Talk:Britten's Children

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

P(a)edophile[edit]

Bridcut uses the term "paedocrat". This article labelled Britten as a paedophile. This is a highly charged term with several meanings. It has a very strict literal meaning of one one who is sexually attracted to children (which is undeniably true of Britten). It is also seen in contexts such as "he is a convicted paedophile" (seen in the The Times recently). Thus the term is used in the media, to mean a criminal act (which the book does not accuse Britten of performing). The book treads a very careful line (and the author has done a brilliant job in doing so): this article must respect that. Bluewave 19:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I don't recall the use of the word paedocrat, but I've added a new para taken from p 237. Tony 14:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Tony

Needs cleaning up[edit]

This article as I found it contained spurious quotations (inaccurate), misleading juxtapositions (mentioning Eric Crozier in the middle of a paragraph on Harry Morris) and a very partial account of Britten's relationship with David Hemmings, totally avoiding what Hemmings himself had to say about the relationship which is clearly set out in Bridcut's book. Looking at the article's history, it seems to have been written mischievously by a now blocked editor who clearly had an agenda regarding homosexuality and underage boys. I have made a start at putting the article on something like factual rails, but hope other editors might continue this process. Alfietucker (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup work. When I myself found the article (after looking it up out of fleeting curiosity), I found the problem I described in this edit, which is the only reason the article is on my watchlist. Having never read the book, I didn't realise how problematic the article was. Graham87 15:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)