Talk:Biggles/Archive 2

More on racism

 * I intend to revert/reincorporate some of the stuff discussing racism and imperialism in Biggles books that was present previously, and has been removed. I suspect the edits were not made for valid, reasons such as wikifying or accuracy, but to defend the W.E. Johns legacy.


 * My reasoning for reverting are:


 * the books unarguably contain racist and imperialist material, it's on the paper, and can't really be denied. Examples have been quoted in the Racism section above


 * most of the defence of the offensive comments and attitudes in Biggles books is not based on defending the comments themselves, but on the premise that 'those were contemporary attitudes' - that argument does not mitigate the racism of the content


 * it is mealy-mouthed and meaningless to dismiss the racism issue in Biggles books completely with the current comment 'Regardless of the debate over their racist content or lack thereof, the Biggles books remain popular...'


 * it is uneven to have full paragraphs on 'positive non-white characters' and 'use of archaic language', yet not tackle the negative attitudes to non-white characters in a series in which the protagonist spends a lot of time abroad, in foreign cultures and encountering people from around the world


 * the racism issue is significant and worth comment in a series that had both a patriotic background and cultural significance (at the time)


 * that given how popular the books are, these attitudes expressed in the book continue to be significant

Lack of accessible commentary on this issue is a problem with arriving at a consensus (although even a consensus would not stop the reactionaries, the ill-informed and the more mindless Biggles loyalists who tend to do the reverts). However, there have been some commentaries:


 * see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3UTyDNVjYxoC&pg=PA231&dq=heroic+figure+children#PPA148,M1 for an example of third-party comment on the question of racism in Biggles books


 * if you can find it, Moving the Centre by Ngũgĩ wa Thiongʼo has a chapter 'Biggles and me'.


 * Please be aware of the definition of racism. 'We can't judge it from today's point of view' may be a natural reaction, but is not a defence from pointing out that Biggles books are racist (if the material shows this). By making that statement, one is simply indicating that racism was more acceptable in the past. 'There was no intent to be racist', is also not a defence against racism, although often used as one.


 * It is easy to perceive that the paragraph on 'positive non-white characters' is present merely as a bulwark against the accusations of racism, and a weak bulwark at that. Some of my best friends are black! For example, the Li-Chi character is a pirate, and the 'positive' aspect of the unnamed Indian man seems to be that he is going to do Biggles' job.


 * Also be aware that the statement that the Biggles books are racist is not an attack on the books per se. So don't feel that you have to defend W. E. Johns in the teeth of the evidence. The facts are against you, but they are simply statements of fact. The books exist, and will continue to exist and be read widely. Do not revert revert edits simply because you enjoy Biggles books, and therefore you don't want to admit there is offensive content. It doesn't take much insight to see that it was more exciting for the reader if the black, brown and yellow people in the books were savage, treacherous and criminal, but you can't eat your cake and have it. If you want uncritical, unexamined information on Biggles, go to biggles.info. Centrepull (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia would cease to exist tomorrow if POV took over. NPOV is a very important concept. Many of us (probably all of us - at least all of us capable of independent thought) have strong opinions on various subjects, but there are (generally) other places to air them - and a Wiki article (as opposed to a discussion page), is just not the place. The article does already mention the negative racial aspect of some of the Biggles books - as well as some of the aspects (like positive non-white characters) that could have been deeply disturbing and upsetting to a typical 30s racist. I suggest it probably does so quite enough. The question is not a simplistic one - one DOES have to be fair and cover both sides - to do this really well would mean a MUCH londer article, and would leave no room for anything about the books themselves at all. I am not prejudging your intended edits before you write them, I might even be an enthusiastic supporter of what you eventually say. I am just asking you to preserve a sense of proportion - and to keep your own POV in its place. Otherwise what you say is (rightly) almost certain to be promptly reverted. I will now proceed to state my own POV on this question (which would be, very correctly, reverted on the spot if it intruded into a Wiki article, incidentally).


 * It is, alas, NOT the racism of the first half of the last century (or that of the eighteenth or nineteeth centuries for that matter) that we are (or should be) concerned with - but the racism of today. I cannot feel that self righteous posturing about figures of the past has any real effect other than obscuring modern racism, which is sometimes really more subtle, but mostly just "looks" better (to us) because we are so used to it. Leave past racism in the dustbin of history where it belongs - tackle the racism of now head on, rather than dissipating well-intentioned efforts with unfair judgmentalism about people who lived in a totally different world. Just imagine how we might be judged, "forty years on"!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was waiting for you to rewrite this section (on the whole - in spite of what I said above - I agree it needed rewriting) - I've inserted a more or less totally new section which may serve as a basis for further discussion, at least! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement Biggles racism report card is at worst mixed. The statement is nonsensical - there is no such concept as a 'racism report card' for a character or a book (series). Further, the issue of racially offensive content is not measured in any way akin to a school report. The question at issue is whether there is racist/offensive content in 'Biggles' books, and it appears from the quoted examples on the discussion page and elsewhere that in some of the books, there is. Centrepull (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The offending sentence is probably unnecessary (in any case I'm certainly not going to reinstate it) although I can't see in what sense it is "nonsensical" - I will refrain from remarking that the statement that it is nonsensical is in fact evenlesssensicle. Coining words is reprehensible in encyclopediac writing - and perhaps inventing hypothetical documents is too? Thank you for restraining my tendencies in this unfortunate direction, anyway.


 * Much more seriously, Biggles delivers the goods is a revision of Biggles in Borneo. The plot is almost identical, and the difference consists in that the revised novel is far less racist! If anyone should doubt me - read the books concerned! (Although even the synopses on the Biggles website should be enough). In the article I have been careful to simply point out specific ways in which the two books parallel each other and leave the reader to draw conclusions (if any there be to draw). The fact, as I remarked in an unresearched and less accurate statement further up the page, is that Johns was either asked by his publisher to produce a "nicer" version of Biggles in Borneo, or (as I would like to believe) saw the original book as racist, even by his own lights, and rewrote it on purpose to be less so.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Racism subsection alone of the Controversies part of the article will soon rival the popular culture section for size, not sure that is reasonable. Unfortunate non-sequitur in linking the likelihood of the Dayak's humanity (or portayal thereof) with their being Biggles' allies. Nonetheless, interesting, informative and encyclopaedic IMHO, so have stet. Centrepull (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworded the following as the phrasing is not neutral. "There is some justification for this attitude, although a simplistic dismissal of the books as racist may smack of political correctness." Changed to... "Although some feel simply dismissing the books as racist is not a fair assessment." 'Political correctness' is a pejorative used by the right to make people on the left that are concerned about the way people are represented look like their killjoys. The use of the term comes across as opinionated and defensive, and doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boognish100 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dismissing "political correctness" as a "right-wing" word that doesn't belong in the article is barmy. Suppose someone was to make the counter-argument that "racism" is a left-wing weasel word, used to undermine works such as the Biggles adventures, and as such doesn't belong in an encyclopædia – it's not that different.  195.200.159.1 (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

W.E. Johns army service.
We have had all kinds of fun switching round with cavalry, army, as a soldier etc. to describe what Mr Johns did in the war before he joined the RFC. The trouble is we need to be clear, accurate, and concise. It would be accurate (in fact precise) but unclear to say he served with the "Yeomanry". We would need to add "which were technically territorial cavalry or mounted infantry - although Johns' unit at least was in practice employed as infantry". Not concise enough, and the detail is in context not appropriate. All we want to say is that he was a footslogger before he joined the RFC (actually he also did a short time in the machine gun corps - but even that is too much detail here - this is about Biggles - not a full biography of Johns). So why not say he was a soldier, or served with the army? As others have pointed out, the RFC was part of the army - so this is at least unclear, probably inaccurate too. Or tautological. Was he serving "on the ground", as one editor had it? OK, if it weren't for the use of "ground staff", or "ground crew" as air force terms, giving an impression that Johns might have been already serving with the RFC when he was commissioned and sent for flight training (which he wasn't). His unit were serving as infantry, so he was "with the infantry" - accurate enough (not as specific as some, but then is being specific to the nth degree important in this context?) crystal clear (even if the flying corps are technically at this time another branch of the army, like cavalry, infantry and artillery), and dead concise - just one word in fact. To sum up, we've been through all this and wasted quite enough time and effort - and we've ended up with a very acceptable compromise. We really don't need to start all over again. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If Johns was indeed in a Yeomanry/Cav regiment, engaged in dismounted combat duties, then the current wording, "The author's initial war service was with the infantry," is misleading. Firstly, it implies his service was with an infantry regiment and, secondly, he could have served "with them" as a chef or storeman.  "The author's initial war service was in an infantry capacity – fighting at Gallipoli and on the Macedonian front", would be better, in my opinion.  195.200.159.1 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Monocle wearing
The recent addition of a catagory has me puzzled. I have read Biggles books and cannot remember any mention of Biggles being a monocle wearer. Possibly Bertie and almost certainly Eric von Stalhein, but not Biggles. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 19:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's Bertie they're thinking of? Silly category anyway, surely.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

O.R. without a reference??
Somebody just wiped half the article because it wasn't "referenced" - by those standards we couldn't treat "literary" subjects in Wiki at all, apart from a few bare facts. Get a life! A book (or, as in this case, a series of books) makes an excellent source for discussion about itself - anyone can read the book to check if the facts are "off". If this isn't official Wiki policy it should be! (same goes for musicals, operas, plays, films of course) --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This has actually come up before - as I now notice reading back through these notes - might I suggest that bringing up an opposing opinion here might be at least a better first step than wading in to the article with a chainsaw? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh... if we're going to have a whole section dealing with criticism and controversies, it's going to have to cited with reliable sources, otherwise it's pure original research and conjecture. "The Biggles books are also sometimes criticised for the author's choice of vocabulary" – by who? "Since the 1960s a perception of Biggles as unacceptably racially prejudiced... has gained prominence" – amongst who? It's not about "getting a life" and it's nothing to do with facts being "off", but unless there's proof reliable sources have categories Biggles as racist, etc., it doesn't belong here. — JonC ॐ 10:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * One at least of the basic purposes of references IS verifiability - the fact that one can check up on facts- this was what I was referring to when I mentioned checking if facts were "off" (less than accurate). Where this is best done from the text itself, then surely this makes the best reference? Where we make value judgements in an "art" article we do need references, but descriptive, non-value type judgements are another matter. We do have one excellent reference (footnote 8, with its repeats) for the racist bit (highly "value" driven as it is) - although it's rather dated, Children and Race deals in great detail with both the general question of racism in children's literature, and with Biggles specifically. There are in fact a number of less balanced and more hysterical things in (say) library journals (mostly also from the seventies and eighties, when this was a hot topic, and thus also dated), but I considered one really good, authoritative, and well-written source was actually better than several, most of which were second rate. The other sections are basically descriptive rather than judgemental, and I don't think "the facts don't exist unless they can be cited" is an entirely fairly fair characterisation of Official Wiki Policy. Rereading it might be salutory (or perhaps permit you to argue in a better informed way). I wish you would also read me carefully (I am a careful writer and what I say, while far from infallibly correct, deserves at least careful reading) and that you might actually attempt to answer my comments (here, and from when it came up in the past) rather than repeat dogma like a theology student. While there are places the article could be improved on with a few more references (including more quotes and references to the original texts) I suspect the odd tag (or BETTER, doing your own research and adding references you might find) might constitute a more constructive approach. Sorry about telling you to get a life - a moment of exasperation, obviously (nicer people than me get them now and then). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "the facts don't exist unless they can be cited" is exactly Wikipedia policy. See WP:V, which reads "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." If it can't be sourced, it can't stay in, otherwise it's just one person's opinion. For now I will tag the bits that need a reference (or is that too "theology student"-like, whatever that's supposed to mean, for you?). — JonC ॐ 11:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear grandson-in-law is making "her" bacon and eggs so I'm back after all. Verifiability is just the point, isn't it - you can "verify" that "x said y" (in a scientific article, for instance, much better than saying "y" yourself. (Although the statements of "x" may also be questionable opinion - in other words the quality of sources is important, and some are much better than others). In the case of an article about a book (play, opera etc.) when we are simply describing the book the verifiability is better served (sometimes, anyway) by a direct reference to the book itself, rather than what someone else says about it. When we give the synopsis of the plot of a novel, for instance, we don't say "x says that y happens at this stage of the novel" (unless perhaps the novel is lost, and there is no text to refer to directly). We need a cite for the racism bit (and we have one, a good one actually) because value-judgements are dripping from anything we might say on the subject - the last thing we want to have is an unsupported opinion here. But quaint language? Read the books and see - isn't that the best form of verifiability for this sort of thing? By all means disagree, and by all means tag where you think we might need a reference (although make sure we don't already have one!!) in fact that's what I suggested. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
A lot of these avoided passive tense and circumlocutions and are probably a Good Thing - we can't hint at "rude" meanings by saying they "raise titters" however. I think we generally say "twentieth" rather than "20th" too - check the MOS, perhaps. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Quaint language
Someone "copy-edited" this paragraph fairly drastically. Generally I am very much in favour of cutting verbiage - especially when said verbiage involves passive voice type constructions, or many words to say something pretty simple that could be covered with fewer. In fact other edits made at the same time were probably improvements - I certainly let them stand.

In the case of this paragraph we had a fairly complicated message that was already very economically expressed (in fact it may even have been too compressed). Originally we threw in a suggestion that Johns used "opine", and "ejaculate" basically as what Fowler calls "elegant variation", just to alieviate excessive use of the word "said" in conversational passages. Johns of course has no pretensions whatever to being a great writer - but to criticise him in this way in an encyclopedia article was inappropriate POV, and it (rightly) got cut. The fact remains that these words ARE used as synonyms for "said" - and this is an important part of the meaning that should not be cut in the interests of eliminating more words. "Opine" in its usual (and still occasionally useful) sense is more a synonym for "thought" than "said" anyway - as "Johns opined that people of his own ethnic group were inherently superior" for "Johns thought that (etc)". "Ejaculate" of course means "forcefully discharge" - it was once much used metaphorically, to indicate forceful speech. It is necessary to say this, or the reader will wonder just what is going on. For the same reason it is unnecessary to say more - as someone remarked when we were thrashing this out, "Wikipedia is uncensored, but not gratuitous". As for "titters" in the sense of "surreptitious giggles" (lovely word by the way) - definitely not the way to say (at least not here) what need not be specifically said anyway, if only because it will raise the idea of "titties". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lemonade
(When the early World War I-based Biggles books were reprinted for children, book publishers also edited a case of "whisky" to a case of "lemonade" bottles, resulting in absurd episodes of squadrons risking their lives for a prize of fizzy pop[1])''

In all fairness, I'd say risking one's life for a case of whiskey is equally foolish. ;) --144.137.115.76 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Foolish?...possibly yes...but consider that these were eighteen and twenty year old young men with fire in their veins, probably away from the family home for the first time in their lives, living in canvas tents and wooden shacks...knowing that every time they climbed into their aircraft it could be the last day they would ever see. Actually, risking all for a case of Scotch sounds like just the kind of crazy thing they would get up to...you obviously have not spent much time in the company of military combat pilots. I do remember reading that story at the age of 11 and it striking me (even then) how odd it was that grown men would get so excited about drinking lemonade. I rationalised it then by assuming that French lemonade must be of a far better vintage than the stuff we had delivered by the weekly Corona roundsman. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, lemonade is too... well common for a prize. I wouldn't. I would do it for an enormous tub of icecream though. With caramel! Just Joking, but it does sound foolish to risk your life for lemonade--186.92.50.212 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent (good faith) excisions
1. The point of including the paragraph about the relationship between Biggles in Borneo and Biggles delivers the goods is really not to accuse Johns of "rehashing" his work - but to point out that he was aware of racism (although he might not have called it that) - and was capable of actually re-writing a whole "novel" with most of the worst racism expunged.

2. Even the editor concerned does not deny that the language Biggles uses is often a little quaint. While this is not the most notable and important comment we could make - it does warrant a mention. The books themselves exist - many of us have read them in fact - so I don't think it is OR (in the Wiki sense) to gently point out what is pretty much common knowledge.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry soundofmusicals, but I disagree. It IS original research if it doesn't cite authorities. The books themselves won't do. 88.97.15.184 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In that case we would be obliged not only to delete almost all of this article (leaving a very dry, boring little husk) - but also do the same to 90% of our other articles about books, shows, songs, movies and anything else at all "artistic". What might well be OR in a scientific or historical article must pass in articles like these - at least where we are providing fairly dispassionate description rather than subjective judgement. For example, we describe the difference between two of the Biggles books - one of which is a systematic rewrite of another - in the context of discussing racism in Biggles. This is NOT OR because if anyone wants to check if we are being accurate he has only to refer to the works themselves. It WOULD be OR if, for instance, we speculated directly on the motives for the rewrite - or drew a conclusion that W.E. Johns' publisher, or changing postwar attitudes, had something to do with it (or mentioned a supposition that someone else actually did the rewrite!) - for anything like this we would definitely need a reference. In the event, we even refrain from labouring the connection, which is perhaps why you felt it was irrelevant - leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions.


 * The "quaint language" is also purely descriptive. It is so notorious that the (quite common) parodies of Biggles can always raise a laugh by exaggerating it. It is in the same category as, say, the description of the strange "time-scale" of the works, where people born in the 1890s are still relatively young seventy years later.


 * You (quite rightly) point out that both statements are accurate enough (at least "probably true"). If you have a strong desire to have them better referenced, might I suggest you try hunting up references for the points concerned yourself? Otherwise I feel they should be left as they are. If we start to apply this degree of "OR rigour" to this sort of article then it would become impossible for Wiki to cover "artistic" subjects at all. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that this paragraph has previously been discussed, as my recent removal was reverted. My arguments for removal are that the paragraph is out of place, focussing on the fact that it is a rehash of a previous story, and makes little comment about racism.  I also don't understand the reference to "pushing a barrow" - please clarify.  I'm also not convinced that Soundofmusicals is entirely correct in his defence of OR above - until published by a reliable source reading the books to draw comparisons is not only OR, but synthesis as well.  However, I suspect that the paragraph has been changed considerably since then to comply, which may be one reason I don't like the flow of it.
 * To really justify inclusion, a tertiary reference is needed that confirms the above, and I don't see that anywhere. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * When we say nasty things about people (living or dead) it is important to give the other side, given there might be one. A good deal of ink has been spilled (just read the "racism" comments on this page) on this subject. We don't want to be seen as "pushing a barrow" (being one sided). The original version of the paragraph had a sentence saying (from memory - all this is some years ago now) something like "The later book leaves a much more pleasant taste in the mouth than the earlier - proving Johns became aware of the racism in at least one of his books and endeavoured to tone it down - to the extent of rewriting it". This sentence WAS excised (I think rightly) as NPOV, OR, and probably several other naughty things as well. We arrived at something like consensus that the paragraph was OK as it stood, however. It simply points out verifiable fact - leaving the reader to draw his/her own conclusions (or not). The notion that we need a "tertiary" reference to confirm a that a work such as a novel, play or musical has a particular plot line would be pretty devastating, if it were to be carried through - hundreds of articles on such subjects would be gutted, if not eliminated. It would become almost impossible to report that Little Red Riding Hood had a grandmother. Really all this paragraph says is that "Delivers the Goods" is a rehash of "In Borneo". This is supported by direct reference to the plot lines of the books themselves. This is easily verifiable (the main, if not the only, point of having references at all) by simply reading (or even glancing at) the books concerned. Another way to put this - if we find, as we sometimes do, that a plot line is distorted or inaccurate in a Wiki article then we generally refer to the work itself, not what somebody else said about what somebody else said about it (that's what a "tertiary" source would need to entail). The "synthesis" the paragraph originally made has been greatly watered down, on the grounds of "let's just state the verifiable facts, and see what people make of it". Fair enough I feel. The reason I'd rather like the paragraph to stay, unless we get a strong consensus to the contrary, is that the whole "Biggles is racist" thing needs to have balance to keep it fair and NPOV. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Racism Part VI
I see that the discussion of racism in the Biggles series has been gradually watered down again, by the introduction of unreferenced excuses, and the removal of referenced indications of racism. And again there is the linking of the likelihood of the Dayak's humanity (or portrayal thereof) with their being Biggles' allies.

It's not Wikipedia's fault if W.E. Johns had some nasty views on race, but it is Wikipedia's job to point them out. Some reversions are in order.--Centrepull (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry - but a hunt through the history fails to reveal ANY recent changes in this section "either way" in fact the article has been remarkably stable in this sense for a good while now. Or am I missing something? Please could you point to specific examples? If you like we can have a specifc discussion about the Dyaks - but I can't see how the current text (which has not changed since this topic was last raised) "excuses" Biggles' racism - quite the reverse, I would have thought. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Not very 'recent' at all, actually. It's been at least a couple of years since I consulted the article, maybe double that! Sorry for the misunderstanding. My point was that the clear racism indications and quotations seem to disappear over (long periods of) time. I will now point out issues on their own merits, forget about what changes might have been made: One feature of social change since the original publication of the Biggles books has been a considerable shift in attitudes to race and ethnicity.

Social change is evident, but the point is that W.E.Johns' more offensive writings are offensive in any era. The sentence heading the section reads like a pre-emptive excuse.--Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No. This is not new. In fact it was there before I ever saw the article. What would you have anyway. If attitudes had not changed the writings, alas, would not be regarded as offensive. they still are not in some quarters!! If the Tea Party "win" and America goes Nazi they will be "considered" just fine. I hope that doesn't happen, and I agree with you they ARE offensive regardless of time but that is NOT a NPOV attitude, and is not encyclopedic!!!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

During the 1960s and 1970s a perception of Biggles as unacceptably racially prejudiced, especially considered as children's literature, drove the Biggles books from many public and school libraries.

Perception or recognition? The cite mysteriously has no quote from the book (Children and Race, Milner, D, 1975). --Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again - not new. One of the first things I added myself - well before you had first had a look at the article. I have summarised the "facts as reported" by Children and Race rather than quoting its actual language - which is biased (not criticising it for that - just pointing out that it is not encyclopedic - after all, unlike us, it doesn't have to be). "Recognition" begs the question and is biased (my bias and your bias but still bias for all that) - "perception" is much better. After all the perception is in this case accurate enough!

The Biggles character himself was brought up in India, speaks fluent Hindi, and has a number of Indian friends and colleagues. In Biggles Goes to School, on one occasion when told to write lines in Latin he remarks that he would rather do so in Hindi. On one occasion the adult Biggles asserts to Air Commodore Raymond that "while men are decent to me I try to be decent to them, regardless of race, colour, politics, creed or anything else".

Perhaps the above statement of intent used as vindication of Biggles' character could be balanced with the reality some of the more blatant racist quotes and paragraphs from the books? There are plenty to choose from.--Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is older still - in fact it is the last remnant of the "original" passage, long before either of us came on the scene, and WAS part of an apologia. None the less, it is strictly true, and is certainly fairly balanced by what follows!! I don't think, in this context, it is a "vindication" of anything!--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yet another book, Biggles in Borneo, stereotypes Dayak headhunters as barely human "savages", even though they are Biggles' allies against the Japanese. The savagery (or not) of the Dayaks should not be more or less acceptable according to whether they are Biggles allies. This is adding insult to injury.--Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is also old, again it was an early addition of mine. Well before you "appeared here". We have just pointed out that Johns demonises "baddy" non-whites - their undesirable qualities being part of their villainy as much as their "foreigness". This is not presented as an excuse, nor is it excused! - just pointed out as fact. The poor Dyaks are Biggles' allies - and by this logic should get off a bit - but they don't! As I said about six times now in different contexts at different times, and as I thought you had realised, far from being "pro" Biggles this is quite strongly critical, as in "even the goody non-whites cop it = so the excuse that the villain in a boys' story needs to be villainous (weak as it was anyway) is totally inapplicable!"

Nowadays few people would defend the racial prejudice in these books (and others in the "Biggles canon") although they are typical of a genre of fiction for young people that was once common. Excusing again. A non-sequitur, and no cite. Also ambiguous - what was once common, the genre, the racial prejudice or both?--Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Again - old - and hardly "excusing" ! I think I wrote this in response to one your objections and you complimented me on it? It has certainly NOT been added recently, anyway. Children and Race is my source here (although as a former school librarian I was around at the height of the debate and I could well have found others) - it has several chapters about such "classics" as the Doctor Doolittle books, Noddy, and and so one as well as other boys' adventure stories. There was an awful lot of it around. Nothing whatever non-sequitur about that. In fact it adds point to the argument rather than 'excusing" anybody.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Johns succumbs to the tendency, typical of his time, to apply unpleasant stereotyping to non-white opponents of his hero. 'Typicality' has already been used once to ameliorate what is in fact more than stereotyping. This phrase should be omitted from the sentence. --Centrepull (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Once more - this is NOT recent - in fact I think I wrote it during our previous exchange on this subject. But why is it "ameliorating" - you would excuse Johns for being racist because it was fashionable? I most certainly would NOT. So pointing out that it WAS fashionable (as it WAS) is only excusing things to racists who don't see the point anyway, and wouldn't however we put it!


 * As I think I have said before (and if I haven't others have) - this is an encyclopedia. Its treatment of controversial subjects needs to be careful, balanced, and NPOV. A frank but sensible, non-hysterical criticism of the racism that used to lard childrens' books (especially exciting boys' books, such as I enjoyed when very young) is likely to be much more effective in making the point. My own first exposure to "real" racial prejudice came at a very early age, and left me very sensitive to it, believe me. Bringing up my own (black) children in a racist society certainly did not "ameliorate" this. But none of this has anything to do with the matter in hand. We need to be fair and balanced (without trying to balance the truth with slimy falsehood) - even (in fact ESPECIALLY) when we have strong emotions of our own about the subject.


 * What can be said in John's favour MUST be said - even if we personally don't find it much of an excuse. If some folk DO find it an excuse then that is really their problem, isn't it? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Books out of print
The article says that most of the Biggles books are out of print, but they seem to be freely available on Amazon in the UK. In addition, they're available on the iBooks store and probably for the Kindle as well. Is there a reason they are terms as out of print? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Remember there are about a hundred altogether - just how many of these are actually "available", even in kindle? Many of the titles listed on Amazon are second-hand (and, incidentally very high priced). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is what the term "out of print" means, actually - no longer available from the publisher at normal retail prices. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking on Amazon UK, there are at least 45 books available in paperback, new, mostly for £4.49 - I got bored of counting after the first few pages of results (there were 20 pages in total). There are only 26 on the Kindle store and around 30 on the iBooks store. I think the word "most" is a bit misleading here - I'll be bold and change it to "many"! Thanks for the response. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear - don't take on a retired librarian on a question like this one!! A perusal of http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=biggle+w.e.johns&rh=n%3A266239%2Ck%3Abiggle+w.e.johns reveals precisely sixteen (16) "unique" titles out of ninety eight (98) originally published are currently available new from Amazon - the following is the full list:


 * Biggles learns to fly
 * The Camels are coming
 * Biggles of the fighter squadron
 * Biggles in France
 * Biggles goes to war
 * The cruise of the Condor
 * Biggles and Co
 * Biggles flies East
 * Biggles in Spain
 * Biggles and the Black Peril
 * Biggles fails to return
 * The rescue flight
 * Biggles delivers the goods
 * Biggles defies the swastika
 * Biggles defends the desert


 * These are in fact, on examination, all reprints of the "Red Fox" editions. I have not counted titles available only on kindle (there are in any case only a few of these, the bulk of kindle editions offered are titles from the above list) - compilations, omnibuses and annuals (most of which reprint matter from the above list anyway) - "graphic novels" (i.e. comic book versions) nor (and this comprises the great bulk of "Amazon" UK hits - second-hand, out-of-print offerings).


 * In view of the above - over 80% "out-of-print" can be fairly described, I feel, as "most". I have, however tweaked the relevant paragraph - as you have a valid point when it comes to "available" as opposed to "in-print". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Erich von Stalhein
From Johns' point of view Stalhein is not a "nasty foreigner" - and certainly not "racially inferior" - rather he is a respected opponent. Definitely not relevant to discussion of "racism" either way - at least in this context. To put it another way, since no one is accusing Johns' of being racist about Germans there is no need to defend him against this charge. In any case we already treat him at a more appropriate point in the article.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My contribution on Von Stalhein has nothing to do with the issues you mention. It is not even in that section of the article. The German character is simply an important enough presence in the series to deserve a heading of his own here.MackyBeth (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He is already there - no need to repeatedly mention him over and over - where would it end?--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He deserves a full discussion.MackyBeth (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then edit the "discussion" he already has. In fact READ the article before you edit it.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right! I printed and read it awhile ago, but now I looked at it again I overlooked the paragraph on Von Stahlhein, which should not be under the heading where it is now. I propose to insert a new section "Characters" and give both Stalhein and the female characters a place there.MackyBeth (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Defence"
We don't accuse Johns here of glorifying war (for the very good reason that he doesn't!) - hence there is really no need to raise a "defence" on this charge. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the newspaper article that I provided a link to, Johns was accused of glorifying war, and he explains why this is unfair. The fact that he was accused somewhere else than on Wikipedia is irrelevant. What counts, is that the accusation was made and damaged Johns's popular reputation.MackyBeth (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no. Much better to leave this sort of thing alone. How would it be if, out of nowhere, we were to launch a defence of you - stating that you weren't a child molester? A defence to a charge that hasn't been made carries an unwanted assumption that there is something to be answered. Biggles (or Johns?) is NOT accused of undue "jingoism", as far as we are concerned, not until we make the charge in due order (as we do, for example, for his racism). If you want to "mount a defence" you first need to find out what the charge is, and add references (to the original texts and to thrid party commentary). Until he has been charged of this particular offence, we can't mention it in a balanced way, can we! Newspaper stories are generally very bad sources for "literary criticism" - if one can use a term like that to describe what is after all "literary rubbish". (Ducks straffing Sopwith Camel!!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Why talk about newspaper articles in general when I provided a link to a specific source? Makes no sense to me. This artice from a wellknown newspaper is a source that warrants a bit more serious consideration than Soundsofmusic seems willing to grant it.MackyBeth (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The main point is that we need to accuse someone of something before we defend them - if Biggles is not accused of something then there is no need to defend him - in fact this is defaming him by implication. It may have been a wonderful article in a marvelous newspaper - but you can't just plonk in down in an encyclopedia article if it isn't relevant --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, "we" at Wikipedia neither accuse or defend, we merely cite the published discussions. This is what I did with the newspaper article I found. I don't see what can be wrong with that, but since you keep undoing all my additions there is no point in contributing any further.MackyBeth (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See every other remark I have made on this subject - especially the last one, and try to think ratioinally rather than repeating formulae!! You are welcome to contribute - but others are free to edit your work!!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This article on the Biggles Series of books
Currently I am halfway through the Biggles series, and I believe the series deserves an article on Wikipedia that matches the requirements of the featured content-category. A fleshing out of things should I believe include a description and breakdown of the 96 volumes into categories such as WWI stories, WWII stories, adventures, detective stories, and the like. In that way, users of Wikipedia get an idea of the enormous variety of the Biggles series. And a description of not just Biggles himself and his compagnions, but also of frequent helpers such as Gaskin, the Frenchman Marcel Brissac, and enemies like Von Stahlhein. Much improvement is to be done, but this classic series is really worth the effort.MackyBeth (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of this could very well be added to the current article piece by piece. Don't imagine I would be antagonistic - I'd just love someone to take this one off my hands. Some other editors might start to wonder about "undue weight" (making too much out of nothing) but I think I'd be on your side. What worries me is that you really need to get hold of the idea of how an encyclopedia article works. For instance you want to discuss Biggles being a "jingoistic" or war mongering character. This has to be balanced. We have to start by saying something "some people think that Biggles is jingoistic and a glorification of war". Then we have to add a "verifiable source" for this statement that adds details like who said this and when. NOT just someone saying that he ISN'T jingoistic at all, but someone who really thinks he is. Together with passages from the books that confirm this. Having done all this we can then start to defend him. And we need to build on what is already there. If the section on Stalhein, for instance, isn't to your liking - then don't insert a new section that just repeats what the earlier one says - edit or replace the existing section. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how an encyclopedia article works, I just don't have the time to do everything at once. So I figured I might start the section on Von Stalhein and later improve it and remove everything about him elsewhere that is redundant. But not very much is said about him in the article, so most of what I added is new here. The point is that an encyclopedia article should serve everybody, so if someone who has never before heard of the Biggles series reads it, he should get a fair idea what the nature of the series is, its scope and variety both geographically and otherwise. As far as your other comments go, please stop bringing up the same issues in every section of the Talk-page you and I are currently using as a discussion platform.MackyBeth (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No one has been asking you to do everything at once - in fact I suggested you tackle one thing at a time. If my posts here have been repetitive, it is because you have not been responding to the points in question in a way that showed you understood what I was talking about, so I had to assume that I just wasn't getting through. Better take the time to get on the same track so that we can work together. All that matters is the article, not your ego (or mine, of course). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the current article
In order to improve this article, let me first say what I think is wrong with it before I edit anything, lest anybody might undo my work.
 * 1) A most fundamental thing: strange as it may sound, it is actually not quite clear whether this article is meant merely to cover the character James Bigglesworth or the series of books in which he is the protagonist.
 * 2) Sections 5, 6, 7 seem to overlap quite a bit: 5 includes Biggles in television, 6 in popular culture, and 7 has a subsection on Monty Python. But Monty Python is of course television and therefore may find a place under section 5. These section needs to be reorganized.
 * 3) The introduction. Wikipedia rules for introductions of articles state that the intro should be an abstract which serves to prepare the reader for what is to come. So everything that's in the intro should come back in the body of the article--keyed to sources. The current introduction is not even close to meeting these requirements, because the sections on criticism and Biggles in other media are not covered in the intro at all.

So this article is poorly structured, weakly introduced, and even unclearly defined.MackyBeth (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the first sentence, it's very clearly about the character. All the same this is a valid point. But I suppose you'd have to say that one naturally leads to the other, don't you? The character is, after all, not a real person - he only exists in the books, and the books therefore form our main "source". Could we have an article about Biggles at all that didn't have a fair bit to say about the stories and novels in which he features? Do you think we need two articles? Or should this article be renamed?
 * Read right through the "offical policy" on the lead. The lead doesn't have to go into too much detail about everything in the body of the article - but of course it should be a clear concise summary, which this one probably isn't, really. By all means have a go at improving it - but be prepared for me (and other editors, who may not be so kind) having a go at it.
 * By all means re-arrange the "trivia" and incidental matter at the end. These sections have staying pretty much the same ever since I first saw the article, and has remained a bit of a muddle ever since. See if you can improve our referencing here too.
 * I have tried very hard to explain why defending someone against a charge that hasn't been made is libel. We need to be balanced, which means no attacks without the other side (assuming there is one) and no defences without explaining just what is being defended against.
 * The main (only) thing wrong with what you had to say about Stalhein was that we already had a section on him. By all means edit this if it can be improved, just don't duplicate it! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. As I say elsewhere, I found the Von Stalhein paragraph and edited it. It might seem superfluous whether the article is about the protagonist or the whole series, but my experience is that sometimes people can be very precise about this. So that an article on the character may only use the books to extract the character's biography, not the biography of other frequently appearing members of the cast. So that is why I asked.MackyBeth (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly the more you get into minor characters, and the more "minor" they get the further you are from the main subject - but I think an important character like Stalhein deserves a reasonable write up, even if the subject is Biggles himself rather than the books. We also (rightly, I feel) have brief write ups about the principal "chums". Getting all rigid and dogmatic is not always the way to go. On the other hand the line does have to be drawn somewhere? Broadening the subject of the article at some stage may be a good idea (worth discussing, anyway).
 * Have you read my other points - and if so have you any comments? I have (I hope!) not been trying to score points but to work with you to improve the article. I have never doubted your sincere intent (what they call "good faith" here) - I saw your work on the W.E. Johns article for instance, and had no issues at all with what you did there - I would be happier to know that you can at least see what I was driving at with your "defence" section (your name for it, not mine).--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read your points. I don't know if you read that newspaper article, but the problem is that it refers to a discussion that it assumes thee reader is already familiar with. What you say about drawing the line about the minor characters is of course a matter to be solved. My own idea is that a character should appear in at least more than two or three stories to be a candidate for discussion--this should select the really important ones.MackyBeth (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The author of the newspaper article was very possibly in a position to make an assumption like that - the point is of course that we're not - and need to fill in both sides if we're going to mention it at all. That was really my only objection, but it is an important one. "Degree of mention" is indeed one criterion to judge notability of a minor character, but I'd avoid being too mechanical. Marie Janis, for example, is notable as Biggles only lover - although she is (as far as I know) mentioned only twice. Stalein is notable as Biggles' nemesis, and would be even if he featured in fewer of the books than he does. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can never select this in a mechanical way, and on the other hand, not very much can be said in order to describe such characters as Gaskin and Marcel Brissac, despite the many books in which they appear. They just do their jobs without being fleshed out as personalities.MackyBeth (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

"Newspaper article"
what article are you referring to? Is it The Independent, 17 November 2013? - Pointillist (talk) 13:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the one.MackyBeth (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Re-reading it in a calmer frame of mind it isn't such nonsense as it looked first pop (although there was so too such a thing as a "captain" in the RFC, and in the RAF up too, up to the time that the new specifically air force ranks settled down in the early 1920s - that was the point that got up my nose more than anything I fear). In particular Cockburn actually mentions several things we DO raise in the article:
 * The books being withdrawn from school libraries (although I was there - and the main, if not the only, reason given at the time was the racism, which he barely mentions).
 * Whiskey/Lemonade substitutions! He has several other examples.
 * Elimination of "bad" language (probably no worse than "damn and blast" in the original anyway!)
 * Biggles in lurve
 * We might even add references here - although how long will the article be available on line?
 * What I DO still hold very firm on is NOT defending against something we do not (and I think rightly) attack him for. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I have archived it at WebCitation.org if you want to use it: . Of course, it is only an "op-ed" piece but Patrick Cockburn is an established journalist/author, probably notable enough to be quoted. Good luck - Pointillist (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One reason not mentioned so far the article deserves to be mentioned in the article, is that it is a contribution to the development of the reputation of the Biggles series, which may be changing gradually for the better.MackyBeth (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Twice promoted to Captain?

 * Biggles is promoted to the RFC rank of captain (equivalent to flight lieutenant in the RAF) in the story The Packet in the book The Camels are Coming and again in the story Biggles' Sky-High Spy in the book Biggles in France.

The above is a tweaked version of a recent addition that I have extracted, with regret, as it still doesn't quite add up. The story The Packet (not In The Packet) does occur in The Camels are Coming - and does indeed casually mention Biggles' promotion to Captain (not the later RAF rank of "Group Captain", which is equivalent to a naval Captain!). There is no story Biggles’ Sky-High Spy in Biggles in France, but a little research indicates that this probably refers to the story Biggles' Sky-High Hat Trick, which was published in The Modern Boy for 4th August 1934 - and which DID appear in Biggles in France, spread over the two chapters Out for Records!, and Biggles' Bombshell!. Alas, even after a very careful reading I cannot find any reference here to Biggles' promotion in either chapter.

If anyone can find the second reference to Biggles' promotion - remembering that another very casual reference might not even fit the definition of a "bloop" but just indicate the two stories concerned are set at about the same time - then we may well be able to appropriately tweak the para and slip it back in - in which case it would fit very nicely just after the reference to Algy's contradictory "ages". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Quaint language"
I have observed the to and fro over this. Is the section really notable, or do we go around all books written between the end of the 19th century and the 1970s and write that they include words and phrases not used in current vernacular? WP:Cite does say "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case it is being challenged on the grounds of not being relevant to the discussion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Soundofmusicals, don't edit war on this, and don't lie in your summaries: a reason was given for deleting trite nonsense, and there was no personal abuse. 1. "Quaint language" is unencyclopaedic; 2. There are no cites; 3. Both words are normal English and "Opine" is used in a number of FAs (and other articles too). Don't delete it again, don't lie in your edit summaries again and don't accuse others of being disruptive. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your response still doesn't give a "reason", and piles on further personal abuse. Still, I tend to agree about this argument being "trivial", if not exactly "nonsense". I certainly have better things to do than argue with someone of your (admirable?) qualities, anyway. Give my regards to your grandfather. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. There are THREEE reasons given: I even numbered them for the hard of understanding. 2. There was no abuse in my edit summary, or in my statement above. 3. I am not sure how you. Are trying for the moral high ground and then start snidey comments, and what the hell either of my late grandfathers have to do with this, or you, is beyond me, and rates as possibly the most childish comment I've seen on Wiki for a while. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the Grandfather comment refers to the original experiment. Erwin proposed the theory in 1935, which would be a good age for a Grandfather about now, although your original comment still stands - that it's got nothing to do with the topic in hand. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Two comments on the passage that is at issue in this argument. 1)If one wants to retain this passage it would seem necessary to mention at least a specific modern edition instead of only saying "reprint editions." 2) "Opine" is either an example from one of those books and then it should be possible to source it, or else it is only a way of saying what kind of footnotes are provided, added by an editor who apparently had no Biggles volume at hand when he made the edit. Taken together I would think editors should be able to agree that the passage is too weak to retain.MackyBeth (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This section has come under attack several times over the years - I suspect more over the word "ejaculate" than anything else, even when this wasn't specifically mentioned. As far as this one is concerned, without getting into irrelevant detail as to who was edit warring, and why their personal abuse somehow wasn't (repeatedly calling someone a liar, to mention one instance, is certainly counted as abuse anywhere else!) or whether bare unsupported assertions can somehow morph into "reasons", I think everyone is agreed that we do need some textual support (if not a "reference") if this section is to be reinstated. I have actually gone hunting up instances of "opine" and "ejaculate" and I have to say that they do NOT occur as frequently as the article has always implied. There are many "Biggles book" texts to which I do NOT have access, but I found only a handful of "opines" and only one "ejaculate" in the ones I was able to scan. I am also persuaded by Graeme's argument at the top of this discussion that dated language (in a very dated set of books that never claimed to be "literature" or fine writing and are in places very "slangy") is really not very notable.

If anyone else wants to reinstate this section (or a re-written version of it, with at least a footnote to "book and chapter" here and there) then by all means - otherwise (well no one's ALWAYS right, even me) I think it is probably better in the dustbin, after all. I hereby resign as its defender, anyway! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The term 'ejaculate' refers to any sudden and forceful outburst or emission, and at the time the Biggles books were written few people outside of the medical profession would have been aware of it's application to the sexual act, which it would seem, is the context within-which the majority of people hear it today. It is actually a perfectly good word that is quite appropriate in the context used within the Biggles books - it means a sudden and forceful vocal utterance.


 * To 'opine' means to give one's opinion.


 * Both these words can be found in any good 'proper' British English dictionary of reasonable size and scope, and any present day lack of familiarity with them simply means that reader doesn't get around much in the literal sense. In English although many words may look like they have the same meaning, in fact they do not, each has a slightly different meaning. This allows a writer to give a more precise meaning to the reader through his choice of exact words than would be possible otherwise. "Stop!", he said does not have the same meaning as "Stop!", he ejaculated. The latter means 'he' spoke suddenly and forcefully.


 * ... I should perhaps point out that the Biggles books were actually aimed at schoolboys of the 1930s and 1940s, who no doubt would not have had such problems with 'difficult' words, and if so, would have been expected to consult a dictionary, which says much about the lamentable standard of education sometimes seen today. But that's just me opining - LOL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What the part of the article (now long expunged, basically for being irrelevant) was about was the (over)use of certain particular words in the Biggles books/stories. In the end we really decided it wasn't worth the bother. If you disagree, and want the article to once more say something about the way Johns (the author of Biggles) uses these words then by all means! If you don't know what the article used to say on this topic, then you CAN look at old versions of the article on the "edit history" tab - pick one pre-August 2014 in this case. But DO remember that bald statements - especially those that are not directly relevant to the matter in hand - do need to be better referenced than is all too frequently the case in this article (and, alas, many others in Wikipedia). Make sure that you know what you are talking about (NOT necessarily the same thing as "opining" (in the sense of having an opinion) - in other words, read up on the question, don't just rely on your memory. Then you will be able to tell us all "where and when" by quoting (chapter and verse) passages the Biggles "yarns" - or (even better?) something someone else has said about them. This article has quite enough bare "opining" in it already, without adding more!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A further note - being all grandfatherly for a moment (I am quite old enough to be the grandfather of most people here, except those who are in the evenings of their own lives of course) - Wikipedia talk pages are NOT general forums (or "fora"?) on the subject of their articles - but discussions on ways the article in question might be improved. Sticking to this (it is in fact an official "rule", not just my opinion) would indeed save a great many people a good deal of wasted time (quoth he, a prime offender if ever there was one). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominated W.E. Johns as vital article
The Wikipedia project to identify 10,000 topics most relevant includes Enid Blyton and Astrid Lindgren, so I figured why not give the captain a shot as well:

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

Any editor can vote or comment on the nomnination. MackyBeth (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The nomination failed, see Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Archive 34. --83.255.55.91 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed. Was worth trying, though.MackyBeth (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Racism POV
Nowadays few people would defend the racial prejudice in these books (and others in the "Biggles canon") although they are typical of a genre of fiction for young people that was once common.
 * The Racism section works perfectly well without this piece of sermonizing bolted-on. It is not encyclopedic. Valetude (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're right but it's cited.Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But it may have been cited from a source of which only some parts were encyclopedic. I don't think all citations are sacred. Valetude (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * VERY unfair to both Johns and his creation not to mention that these books - which actually dribble racism, and are if only for that reason long out of print, are not typical of either their author's output, nor of "Biggles" himself. If the racism section "works" it is due to a good deal of consensus building among people who have between them read many Biggles books with great pleasure, but been more or less disturbed by some of the nineteen thirties attitudes in them. What exactly does "non-encyclopedic" mean to you, in this context? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that it's POV, and that the message comes across perfectly clearly without it. Valetude (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've said that. We don't agree apparently. Ball's in your court for a sensible reason or two. The cite, by the way, is a serious academic one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When I re-read the Biggles books I kept from childhood, I was pleasantly surprised to find only one racist and one classist remark. Not a scientific survey I know but where the excrescences are mentioned, I think that some context is necessary to put Johns in his racist/fascist/liberal context so that the reader has some idea of how racist his writing is.Keith-264 (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
Better to use (sic) than ". Keith-264 (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Racism revisited
This section is important - what it has to say must be said - but in a fairly balanced way - which is not a simple matter. Weeding out, or discretely censoring Johns to eliminate the really "bad" books (we actually name most of the real shockers here) would none-the-less leave quite a lot of entertaining stuff that is really not racist. Well, not THAT racist anyway. The WW1 Biggles novels and stories - among the earliest, and the most "authentic" include very little racist muck - the one short story that springs to mind as a "nasty" exception is that one that runs down the Vietnamese labourers the French employed for pioneering work as "smelly". (Extremely gratuitous - since pretty-well everyone must have stunk like skunks after a day or two in the trenches!)
 * That was the example I found when I re-read them.Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The plan of the section has always been - 1. State the basic problem 2. Point out the positive aspects of Biggles' attitude to race 3. Specify the negative things - including naming the "worst" books in this respect 4. Sum up 5. Point out that Johns himself was capable of rewriting a Biggles novel to make it less racist. This is a rather POV idea - but "hinting" by describing the differences between "Biggles in Borneo" and "Biggles delivers the goods" lets the reader draw their own conclusions (or not, if they disagree or can't see the point).

Anyway, I have had yet another go at getting this right! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that (sic) worked better than quote marks but wiki'd it in case it was unfamiliar to our dear reader. I wondered if you were the writer because the prose style seemed familiar. Regards ;o)) Keith-264 (talk) 09:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * By all means reinstate the wikilink on (the first instance of) "(sic)" if you think it's worth the bother - I think I "lost" it when I changed the link on "Native Americans". Of course I didn't compose the original form of this section by any means - but I HAVE repeatedly tweaked it (along with others) over the years, so it may well have some traces of my (brilliant) style :) . --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

New "lead" paragraph
Sorry Keith - but I honestly think the old one was better! Although I can understand why you weren't happy with it. Will have a go at it myself. "Youth-oriented" strikes me as very awkward - and I don't think liking a book title to the article on a type of aircraft is either sound or useful, however you do it. Anyway - let's see what I come up with. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * OK I binandgornandunnit! "Youthful" I changed to "young" (I am no longer either, alas) - I have rearranged a couple of sentences - and also deleted a couple of wikilinks. A link to a book (or short story) title implies to the casual reader that we have an article about that book or story. Hope everyone is happy with this one. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure about The first collection of Biggles stories, The Camels Are Coming, was published that same year. because "that same year" is mentioned in the previous sentence.

Biggles made his first appearance in 1932 in the story The White Fokker, published in the first issue of Popular Flying magazine and again in the first collection of Biggles stories, The Camels Are Coming, published in that year.

Any better? Keith-264 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks as if it would be a little neater. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * But we may be able to do even better? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * May I compliment Sir on such a stylish revision? ;O))Keith-264 (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Infantryman/Trooper/Militiaman?
The 1/1st Norfolk were dismounted and fought as infantry at Gallipoli.Keith-264 (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Technically (VERY technically) Johns went to war as a trooper - the yeomanry were reserve/militia units, theoretically cavalry (or mounted infantry). In practice, as Keith notes above, they served and fought as ordinary infantry by this time, especially at Gallipoli (where even the Australian Light Horse were dismounted). We went though all this some years ago, the compromise wording was hammered out that he "fought with the infantry", which was always both vague and verbose. I honestly think that just ignoring the very tenuous "cavalry" connection is fine in this context - where what we want is a very succinct little note about Johns rather than a detailed biography. He has his own article, after all. If we want to reinstate "fought with the infantry" - which was at least an old consensus then so be it, I suppose - but "soldier" is far too vague. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The Yeomanry were the cavalry arm of the Territorials. (The militia reference is a red herring). Johns was a pre-war yeomanry trooper and was mounted. The yeomanry certainly considered themselves a cut above a mere territorial infantryman. Yes at Gallipoli the NY fought in a dismounted role but on the Western Front, Lancers, for example, fought in the trenches but clearly remained cavalry. I hold out for "soldier". Nedrutland (talk) 08:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

...fought as infantry...?Keith-264 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC

No - fought in a dismounted role. Nedrutland (talk) 13:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As I wrote, infantry, unless they were in Monty Python and the Hoy Grail. Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC).


 * The British "Territorials" were in fact the successors to the pre-1908 militia units. Like all such units they were part-time volunteers, although effectively integrated with regular units in time of war. "Militia" remains the generic term - and its in this sense that I used it in my remarks above. In any case - I agree with Keith's implication that this is a cranky sort of quibble for us to make in THIS article - for instance Johns transferred to the machine gun corps (for a while a separate corps of the British army) at one stage - which isn't worth going into either (not HERE anyway). This is after all the Biggles article - Johns has his own. The original wording was "fought with the infantry" - which as I said was OK if a bit long winded. "Soldier" is so vague as to be practically redundant - we'd get as much information from a bare statement that he served at Gallipoli, since we know he was never in the navy! Such a very minor point I really can't be bothered arguing it aby further mind you. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Racism better tolerated?
Or simply not even regarded as "racism", in the modern sense, at all? If the existing "times have changed" wording is indeed sophistry then it may need to be changed - but the suggested replacement text really is anachronistic - the fact is that attitudes to ethnicity and race HAVE changed (not far enough, in fact - in the sense that too many people still hold views typical of the 1930s). How to say this neatly and in a matter relevant to the case in point? Another question, of course. Certainly one we can discuss here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Since the Biggles books were first published, attitudes to race and ethnicity have changed."


 * This is not true, toleration of racism has diminished in some respects as the institutional support of racism by the British state has changed. It is sophistry to treat racists of the past as less culpable than racists of the present. The passage has been reverted to an apologetic form which diminished the quality of the article.Keith-264 (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It not "sophistry" to observe that attitudes change over time. They do, and since the 18th century the pace of such change has been very real and quite fast, in spite of the efforts of opponents to social change, some of whom still get very hot under the collar. For instance, it is (in historical terms) only yesterday that very few people indeed were against slavery in principle - the question was whether slaves were human beings! Not that such progress has been uniform, or that there have not been retrograde moments - colour prejudice (only one aspect of racism as such, but basically what we are talking about here) reached a real peak in the 1930s - to deny the inferiority of non-whites was considered very eccentric indeed - to the extent that "of course" no "decent" New York hotel could accommodate an Olympic medalist because he wasn't their very own special favourite colour. But then I really can't believe that you don't know all about this as least as well as I do - this is surely not what you are trying to say.


 * Nor is the text concerned "apologetic" - it is far from suggesting that a thirties attitude to race is appropriate to the early twenty-first century. Just that it is different. Much more "important" writers than Johns can be faulted on this topic. Sorry, but there it is. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm hammering away at this one, but in any case, what relevance to this part of this article is "treating racists of the past as less culpable than racists of the present"? Was Johns really a racist in the sense that the new president seems to be? If not, then what has this to do with this article? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to attach your opinion to RS not merely assert it; your apologetics for slavery are equally spurious. It was opposition to slavery by decent people that ended it, not a sudden conversion to the Judaeo-Christian tradition by the slavers. If you look at the history of modern racism in the northern hemisphere, you can see that it was as cynically manufactured as the mediaeval witch craze and as opposed by the decent majority as antisemitism was in nazi Germany. Like the witch persecutions, antisemitic persecutions and modern persecution of Muslims/unemployed people/human beings under 24 weeks/non-white people/people with Downs Syndrome etc, ad infinitum, the structural consequences of state policy are far more evident than individual sentiment. I'm just as bound as you to describe the writing of RS and I suggest that the passage needs more than the citation provided. Keith-264 (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * MY "apologetics for slavery"? That remark borders on the improper - in any case it is quite clear I mentioned the slavery issue as an example of changing social attitudes, in response to your apparent belief that these don't happen. Government (and Church) policy often follows public sentiment rather than the other way round - although I grant they're often interrelated. I also agree that change can be cyclic as much as linear, as I already hinted above. Discussion here, however, needs to concentrate on the suitability of the sentence concerned as an introduction to the section on racism in the Biggles books - we've both got away from that a bit. Do you really want a citation for the fact that attitudes on race in the 1930s were very different from those of the 1960s and later? Note that this is all the sentence in question actually says!! An important catalyst for this change was perhaps the civil rights movement (cause or effect?) - but it would be carping to feel we have to mention that here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Slavery has always been anathema, you're using sophistry to pretend otherwise. As for state and church, they have never been democratic institutions so they have never been the slaves (geddit) of public sentiment. I'm just as bound as you to describe the writing of RS and I wrote I suggest that the passage needs more than the citation provided, is this difficult to understand? Keith-264 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Slavery has always been anathema? To whom? Presumably the slaves themselves of course - but leave them out of the question for the moment. Really, even in the Northern states of mid-nineteenth century America, people (other than slaves) who wanted to abolish slavery were a tiny minority - incidentally they were considered dangerous extremists ("abolitionist" was a worse insult than "racist is now) even when they didn't resort to terrorism to make their point, as they did on a number of occasions. Lincoln himself had to disavow the "abolitionist label because it would have been political suicide. And what about the ancient Greeks and Romans? I'd like to believe that all "decent" people have always thought the same way on really basic social questions like slavery (and, hopefully, always will) - but this really and truly isn't the case. Slavery is totally repugnant to you and me - but at once upon a time it was often favourably compared with "wage slavery" (paying workers pitiably inadequate wages) and even today - how many people (again, not counting the working poor themselves) are really passionate about wage justice. Are "all decent people" concerned as I am (hope you are too) about the catastrophic decline in the value of real wages, while the rich get richer? Something has to be done sooner or later (other than electing a president who among other things is one of the worst offenders) - but imagine how popular any effective measures would be in some quarters? Institutions (religious or state) certainly don't have to be "democratic" to be moved by public opinion, and vice versa for that matter, of course - although this, as well as democracy itself, is very much relative. Yes, afraid your call for additional cites is very hard to understand HERE, although there are plenty of places elsewhere where such a request would make a lot of sense. If I am wrong (wouldn't be the first time) - describe the kind of citation you would like to see here. Is THAT too difficult to understand?.


 * Attitudes change. They do. Your statement that they don't is unsustainable. Whether such change be cyclic or linear, or whether they are driven by, influenced by, or unconnected with government or church policy is beside the point. (Very different if our primary subject was public opinion rather than Biggles books). The word "racist" has become highly pejorative - we have all heard "I am not racist but I hate ______" (fill in your own hated group). It was not ever thus - and it may well (frighteningly) one day cease to be so. A majority once regarded racism as nothing less that "plain good sense". I doubt they were on the whole less basically "decent" - in some ways their opinions may even have been more enlightened than yours or mine. This is the central paradox of Huckleberry Finn, for instance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Attitudes don't change, only the expedience of the fascist state. I wrote "I suggest that the passage needs more than the citation provided, is this difficult to understand?" You still appear to miss the point. There is a general cite from a 1975 authority. I suggest that it is insufficient for a teleological view of racism, which is a myth. Everything you have written since is assertion and bluster. To be constructive I will obtain some other citations. Keith-264 (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but anyone who can state that "attitudes don't change, only the expedience of the fascist state" - at least with a straight face, has no right whatever to accuse anyone of bluster, or empty assertion. By all means find a citation that would justify your assertion (or even the much milder edit you originally suggested) - but it looks a lot to me like unacceptable minority view ideological rubbish that needs to be firmly rejected from the outset. I find it hard to believe anyone would seriously subscribe to views like this, especially the sensible editor who has been associated with this account in the past. -Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No human being is naturally racist and no human being is ignorant of fair play but some resort to slogans when they are contradicted by reality. Your a priori assertions are more revealing of you than you realise and your appeal to authority is naive. I will do what I wrote and you may form your own conclusions as I do mine. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No way am I biting on this one again. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)