. They don't make it as hot as they do in India... I was brought up on it. Biggles grew up in India, moving to England for his health (in his early teens?). Johns wrote The Boy Biggles in the 60s due to fan requests for info about Biggles childhood :-) Ewanscot (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Racism section - "THAT" sentence!

What we need to do in this contentious sentence is to quickly sum up what is to follow in the rest of this section. It needs to be balanced, not necessarily totally neutral - it needs to be fairly succinct, but at the same time it needs to actually BE a sentence in its own right, with its own clear thought.

What it needs to say is something like "There is some justification for this (the banning of Biggles from school libraries) but on the other hand ... well, what do we say? The sentence that is being reverted at the moment is in a rather poor style, and won't do - but I can see what is being driven at.

Is it just the phrase "political correctness" and its link that is being objected to?

Could we have a few suggestions here - I sat up for half an hour last night rejecting a dozen of my own drafts (I was admittedly very tired). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence looks much better - thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boognish100 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Biggles and Johns: history combined?

The section about Biggles’s history is largely given over to the career of W.E. Johns, and whether or not it is the basis for Biggles’s bigraphy, which seems a bit odd to me. Also the line, “his final rank was only Flying Officer (equivalent to Lieutenant in the British Army) rather than Captain.” is surely misleading, as it suggests that he could have been a Captain, when no such rank existed in the air services… or was that itself a myth when it was told to me? Jock123 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Capt. W.E. Johns" is John's pen name - implying that he was in fact a Captain in the RFC. This is eminently possible, as "Captain" was indeed a rank in the RFC, which as part of the army used army rank titles! RAF rank names didn't actually settle down during the war - there was some controversy about the adoption of army or navy rank names in the nascent RAF, i.e. whether to adopt the ranks of the RFC or the RNAS. Eventually new rank titles, specifically for the new service, replaced earlier practice, but what individual officers were actually called was muddled and inconsistent well into the early twenties. Johns was (in 1918 terms) not a "Captain", but a "Lieutenant" when he left the service in 1927 - the point is that this MAY mean that he quietly promoted himself for his pen name (which after all he was quite entitled to do, if he wanted) - or, alternatively, he may have actually held the higher rank in the wartime RFC. In the British (and U.S.) services it is very common for a wartime officer to hold (on an "acting" basis) a higher rank than he has formally been promoted to - so it is not impossible he was a "Captain" in 1918 but had to take a demotion to his substantive rank when he elected to remain in the peacetime service. The text reflects that we are not sure which is the case. As for muddling Johns and Biggles - can you be more specific about where you feel they are muddled? Can't see it myself off hand, but...--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to John's use of "Captain": in the era when militarily retired British officers of all levels continued to preface their name with a rank, a once widespread practice that latterly came to be seen as pretentious for all but the most senior, it was widely if erroneously believed that one was entitled to use a rank one higher than one's final service rank. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

So far as I know, Johns only used the "Captain" in his pen name. To have done so as a regular thing would have been (even then) not just pretentious but incorrect, even if he had been an RFC captain in 1918 - one had to have served as a major at least to have been entitled to use one's army rank as a salutation in civilian life. (A naval captain is obviously another matter, since the naval rank is much senior to the army one). But in a pen name you can call yourself whatever you like, I mean that's the point of a pen name, isn't it? I hadn't heard about people supposing they were entitled to a higher rank than they really held - honestly I very much doubt that anyone ever did this supposing they were actually entitled to do so.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually - re-reading the article at this point - is "Biggles history" a very good heading for this section? Can anyone think of a better one?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again! It seems to me that the "Biggles history" section should be replaced by two new sections, a brief biography of Johns and an expanded section about the character's creation and first appearance.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 06:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Started to do just this - then decided instead to rearrange a little and change the section title. have a look, anyway, and let us know if you feel we could improve it. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That certainly is an improvement. "Biggles and his creator" is a much better title than "Biggles history" and it much more accurately describes what the section is about. I think some more information on the publication history is needed. I get the impression from this article that Johns didn't leave any record of who inspired the character or what inspired the stories, so I guess the origins of the character are as well covered as they can possibly be.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

PatGallacher's edits

These are obviously made in good faith - but corrections have been made:

W.E.Johns starting the war "on the ground" is too ambiguous - he was in fact an ordinary soldier (technically a cavalryman, although his unit were fighting as infantry). "On the ground" looks superficially as if he were serving in the RFC in a non-flying role ("ground staff") - which is not the case. Please bring this up here before reverting again.

Johns' rank in the RFC is not clear - he was a junior commissioned officer (subaltern) - but whether a 2nd Lieutenant, Lieutenant, or (JUST possible) a Captain there is no firm evidence I have seen. By the end of Johns war service the RFC was no longer part of the army - and RAF ranks were not properly established, so his final wartime rank was an RFC/RAF one - NOT an army rank. This is no doubt what Johns had in mind giving himself an RFC rank in his pen name.

At the same time I have also edited a couple of sentences myself to make things clearer and less ambiguous.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "on the ground" and "as a soldier" are both ambiguous. Those serving in the RFC were "soldiers" as much as were the infantry or cavalry. Perhaps state that his initial service was "as a cavalryman, whose unit was fighting as infantry". That would clear it up. Eastcote (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of "Soldiers", "sailors", and "airmen", to mean members of the army, navy and air force, is pretty much universal English usage. We DON'T in English call an airman, even one serving in a "ground" capacity, a "soldier". I realise that they do in German, for instance, but it is simply not ordinary English. What usage might have been in 1915, when the flying service was very new, and still part of the army, I am not sure - but I don't think this is relevant anyway. I don't think the current text is unduly ambiguous - while before I corrected it it definitely was.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the suggestion related specificially to WWI. There was no RAF in WWI, but an RFC which was part of the army.Quadparty (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my last post. But that has not been the case since, at at the present time a soldier and an airman are distinct occupations - hence although we are talking about 1915 there is no real ambiguity (especially in context). I'm sure any reader of the current version would get the correct idea. "Soldier" was inserted by another editor to replace "infantryman" on the grounds that Johns' original unit were technically cavalry - although they went to war as infantry. If it must be changed, I think a restoration of "infantry" conveys the essential information better than the verbose and confusing text now proposed. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Still think "soldier" is pretty ambiguous. To many people anyone in a uniform is a soldier. (Call a Marine a soldier some time and see what happens). And, as a soldier he could be a cook, a quartermaster, or a cannon cocker. So, how 'bout saying he served "with the infantry", rather than "as an infantryman", since he wasn't really an infantryman, but a cavalryman assigned to that role. Eastcote (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose "with the infantry" will do. Anything that makes it clear that he was not in the Flying Corps at the time. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Suitability for children"

The article has always made the point (clear to anyone who has read the WW1 or other early Biggles books and the later ones) that there was a moderate "blanding" of the books - to suit them to a younger audience than John originally envisioned - hence the famous "lemonade" incident! If this is now to be dubbed "POV" then the article will have to have a good many changes - we couldn't say anything about Biggles' racism, for instance. I think we need to distinguish between what is POV, from the point of view of an encyclopedia, and what is very basic literary criticism, for the purposes of making some sort of sense of a "literary" article (I suppose Biggles is "literature" in a way??). Otherwise we couldn't have any literary or other "humanities" articles at all - since these can never be entirely objective.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While I think it's legitimate to point out that the stories came to be aimed at a slightly younger audience than they were originally, "blander" is a rather sweeping POV judgement. Also the post-WWI stories make up the bulk of them and are not homogeneous. PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest an alternative for "bland" to describe an adventure story that is a little soft on reality for the sake of the kiddies then? On consideration you may be right that it is not quite the best word. "Bowdlerised"? no, that assumes there was something to tone down. The judgement itself (POV or not) has actually been there all the time - since long before I found this article - and I honestly think it it is pretty objective, as these things go. Of course we are generalising here - but the Biggles books on the whole ARE fairly homogeneous really. The greatest Biggles fan would not imply for a moment that they are great literature, or that each succeeding book is a unique masterpiece! (Ducks as Sopwith Camel strafes his dugout!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we need to add more to the article. The Biggles books are fairly homogeneous, but not totally so. Some older readers might consider the WW1 stories to be the most realistic, based on Johns' own war service. However later stories are not always soft e.g. in "Biggles and the Dark Intruder", one of the last, at the end the villain blows his brains out at the end. PatGallacher (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the offending bit really "adds" to the article, except perhaps to clarify it a little. It is certainly not a "new thought". If it is really the word "bland" that is bothering you, I can see the point to a certain extent. The only thing is I really can't think of a better word off-hand. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Quaint language

Appreciate you don't like this - but can you explain why, if only for the record? The section "as it was" always struck me as being a little bald - perhaps it needs to go altogether? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The section is legtimate but the new version was longer than necessary, and conjuring up images of projected saliva or other fluid was gratuitous. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is not gratuitous. PatGallacher (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SO is this more pleasing?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Spinoff adventure books

Is it worth mentioning the following spinoffs? http://www.gamebooks.org/show_series.php?id=52 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.246.163 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Question mark

The reason I removed the question mark here is because it looks odd, it's extremely rare to see a question mark (or any punctuation) in a section title. I looked for guidance, but couldn't find any. However, I still think it should be removed on NPOV grounds. A question mark implies that the section is a) proposing a question and b) answering it. This also implies that there should be a question asked, and that 'wikipedia' is asking it. Wikipedia discusses information neutrally, without a specific point of view, by pointing to the discussions of others. In this case, the question is "Is this material suitable for children?" I believe this is inappropriate. The title should be without the question mark and simply be a reference to discussions about the material's suitability for children without assuming the question needs to be asked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's one way of looking at it - on the other hand the suitability for children of old fashioned "literature" of this kind (occasionally racist, violent, and otherwise inappropriate)is VERY often questioned nowadays by parents, teachers and school librarians. Without the question mark it might seem as if the article was endorsing the suitability of the Biggles books - which WOULD be POV. A much more NPOV approach is to include the question mark - indicating that we are NOT coming to a decision on the matter, but pointing out a few of the relevant considerations. In all kindness, you seem to me to have this back to front. The question mark does not of itself introduce the questionable nature of the heading, (or create the question's "need to be asked") that is there already by the very nature of the subject - it DOES indicate that we are avoiding (NPOV fashion) coming down firmly on either side. As for the practice of including a question mark in a heading being "unusual" - this certainly does not of itself make it "incorrect". As you point out there is nothing in any Wiki rule to forbid it. I'd say, quite rightly so! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

However, the subsection in question is already a section called "Controversies and criticisms", ergo the subsection should be describing the criticisms and controversies (appropriate) rather than asking a question (inappropriate).

Wanna take it to a WP:3O? I see your points as well, I just disagree :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A criticisms and controversies section is by definition asking questions, and although not all of them need question marks there are places, like here, where not making it clear we are asking a question risks implying a POV statement (in this case, "the Biggles books are suitable for children", which would be very POV indeed). Not saying that every reader will necessarily take it that way, and of course we continue with heavy reservations that would qualify any such statement, but it still could be implied that's what we've said. By all means get a 3rd opinion if you like, but I honestly can't see what's to disagree with. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Another way of putting this - before I go to bed! It is arguable that the Biggles books are not suitable for children at all, in fact that their suitability does not exist. If it DOES exist - i.e. there is at least a measure of suitability for children in these books then the heading without the question mark is fair enough - but this is in itself a position, and we are trying to avoid taking a definite position (preserving our NPOV). The question mark simply makes it quite clear we are not claiming either that there is or is not a measure of suitability. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that on wikipedia, no section should imply or contain a question, we should document the comments, questions, and thoughts of individuals commenting on the topic of the page. I read "Suitability for children" within a subset of "criticisms and controversies" as saying "one of the controversies has been over their suitability for children", not "are Biggles books suitable for children?" Putting in a question mark by definition asks a question, while leaving it out means the section simply discusses a controversy. But I'll just log a 3O (and see if I can find any further guidance). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: The question mark is unneeded. It doesn't really add anything to the section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the 3O; SOM, I'll wait for your comment before doing anything. In the meantime, I've also asked about this in general here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The question mark's been taken out by someone else! It would obviously be out of order for me to reinstate it, and I'm not going to do so. Question marks are used to express doubt about something as well as to ask a specific question - and this is clearly what was intended here - but I'll bow to consensus on this matter. On the other hand if the question mark is to go then the heading that remains just won't do! Not sure by any means that the new one I have substituted is satisfactory either - can you suggest something that describes the section without implying anything that could be taken as POV? Sorry if I seem to be making a lot out nothing, but there are people who get quite passionate about the UNsuitability of Biggles for children - in my research I read more than one regular tirade on the subject (actually referenced one of the milder ones) - they certainly wouldn't interpret the "unquestioned" form of the heading as "neutral". Remember it comes after a long (and hopefully balanced) account of the racism in the Biggles books - which for many of these people is in itself the important reason for keeping them out of modern childrens' hands. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just label the section "Other issues". The trouble with 'moral' is that it is a loaded word that means different things to different people. You could start the section with something like: "Although the books were written for children, their suitability as children's books has been questioned in recent years." Then go on to say that X says this and Y says that sort of thing. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. On top of that, putting moral in quotes implies some type of skepticism. My vote is also for "Other issues". If no one else wants to put that change in, I'll do it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No problems with that - "moral issues" was just the first thing I thought of - on reflection I agree it's a loaded term to be avoided where possible. The whole article makes it clear that what we're talking about is primarily children's literature - so the section itself may well be OK as it stands. The "other issues" are essentially those of audience and censorship/bowdlerisation of course - although we don't really need to say this in a heading. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I really think it was fine with just "Suitability for children". I read it as "Criticisms and controversies" (i.e. the series has been criticized or generated controversy) with a subsection on "suitability for children" (i.e. one of the controversies was the books' suitability for children). Plus, the issues faced aren't really moral ones - writing about death at all in an ostensible children's series; replacing alcohol with lemonade; removal of romantic elements. None are really "moral" in my mind, but they may be seen as unsuitable for younger readers. "Other issues" works for me, but I still see "Suitability for children" as the clearest indication of what the section discusses. If it's a criticism or controversy, obviously someone doubts it - we attribute that "someone" (something missing in the current version - there is only one source) and let that source do the talking. By leaving in suitability for children, you could also include any sources that argue they are suitable for children. I'm looking on Google books for some references that may help. So far I've found one that seems very relevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No - I can see what your interpretation is - trouble is that its NOT the one quite a lot of people would see when they saw that heading - especially if they were skimming an article that was basically repugnant to them rather than reading it closely. What a passage means to the writer, or a dispassionate reader is one thing, good encyclopediac wring avoids any likely misinterpretation (and any UNlikely one if it can be done neatly). This was of course the purpose of the "doubt expressing" question mark. If it is to go then we need a heading which expresses our neutrality more clearly. That it is neutral in intent, or neutral in what seems to you in the most logical reading is just great, but not quite enough when the first reaction of many people would be otherwise. You are asking that all readers follow the text closely, including bearing in mind the overall heading under which any subheading occurs - it just doesn't happen that way. How would this work (see article). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) On rereading the section, I'm a little concerned that this may be original research. We should be citing reliable sources that raise the issue of 'suitability for children' but the cited texts are used to support the argument that the books are unsuitable (rather than the cited texts themselves making that argument). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, unsourced speculation (in some cases conclusions, which strike me as NPOV as well as OR) is endemic throughout the page. Given the bits of plot summaries I've read, the "conclusions" seem reasonable but they really should be sourced. Google books turns up a fair amount of material to work with as well, so there doesn't seem to be a need to have so much citation-free text.

Again regarding the heading, I would still say it's best to stick with "suitability for children" and drop the scare quotes. We avoid scare quotes because they imply a POV, that the term used isn't meant to be literal. Since the section is essentially a discussion of the suitability of the material for children and alterations made on that basis, I see them as simply unnecessary. It would be nice to have a balance as well - if we can find sources that say "really, the material is pretty positive for kids" then that's great. I know in Butts (or somewhere else), Johns is quoted as saying that he uses the books to educate people on British values like fair play, bravery, etc. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if we had better references. For example, using the fact that death is treated rather frequently and sometimes in a grim fashion (unsourced - is this true?) to say that it is unsuitable for children needs a reliable source. Death is quite common in adolescent literature (and death is always grim!). Stuff like this makes me think this is original research. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, there really is a lot of sourcing that we're not using here. [1], [2], [3], [4], all of these have ten or more references to the series. Then there are ones with fewer references [5], [6] that could still be used. Obviously this only taps the online sources with instant access - missing ones like this. We're also missing a discussion of Biggles' female counterpart [7], which seems important. There's also the pseudo-random on-line sources to be tapped, if reliable [8] [9]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The references we have are excellent - and on the whole (with the odd reservation, I suppose) I think there are enough (well nearly enough) of them. Just because references exist doesn't mean they need to be cited. I deliberately avoided amassing too many references specifically on the racism topic - preferring one good one, which I cite just twice. A footnote, perhaps, quoting an example or two (such as the passage in "Biggles learns to fly" where Biggles arrives at his first operational squadron just the survivors of a patrol that has been badly mauled by Richthofen's "circus" return) might be appropriate to reinforce the point about "grim" treatment of death. It is carrying avoidance of OR too far to say we can't quote from a book without a reference to tell us that where it comes from! Death in children's literature is usually either avoided or sentimentalised (although the famously fastidious Victorian era was less extreme than our own in this regard!) - some passages in Biggles read almost like an anti-war novel. And (most importantly!) note that we AVOID coming to a conclusion about whether this makes Biggles suitable or not (hence the so-called "scare" quotes and my objection to removing the question mark!) - any conclusion here is not drawn directly from the text of the article. Articles on "art" topics are almost unwritable (and would be quite unreadable once written) without a measure of OR that would be quite inappropriate in science, technology or social science articles - look at any article about a book, play, musical, or opera for examples of this. I think on the whole the article steers a reasonable balance between excessive OR and extreme dryness and over-objectivity. (Having said that, there's probably still room for improvement!) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

About Biggles "female counterpart" (Worrals) ahe already gets a mention - probably enough too, as she has her own article. Please be fair and read the whole article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest additions

On the whole these are excellent - but I have taken some liberties with the "racism" section. We already had a reference to the effect that many of Johns' "casual" nasty people are of mixed race and he seems to have had a "thing" about "half-castes" - I don't think this needs repeating, or labouring, although in fairness it has to be said once at least. We have had references before to "you can't blame him because at the time racism was much more socially acceptable" and this provoked some fierce reaction - so I have toned this down bit - and rearranged it so it goes with other material on Johns' own attitudes.

I've also done some other rearranging, to re-establish the order (which had become a little muddled).

1. Initial statement. (Some people say Biggles is racist - this is true but simplistic.)

2. Excuses and examples of non-racism - "fair play" - Johns' own racism essentially "casual".

3. Specific examples of racism - the "unforgivable books" ("Biggles hits the trail", "Biggles in Australia" and "Biggles in Borneo")

4. The "Biggles in Borneo" rewrite ("Biggles delivers the goods") - important because it shows Johns was (eventually at least) aware of his racism and capable of systematically expunging it!

I am aware of the danger (not having a copy of Butts) of getting references out of place in moving text - I have tried to forestall this but it would be good if someone who owns Butts could check.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much everything I added today was sourced to Butts, pretty close to a direct lift. If you have a gmail or other google account, that would help you see what Butts contains - I can read 90% of the text in the chapter and I believe it's because my logged-in account means I don't have to compete with my whole IP address in reading the book. There's a link in the citation template to the start of the chapter but if you can't read it, chances are it is because you're fighting with other IP addresses and that limits the amount of material you can access in a day. Some additions also make the entry essay-sounding. It's unusual to include a point-counterpoint unless it's sourced. Certainly there are redundancies, I was essentially adding what I could find in the source and not combing through the whole article (there's more as well, the discussion of Janis for instance is in at least twice). I also really, really don't think we should point out when things are "interesting" (i.e. here). Interesting is subjective, and the interest taken by others should be demonstrated through their representation in reliable sources. Obviously racism has attracted interest - we should demonstrate that through summaries of secondary sources exploring this point. I can't speak to anything Milner says (i.e. this edit is sourced to him, but google books doesn't have a preview of the material) but by juxtaposing the two paragraphs (particularly with an "on the other hand") it reads like a synthesis to me.

I don't object to the removal of the {{more footnotes}} tag here, but I think the article is very, very far from where it needs to be in terms of footnotes. Two of the four sections in Criticisms and controversies section have no footnotes whatsoever. Racism and the suitability sections have three whole paragraphs lacking any footnotes, often relying on primary source material (i.e. the books) to present examples to make their points. This should be sourced to secondary material rather than primary, and often that secondary material will contain valuable analysis that can enhance the page. Based on preliminary looking on google books, there seems to be a lot of untapped material to draw upon - I'll try to get around to it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where (as is usually the case here) we are simply describing the original text (primary source) rather than drawing conclusions from it - a secondary source, especially when this proves to have less connection that it claims with the primary is not necessarily better. Again, a work about a book that quotes more what other writers have said about it than it does about the text itself reads like the effort of the lazy schoolboy who uses a "guide" rather than the book he is studying for his term paper! In any case it doesn't make for an illuminating encyclopedia article. I think we are agreed that citation of good references is important - I tend however to feel that it is better judicially applied - over referenced text abounds in some articles on WikI, and the is a great shame - especially when at least some of the references are frankly quite poor. While I would have no objection at all to more referencing in some passages (many of which date from before I encountered this article) I don't want us to decend to the level where every second sentence requires a buttress of references - many of them irrelevant, and/or of very poor quality. In referencing we need to be select (choose only the best references) be discreet (ideally, only cite them where it gives authority to a point that might legitimately be questioned) and aboce all be scrupulously honest (unlike the typical high school student, over lazy undergraduate for that matter). I realise you probably don't altogether agree - just having my little say! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just before I give up this nonesense for a while - the Butts citations would be much improved with appropriate page numbers for each point!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Worrals

Biggles' WAAF counterpart, Worrals - and his commando counterpart, Gimlet do deserve the (very brief) mention they get here. The Worrals and Gimlet books are more than just "other books by W.E. Johns" - in this context they point out the propaganda value of the Biggles books in WWII Britain. The characters even intersect at least once - and one volume exists which collects otherwise unpublished stories of all three in the one volume. Please stop deleting them, anyway - or at the very least present a cogent argument WHY they are "not relevant"! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Soundofmusicals. I consider the Worrals and Gimlet books, to be the best things WEJ did. And WEJ (see the recent Guardian article by Hilary Mantel) is a very important writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooke (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for citation tags in "racism" section

A smattering of these were "thrown at the wall" in a recent edit.

I have eliminated these - in one case by (unnecessarily) repeating a reference - in other case most by removing or heavily modifying the offending text. One or two I could not see the point of and just cut, I'm afraid.

I urge the editor concerned to reinstate any "citation needed" tag he feels should return, but to please make it quite clear exactly what he wants cited - or, MUCH BETTER, to find a good cite himself. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism Revisited

There is a persistent tendency for some editors to attempt to defend or excuse the racist content of the Biggles books. A kind of creeping watering down of the statements seems a constant feature of the page. This is pointless, as it only degrades the article by including opinion that is contradictory to the facts. This is not to say that there should be no background explaining the contemporary social mores.

Before World War II, Johns opposed the appeasement of Nazi Germany and was not a "deliberate racist"; his "casually racist" attitudes are in part a reflection of the unquestioned imperialism of his day.

A defensive non sequitur followed by a coded explanation that he was a 'better type' of racist rather than a 'worse type/Nazi', and in any case, most of the fault lies with the British Empire. This is an impressive amount of nonsense to pack into one sentence, but I await responses to my intention to remove it. Did W.E.Johns not travel around the globe to learn something first-hand about the peoples he included in his books?

Please keep in mind: most racists are not Nazis, and Johns is not automatically condemned as one without your help in 'grading' his racism.

Racism in the Biggles books does not

• destroy their significance,
• eliminate them from their historic place in tradition,
• mean that the entire contents of the books is worthless,
• mean that anyone that enjoys the books is racist by extension.

So please don't edit as if these were the case. Neither can racism be 'balanced', by saying some good stuff about some groups, to compensate for offensive comments made about other groups, or even made about the same group earlier. Biggles being brought up in India, speaking fluent Hindi and having Indian friends and colleagues is interesting and worthy of note, but has no bearing on the racism displayed in the books. The comparison of Latin and Hindi in importance is a ridiculous extrapolation of Biggles' actual comment.

Editing while labouring under any of the above misapprehensions, leads to a lower standard article which is less worthy of Wikipedia.

Overall, the tone of the section reads as if there is an ongoing debate about the racist, imperialist and colonialist content of the books. There is not. The offensive content is clear-cut, and widely accepted and understood. Furthermore, it is not restricted to the 'unforgivable books'.

Note that I have restricted my comments to the controversies section, one /might/ raise further questions about how John's imperialist and racist attitudes negate the statement 'The books.... British values of bravery, honesty and fair play are stressed'.

It is not my style to arbitrarily remix the section without consultation, but I am trying to point out that the section is already far from satisfactory or objective, apparently in order to appease diehard Biggles supporters. Worse, it results in the uninformed reader being presented here with specious arguments and contradictory statements:

even if a flat dismissal of the books as racist were to be considered simplistic

Not sure who has tried to 'flatly dismiss the books' as racist, but this statement is in itself a ridiculously simplistic summing up of educationalists' attitude to Biggles.

Johns is claimed not to be a 'deliberate racist' in one paragraph, then in another paragraph it is stated

that when Johns wishes to present an unpleasant "foreigner" he will quite often drop a gratuitous and offensive hint that the person involved is of mixed race.

and again,

Non-whites taken en masse tend to be systematically demonised.

I suggest the distinction between 'deliberate' and 'casual' racism be dropped.

As the very first paragraph in the racism section makes clear that attitudes to race and ethnicity have changed since the early days of Biggles, I similarly suggest that the number of statements blaming John's attitudes purely on prevailing attitudes be reduced:

attitudes are in part a reflection of the unquestioned imperialism

Johns succumbs to the popular tendency, typical of his time, to apply unpleasant stereotyping

although they are typical of a genre of fiction for young people that was once common

Improvements are necessary. Still, I have compared this with the article on Westerns, as there are some similar issues at question. Biggles comes out far ahead at present! Centrepull (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as ever, is NPOV. We are all racist about someone, I fear - as an Australian I tend to have negative feelings about Poms and Yanks, especially white ones. The black ones are mostly OK, mind you, but even them... So long as I recognise this nonsense for what it is and don't let it influence my writing (for Wiki or anyone else)!!!. The facts are, in short, that at least three Biggles books are inexcusably racist (as reading for modern children, at least) - this needs mentioning (and it is) and the books need "naming" (they are). A good many others have casual remarks about mixed race people being inherently second-rate, especially if the "black side predominates" - this seems to be an airing of Johns' own little pet prejudice and is also petty inexcusable (in any context, actually). On the other hand there are instances of quite an "advanced" attitude for the time that (in the interests of NPOV) must get a mention (and do).

Attitudes in a community at a particular time ARE RELEVANT - to say they are not, and there is some kind of absolute standard of racial "non-prejudice" that is utterly timeless and to which all writers past and present must (retrospectively!) follow is in itself highly prejudiced, and is positively vicious in its unfairness (to put it another way, it is every bit as ignorant, stupid and nasty as most other kinds of prejudice). The past is a different country, as a great writer has remarked. Taking this into account is NOT necessarily condoning, excusing, or explaining away racist attitudes, especially if (as happens) these are pretty rough even by the standards of the time.

There was probably a good case for hacking away at the section, in fact I have now done so, including some of the bits you didn't like (where I could see your point) - but this section (while I agree it needs to avoid whitewashing over unpleasant facts) also MUST be fair and balanced - nothing to do with sacred moo-moos at all. You have a POV (which I respect and largely share!!) but it no more belongs here than that of an out and out racist!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no... you seem to have misunderstood my points, and not actually addressed some of them.

The root issue of the section is racism in the Biggles books, not whether 'we are all racist about someone'. There is no reason not to specify the 'inexcusably racist' books, and I didn't suggest they shouldn't be. Implying that racist comments in the other books is somehow therefore 'excusable' or acceptable is another matter. Rather than attempt to measure 'excusability', I was simply making the point that there should be no implication that there are the 'bad books' and the others are 'good'. That is rather misleading. After all, the article currently reads that the 'bad books' are also 'typical'.

NPOV is a given objective in a WKP article, but it mustn't be an artificial balance. Johns 'advanced attitudes' should be mentioned (perhaps e.g. his including the working-class Ginger as an equal member of the gang). I was pointing out the problems in any such attitudes being used as a counterbalance. They have no bearing on racism, they are simply other attitudes also displayed. 'Some of my best friends are black...' is not an encyclopedic approach.

As for social attitudes, I clearly noted that they are relevant to Johns' writing, but this reasoning is mentioned so many times in the one section that it is obviously used as a defensive statement. It is not the place of a WKP article to make attacking or defensive statements.

As a matter of fact, although there may not be an absolute standard of racial 'non-prejudice', there actually is an understood standard of what constitutes racism, that applies even to past times. Racism existed well before the term existed, and can be indicated even at a time when it was not recognised. Further, it is a canard that nobody realised it was racism at the time, the subjects of racism have often noticed it through the ages. Your L.P. Hartley quote is incomplete: 'The past is another country; they do things differently there', ie. if they had some unpleasant behaviour, accept that this is the case. The quotation implies the direct opposite of ignoring the difference in behaviour. Once you have pointed out that racism (or sexism, or religious prejudice) was less shocking or more acceptable in a past time, you still have to accept the general idea of the racism. By repeatedly going back to the point of 'society', an editor is dodging an issue which in any case has an implied conclusion by the very use of the excuses. It is possible to mention the role of contemporary society as a useful context without them appearing to be excuses.

'A good many others have casual remarks about mixed race people being inherently second-rate, especially if the "black side predominates" - this seems to be an airing of Johns' own little pet prejudice'. A pretty non-objective excuse that illustrates the point I'm making. It's in fact a pretty clear statement of the racism that disfigures many of the books. I think I can reasonably say that many black men of my grandfather's generation would have recognised it as such at the time, even if you seem to be striving to claim that it was reasonable for the time. How many times might one wish to point out that wife-beating was socially acceptable in the 19th century, when analysing the issue of whether a particular person employed the practice at a certain time? The present situation is attempting to desperately shift the grounds of statements from the issue of whether racism is present, and dump it into the arena of whether it was a common attitude at the time. Once this is established - it was a more common attitude during John's most active writing years - then going back to it repeatedly is just a way of avoiding the point.

The paragraph comparing Biggles Delivers the Goods with Biggles in Borneo, is in fact currently the best of the section, coincidentally indicating that W.E.Johns' attitudes were not inflexible, and that at least in the latter stages of his career, he had some awareness.

I happen to believe that too much parallel and rival editing is one of the banes of the site, and a major cause of non-sequiturs, poor wording and disjointed statements in WKP articles, so I am in no hurry to add any changes of my own to the thoughtful ones that you have been making. Often good editing is completely disrupted by others before it is even completed, let alone bedded in.

You have made a comment about my POV that is a bit puzzling. The only POV I am pushing is objectivity and reasonable analysis. I have been careful not to attribute any particular POV to you (I don't pretend to know it). It would be nice if you extended me the same courtesy. If there is something objectionable (or non N!) that you note in my POV, please say so clearly, so I can take it on board. Centrepull (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a little less than totally earnest in some of my remarks, no discourtesy was intended - if I was laughing, it was meant to be with you, not at you. Nobody (at least not me) is making excuses for racism, or trying to "avoid the issue". On the other hand being objective and reasonable about a question (like the racist content of a series of "literary" works) that is simply NOT that simple, and in fact highly contentious, includes mentioning both sides of a question and mustering fair arguments on both sides. Racism is NOT the only stupid nasty prejudice around, as I hinted perhaps a little heavily - unfairness to people who had the misfortune to live in different times (or places) is not very nice either. BUT, as I hope I made clear, I do agree to at least a certain extent with some of what you've got to say - and I have done a bit of pruning already. Does this go some way to meet your objections (given that the next editor will most probably be "on the other side")? As for POVs - we all have them, we'd be no use at all if we didn't, and a "non N" POV is not something objectionable - we are people, not encyclopedia articles. That's the very reason why a balanced NPOV treatment like this (should be) needs multiple editors, compromise, and occasional fairly brutal pruning - and why, incidentally, it will never please everyone. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I strive for NPOV in WKP editing, including 'accepted academic opinion', whether I agree with it or not. I still think that there are too many repetitions of the societal context of W.E. Johns' writing, but your current edits seem excellently-written and better-balanced than maybe I could have managed. Other editors can intervene at any time, so rather than second-guess them, I prefer to cross that bridge if I ever notice that I have come to it. I would most likely object if an editor sought to defend 'Biggles' from the charge of racism, colonialism etc using specious arguments, but I would be pleased to be convinced of the same thing by proper points. So far, most of what I see is 'Biggles books are not racist, because racism was acceptable in those times'. Context well worth mentioning, but a remarkably poor argument against the core point. The alternative defence, 'some of his best friends were black/Asian etc', is such a meaningless cliché as to be laughable. Try googling 'some of my best friends are black'. Centrepull (talk) 05:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Opine" and "ejaculate"

Poor old Biggles has been known to "opine" or "ejaculate" the odd remark now and then when W.E. Johns fears criticism for overusing the word "said". This is such a well known feature of the Biggles books, especially beloved by parodists, that it must have a mention, but how? I don't think these two pet words of Johns' are necessarily "old fashioned" - at least in the sense that they were once fashionable and have now slipped into disfavour, and I have been reverted for suggesting they are more or less unique to Johns (!) - so perhaps just a mention - as the article now possesses, that they are distinctively "Biggles" words, beloved by W.E. Johns, but on the whole rather less than common???? (Oh what wonderful relaxation this is from problems that matter!!)--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither word was unusual in novels of the 1940s - 1960s. Reading through other books of the period by Percy F Westerman, author of the merchant marine hero Alan Carr (known at the time as "Biggles in a boat"), or Leslie Charteris's Simon Templar adventures will find them used equally as frequently. "Old fashioned" or "archaic" may not cover it, but you have to admit these words are certainly used less frequently by authors in recent decades. I feel the paragraph as it stands still needs a little work. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that this paragraph does not belong in the 'Criticisms and controversies' section. Furthermore, both of these words are still used in literature today, and as pointed out, the language used is appropriate and commonplace for the time period the books were written/set in. Either way - what is controversial, and where is the reference to criticism? Wormald (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

By all means move the para if you can think of a better place. It is probably not especially controversial as such that W.E.Johns' language is sometimes a little quaint - nor is this a major criticism (nobody is claiming, I hope, that Biggles is great literature). I wouldn't agonise over this particular point myself. The two words, incidentally, have ALWAYS been uncommon and affected (actually rather ignorant!), especially in the sense Johns uses them, but they may not be as common in W.E.Johns actual writing as one imagines. Are they in fact more common in parodies? Do they need specific mention? Might we just mention the fact that the overall effect of W.E.Johns' prose can be quaint? (Actually I don't think mentioning the odd specific word hurts our case here). Do even rabid Biggles fans really care very much either way?? Again - if you can think of a sensible rewording that fits the actual case better, run it past us and see if it sticks.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism revisited yet again

Just to explain why I reverted the most recent (good faith) edit to this section. It is very much personal opinion that Von S. is a "true Nazi" - just for starters he first appears in WWI stories (i.e. before Germany WAS Nazi) - I think rather his loyalty to Germany and courage are something Biggles respects, which is only fair in context. Thinking that Stalin was as bad as Hitler is also hardly a startling opinion, given what we now know about Stalin! The point is that drawing conclusions either way would be very much POV, not to mention OR, and not appropriate to the article, especially at this point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trusting in my good faith! Your correction gratefully accepted. Jan olieslagers (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"Examples" need to have book/story named

Biggles has been widely parodied, and there are many apocryphal "quotes". The ones that have recently been inserted may well be genuine, but we really do need original sources so they can be checked. In any case trying to build up a comprehensive lists of examples of already well-attested facts like that Biggles is not that keen on women adds little or nothing to the value of the article. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent mangling of article

A recent addition to the team of editors, who has yet to open his own account - has attacked this article in a series (!) of edits. In spite of obviously sincere intent this article is on the whole MUCH the worse for this particular set of changes.

1. Wholesale style edits produce, in spite of the odd improvement, a style that is on the whole more verbose, "twee" and syntactically complex. Biggles now "makes his debut" rather than appearing in a story - and this sort of thing permeates the whole thing.

2. Much more serious - the article (as virtually rewritten) is now riddled with (added) instances of POV and OR (there were all too many there to start with). The result might make more interesting journalism - DEFINITELY not a better encyclopedia article.

I am torn between systematically going through each and every edit, retaining the few that genuinely improve the article, or simply reverting the whole lot!! After some soul searching I have decided that I really don't have the time and I am reverting. I want to make it quite clear that:

1. This reversion inevitably restores a few real errors and/or instances of inferior expression corrected in the course of these multiple edits.

2. I appreciate the "good faith" and (what is even more important) sincere intent of the edits.

It is difficult to communicate with someone who hasn't opened his own Wiki account, or if he has, does not log on - but I would suggest that he/she edit one little bit at a time in future, and watch out for expression of non-neutral point of view innapropriate for an encyclopedia article.

I have downloaded a copy of the "modified" article, and may find the time to go through it properly and find if there are actually any worthwhile improvements that should be kept. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has not responded to any of the dozen or so warnings or comments made on his or her talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

An answer to the masked crusader!

Someone called Mr. (or Ms.) 82.209.185.180 seems to be having problems with the meaning of the word "consensus". The following is in reponse.

Everybody here knows that "English" and "British" are not the same thing - especially those of us who come from Scotland or Wales (or even Northern Ireland). This is NOT in fact relevant to the word that belongs in this sentence, however. The "values" we are talking about are NOT exclusively "English" or "British" or Outer Mongolian for that matter, but human ones that are valued everywhere - by enclosing the words "British values" in inverted commas we are poking (very gentle) fun at the idea that they are. Insisting that the values concerned originated or "developed" in England (or Britain, or Outer Mongolia) is either extremely silly, or out and out racist (or both of course - since racism is fundamentally silly). There are plenty of hate sites out there if you really want to be racist - please accept we don't do that stuff here.

Johns (and many English, not to mention British people of his time) did, however, consider the values mentioned (along with almost everything else that is fundamentally decent) were at the very least more typical of the "British" than of those nasty foreigners. Racist of course - but something we can afford to smile at, perhaps, in these more enlightened times.

On a more serious note - the values concerned ARE very much part of the ethical background of the Biggles books. In fact this is what the sentence really says. Quibbling over what to call them is extremely trivial. In fact if it would shut you up I for one would almost go for the idea of simply ommitting the word "British" altogether - and calling them "traditional values" - but why surrender to stupidity and ignorance? Neither quality deserves to be enshrined in an encyclopedia. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the offending text as I suggested above, to remove this essentially irrelevant objection. Still think this whole bit is really very silly. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism

I have a moth eared copy of Biggles in Africa (I think thats the title) where he refers to one of the natives as a 'N****R' so I dont think we can be so sure of the lack of Racism in Johns work. Saying that Im sure the text was no more racist than the average white anglo saxon at that point in time. Thats still no excuse mind. Adam777 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

(myles325 butts in. You've coined a beauty here. "Moth eared" is a cross between moth-eaten and thumb-eared, with a hint of cloth eared. Congrats. Ok carry on...) Myles325a (talk) 01:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(myles325 butts in yet again). Oh good grief (as Charlie Brown would say) - now I’ve gone and done it as well. “Moth eared” is a cross between moth-eaten and dog-eared (not thumb-eared as I wrote earlier). Thumb-eared is possible, but is nowhere near as good as dog-eared, with well-thumbed being the preferred term. Myles325a (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but to play the devil's advocate . . can it really be described as racism when (pejorative or not) this word was the normal one used by white people to refer to black people? To my way of thinking, intent is key here. If the intent is to stigmatise, then it's racism. If the intent is other, then the person may be being insensitive, but isn't necessarily being racist. Johno 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I love Biggles books with a passion, but I don't think it's fair to say that the charges of racism are refuted by evidence. For one thing, racism is in the eye of the beholder. An encyclopedia entry can say that such charges were laid, which is fact. Saying that the presence of positive non-WASP characters proves that there isn't any racism is a matter of evaluation. For another thing, Biggles books have a number of blanket statements about various non-white statements which are (to my mind) racist. Biggles peppers a bush with a shotgun at one stage, explaining that the Chinese don't value human life very highly, even their own. In 'Biggles in the Orient', he tells the reader that the Japanese never invent anything and that they stole their language from the Chinese. There is also an African 'native' who recuperates very quickly from a wound, you know, as Africans do. Saying that the attitudes were 'of their time' and hence not racist, is a cop-out, especially since Biggles' 'time' is our time - from the 30s to the 70s. It's true that Biggles came to be used a symbol of Blimpishness and British Imperialism, a lot of which can't be laid at Johns' door, but the entry should be fair, so I have amended the page, leaving in the mention of positive non-white characters, but taking out the line that this 'refutes' the charges of racism. Otherwise it's a brilliant page and I'm glad I've found it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

'Biggles in Australia' is is particularly painful in this regard. Even without von Stalhein's intervention, Australian Aboriginals are portrayed as inherently savage people quite capable of spearing white men to death after years of friendship... and near the end, when the Aboriginals have turned on von Stalhein's crew, Biggles' response is that it's still Our Heroes' duty to save von Stalhein & co. because they're white men. Trying to reach a conclusion on whether the series as a whole is racist falls into the realms of original research; if we want to address that it should be done by finding & referring to published commentary, not our own opinions. --Calair 03:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As an (Australian) boy, I remember reading “Biggles in Australia” and being shocked by Biggles’ (and Johns’) attitude to the Australian Aborigines. Johns knew nothing about Aborigines when he wrote it, but this did not stop him from maligning them by attributing to them behaviour completely uncharacteristic of them, and in a fashion that was totally out of keeping with the “fair play” ethos he purports to support elsewhere. In the other books, Biggles is loathe to kill anyone, and tries to keep any such killing to the bare minimum. Here, with his plane on the ground, he maneuvers it around to point at a mob of angry “savages” and lets them have it with both machine guns. And there is no hint of the compassion and remorse he often evinces when he must kill elsewhere. I’m surprised the book was ever released in Australia at all, and now, even if his other stories may to be tolerated as expressions of attitudes typical of the times, this one at least should not be given to children, anywhere. Myles325a (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All Biggles-books have been removed from the shelves of swedish public libraries on account of being racist.Oskila (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted the statement that racism in Biggle's books is merely alleged, and the contentious statement that 'all of the accusations of right-wing racial bias are groundless', which I suspect has been removed before and reinstated.

My justification is clear evidence of right-wing racism in 'Biggles in Africa':

'As Ginger had observed, if appearances were anything to go by the man looked capable of any vice or crime. In the first place he was clearly a half-breed, with the black predominant, although his hair was long and straight.' Biggles in Africa, p35, Oxford hb edition.

There are other clear examples, in this and other 'Biggles' books. The issue here is not the terms used (although half-breed was an insult even at that time), but the attitude to a character who they had not yet had any dealings with.

Defenders of the 'proud Biggles tradition', please remember that Biggles is a fictional character, and this is a reference site. Spurious defence of his portrayal is not an ad hominem attack on every Englishman of the time! (Although it does reflect very poorly on W.E. Johns, as Biggles is supposed to be a very English hero). Also, evidence of positive non-white characters has no bearing on accusations of racism, especially where the racism clearly makes negative comment on the creed or colour of the victim of the racism.

Finally, 'typical of the time in which they were written' may be a defence for not censoring Biggles books, or even for allowing them to stay on library shelves but it is also no defence against charges of racism.

Removed this statement: and Johns' accusers (few of whom had even read the books) had to resort to extreme manipulation of the texts in order to condemn them (No citation nor example for a contentious statement)

Added this statement: It is very unlikely that the imperialist and racist content of Biggles books would be seen as acceptable as childrens' uncritical reading by schools, libraries and other public bodies in the UK today. (Archaic attitudes in Biggles books makes this statement rather necessary)

Retained concept: 'he asserts to Air Commodore Raymond, in Biggles Delivers the Goods, that he has "always tried to be decent to all men, regardless of race, nationality, colour or creed".' A proper reference is necessary here, as it goes against some of the racist prejudices displayed in other Biggles books. Is anyone able to do this?

Removed statement: 'and a message in the books, often delivered with heavy-handed emphasis, is that readers should endeavour to do likewise.' (no examples given for such a contentious statement - it seems to be there merely to combine with the 'race, nationality, colour or creed' statement (previous para) to offer a weak defence against the usual and evidently painful, racism charge.

I hope here that I have cut short the circular arguments about whether it is original research to decide whether Biggles books are racist, attitudes of the time (quite a long time, apparently!) and so on. Examples show that the books are clearly racist, and would have been so even when written. The only thing that has really changed is the acceptability of such racism. Centrepull (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any keen Biggles fan could think of particular Bigles stories that contain racism - especially (as well as the ones mentioned here) Biggles hit the trail, and the original version of Biggles in Borneo (called Biggles flies East, or is it the other way around??) which is definitely more racist than the other one (which ever way round it was). I think W.E.Johns' racism (much more to the point than Biggles') was more the thoughtless kind - when he caught himself making a thoughtlessly racist comment he was capable of expunging it - and the great majority of the Biggles books have little or none. The period from about 1910 to 1940 was really a horrible time for racism - much worse than anything before or since, and it is self righteous, even hypocritical, for us to apply modern standards to people who lived through this period, IMHO. All this reeks of POV and OR and can't go into the article, I realise, Just rabbiting on --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is racism in Biggles books (in "Delivers the Goods" an ally of his mentions "der black trash in Bolivia") but very little and it would have been acceptable in Britain at the time and since it wouldn't be widely acceptable in Britain now we ought not to judge it from today's point of view and there are positive stereotypes present also so clearly the racism part of the article is fine as it is. Sioraf (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think what many of you are saying is that some of the CHARACTERS in the Biggles books are racist. That would seem to be much in line with life in general, unfortunately, many people are, even today, never mind in the 1930s and 1940s, and Johns was reflecting the opinions of many people at the time.

Many of you criticising the books seem to be confusing racism with prejudice. Biggles WAS prejudiced, he didn't like Germans much either, but he did try and do 'the right thing' by everyone, regardless of race or creed. I read many of the Biggles books in my childhood, and don't remember any overt racism, so if there is any inherent racism in Johns' books it didn't have much impact on me.

Its as well to remember that Johns was writing at a time when the British Empire was still an entity, and many of his young readers would have been in non-white countries where any 'racism' would not have gone down well with the parents, many of whom would have been non-white, and of non-European origin. At the time, just about any young boy (and a few girls) who was interested in aviation would have been an avid reader of the Biggles books, including many non-white boys from the Caribbean countries like Jamaica and Barbados who later went on to join the RAF at the start of WW II.

I suggest that anyone interested in published racism try reading some of the poisonous material put out by the Nazis to see what real racism is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.248.53 (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope the current "racism" section is fair - we're certainly not comparing him with Hitler! On the other hand I'm afraid we cannot gloss over the fact that there IS too much racism in the Biggles books, even making allowances for the period. Some of the books are very much worse than others - I vividly remember finding "Biggles hits the trail" really sickening (I was seven at the time, already a keen Biggles fan, and this came very close to putting me off Biggles altogether). I think W.E. Johns had largely "seen the light" by the later books - but (for instance) gratuitous remarks about unpleasant people having mixed ancestry - with a strong "what would you expect" implication - are pervasive, even in some of the books containing little or no other racist sentiment. The idea that the British Empire discouraged racism is also VERY naive I'm afraid - won't go into that one. Read the whole section in the article before you decide we're being unduly unkind, anyway. I hope we get the balance about right. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of the "racist" allegations, it's important to make a distinction between a racist author and racist characters. Most of the examples given above (eg: Ginger's suspicion of an African half-breed) are in fact attitudes expressed by characters in Biggles books, rather than by the author. Just because characters in a book are racist, it does not mean that the author - or even the book itself - is racist. It simply means that the character has a dark side - is less sympathetic, less of a "hero". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newzild (talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned up the first Python reference

Whoever wrote the previous edit had obviously never bothered to actually read the sketch in question, since Biggles is clearly being portrayed by Chapman as a comic homophobe. I'm pretty sure threatening other professing gays means that at the very least you are still "in the closet". Obiwanjacoby 00:53, 27 August 2007