Talk:Terence Rattigan

Untitled
This link is broken

Performances of Terence Rattigan's plays listed in University of Bristol Archive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelgreenx (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Capital C for Cause C/célèbre?
In trying to track down whether a capital C is use for célèbre in the title of this play and TV film. First the play - every site that I went to - including this and this  and this  - spell it with a capital C. So I will be changing back my edit of earlier to reflect this.

As to the 1987 TV version there is conflicting info. IMDb uses a lower case c but we know how that website is viewed for use here at wikipedia. The region one DVD cover uses a capial C and the region four dvd cover does the same. However, these may not reflect the actual opening credits used. Unfortunately, my VHS copy from last century is buried in a box somewhere so I have ordered the DVD and as soom as I get a chance to view it I will update this message and the various pages that we have listed this on if needed. If any of you have further info please add it here with my thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 17:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - The opening credits for both episodes use a capital C so I will make the change on the main page. MarnetteD | Talk 10:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Influence
According to the first line of the Wikipedia biog, Rattign's influence as a writer extended only to England. However, http://www.terencerattigan.co.uk/biography.html (which is listed in the references) states 'He was a dramatist who wrote some of the most memorable and important plays of the twentieth century'. I have removed the reference to England. Robata (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Terence Rattigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028031532/http://www.sandroyd.org/content/view/186/79/ to http://www.sandroyd.org/content/view/186/79/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Goldsmith
The section Life and career mentions Anthony Goldsmith in the second paragraph, and Lieutenant Tony Goldsmith in the third. Are these the same person? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove reference to sexuality and outdated citation
As a gay man, this pointless reference and its accompanying out-of-date citation is offensive. I removed the reference to Rattigan's sexuality because it is at best spurious, and at worst prurient.

The provided citation is a blurb on a BBC programme that is not even available any longer. His sexuality is mentioned later and in good context, please, this is Wikipedia, not the tabloid press from the 1970s.

As contributors and indeed as historians, we need to be sensitive to changing trends and this reads very unpleasantly - no-one would ever say of David Hare that "he was a heterosexual" - references to gay people should be no more no less than everyone else's. Ask yourself - is the most important aspect to Rattigan that he were gay? No - so let's take the seaside postcode out of it please.

Suggest the following:

Rattigan wrote a number of plays which centred on issues of sexual frustration, failed relationships, or a world of repression and reticence. 86.26.229.65 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope. Wikipedia is not censored. Rattigan was born in 1911, and the troubles of his homosexual life greatly informed his life, attitudes, and writings, and are indeed a most important aspect of his life, particluarly in regard to what he is known for. Just because you are an out gay man living in the 21st century doesn't mean you get to remove relevant references to historical persons' sexuality in Wikipedia articles. Why don't you watch the documentary (it's on YouTube) and learn something, and maybe develop compassion for the playwright? And the documentary is from 2011, so it's not "outdated" or "out-of-date". Softlavender (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Content
You appear to object to, and have removed, my well-sourced comment about Rattigan's repeated STD infections: Channon also mentions Rattigan's prostate problems which may have been a side effect of the disease. Gonorrhea is an illness that can be cured with antibiotics, but penicillin had only recently become the effective treatment by the time of this infection in 1946, and whatever treatment Rattigan received in his earlier infections - in 1934 and later - cannot have been very effective. The episode seems to have been important to Channon, in view of the number of references he made to it, and it seemed to me more appropriate to let the Rattigan wiki page reflect this rather than Channon's. I don't see the addition of this fact as being prompted by prurience - certainly no more than the comment in the Rattigan 'Early Life' section that Rattigan's father might have induced a Romanian princess to have an abortion. But perhaps we can discuss this here, as you yourself have previously suggested, rather than an in edit war, and you could perhaps explain in more detail which Wikipedia principle the (removed) section offends against. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Mentioning an individual's alleged gonorrhea in a Wikipedia biography is clearly not relevant. If it is covered extensively in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it might be worth adding. Softlavender (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is without any doubt a reliable one within the Wikipedia definition. Channon's diaries were written up in all but a few cases (and these are mentioned in the diaries) on the day or the morning following the date for the entry. During the earlier part of the period I quoted (the months in 1946) and you deleted, Channon was seeing Rattigan several times a week, and sleeping with him. I don't think you improve your case for deletion by using the word "alleged": having a disease is not a criminal matter where allegations are made, and the diary entries leave no room for doubt at all about Rattigan's condition. Perhaps you should consult them yourself? I am loath to quote extensively for copyright reasons, not to mention reasons of taste: as I said in the deleted passage, some of the mentions are graphic and unpleasant. But let me know if you would like a sample. You evidently have your own view of what is relevant to a Wikipedia biography: mine is clearly different. But can you explain why the mention of Rattigan's father and the Romanian princess is - in your view - relevant, using the same criteria as you use for his illness? Thomas Peardew (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A single associate's diary is not WP:DUE coverage in WP:RS for prurient trivia. Wikipedia does not publish a person's sexually transmitted disease history unless it is covered as noteworthy in multiple third-party independent reliable sources. Obviously the threshold is pretty high for such mentions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Challenged trivia needs to gain WP:CONSENSUS before being posted in Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There appear to be two areas on which we disagree. The first is the reliability of the source, and I think I could convince you on that score: the book is published and has been extensively reviewed, the author was a well-known public figure (MP for 22 years, PPS to the Foreign Secretary under Chamberlain and Churchill), and the publisher is reputable (Penguin). I will be happy to comment further on this, but I do not think it is your real objection.
 * Your main objection appears to be your view that this is both trivial and prurient, and that there is Wikipedia rule that justifies your deletion of such a section (on which point I would mention that Wikipedia guidance is to talk before reverting). I don't find this mention of Rattigan's illness either sensational or titillating, and I doubt whether you do. On the "trivial" issue that is in my view a matter of opinion.
 * I would be surprised if you could provide any support for your view that "Wikipedia does not publish a person's sexually transmitted disease history unless it is covered as noteworthy in multiple third-party independent reliable sources". A quick glance at the entry for Oscar Wilde provides an obvious counter-example, with the (well-sourced) speculation by a biographer that syphilis was the cause of Wilde's death.
 * You have sent me back to re-reading the Channon Diaries and I feel that perhaps a longer mention of the relationship between the two men might be helpful to readers. Even beyond the period of their "affair" (a word I dislike, and I am not very happy with the epithet "volatile" either - gay stereotyping?) they remained good friends I believe until Channon's death, and - for example - Channon mentions that Rattigan dedicated The Winslow Boy to Channon's son, and Love in Idleness to Channon himself.
 * I would be happy to prepare such a section, and perhaps put the comment about Rattigan's health into context, if it would produce consensus I could remove the precise diagnosis of his illness - the Diaries, for example, mention which doctor was treating him, and with which drugs, but I can avoid the "G" word if you prefer. But I will not do so if you propose to revert my edits out of hand. Thomas Peardew (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my posts more carefully. The Channon diaries are not independent of the subject. Wilde's life and sexual history and cause of death have been the subject of numerous independent third-party biographers. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view the published diaries are a reliable source and are wholly independent of the subject: can you please explain why you think they are not? And evidently they were written and intended for (posthumous) publication as a contemporary record from a person who knew Rattigan for many years.
 * On the Wilde Wikipedia page where an author of a biography speculates on syphilis contributing to his death you will find that the biographer is the only person who has done so: there are no independent third party biographers who agree with him.
 * This is not just about the cause of his death: no other biographers suggest he suffered from syphilis at all, even if it was not a cause of his death, which I think was the reason you chose the extended form of words "Wilde's life and sexual history and cause of death".
 * But I think we are making some progress now that you are no longer relying on prurience, triviality and whatever the noun from titillating might be as reasons to censor the record. Thomas Peardew (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Acquaintances, associates, friends, lovers, and partners are not independent of the subject. In addition, diaries are primary sources, rather than secondary or third-party sources. In terms of Wilde, there are literally hundreds of independent reliable sources that speculate whether or not syphilis was the cause of his death, , . If I need to go over this again in any form, I will feel inclined to report this discussion to a noticeboard, based on WP:IDHT. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You must of course feel free to report this discussion, but you'll appreciate that if you think this is "disruptive editing", there is no sign of any consensus here - it's just you and I who disagree, and you are the only person to have reverted anything.
 * It would be better to try to reach consensus and perhaps use one of the normal dispute resolution procedures.
 * I will - in the next week or so - prepare a draft of an alternative to the paragraph I originally edited. There are a couple of other points about Rattigan's relationships which merit inclusion, and I will incorporate the suggestion I made above.
 * This would also give other editors a chance to contribute to the discussion. Neither your view nor mine has so far gained any support here. Thomas Peardew (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone's diary is not a reliable source when it comes to controversial content about someone else. Meters (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)