Talk:The Gods of the Copybook Headings: Difference between revisions
Redthoreau (talk | contribs) + TP headers |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
||
{{Talkheader}} |
{{Talkheader}} |
||
== Beck critics attacked Kipling piece when they thought it was Beck that wrote it == |
|||
Why was ''"It was not immediately identified as the work of Kipling, leading some critics of Beck at the Huffington Post and elsewhere to attack the words and the rhymes themselves, being unaware of the source of these stanzas."'' removed from this article? Is that not pertinent, NPOV information? If HuffPo's mocking of Beck and the poem while under their assumption that he wrote the poem himself, thus making themselves look like idiots, is to be described in the article as "sparked a debate on several media outlets about the poem and its meaning," then surely the (factual, NPOV) sentence I highlighted is more than fair. In any case, it is definitely as relevant as HuffPo's attack in the first place. I am putting it back in place as I see no justification for its removal nor any attempt to justify its removal on this talk page. -- [[User:Glynth|Glynth]] ([[User talk:Glynth|talk]]) 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:59, 18 December 2010
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Gods of the Copybook Headings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Beck critics attacked Kipling piece when they thought it was Beck that wrote it
Why was "It was not immediately identified as the work of Kipling, leading some critics of Beck at the Huffington Post and elsewhere to attack the words and the rhymes themselves, being unaware of the source of these stanzas." removed from this article? Is that not pertinent, NPOV information? If HuffPo's mocking of Beck and the poem while under their assumption that he wrote the poem himself, thus making themselves look like idiots, is to be described in the article as "sparked a debate on several media outlets about the poem and its meaning," then surely the (factual, NPOV) sentence I highlighted is more than fair. In any case, it is definitely as relevant as HuffPo's attack in the first place. I am putting it back in place as I see no justification for its removal nor any attempt to justify its removal on this talk page. -- Glynth (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)