Talk:The Gods of the Copybook Headings

Skip to table of contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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)[reply]

One problem is that it is unsourced. Secondly, as it is worded, it assumes to know the private thoughts of the commenters. For that information to be included, we need to source it and rephrase it. Can you put it in terms paraphrased from a reliable source? Jess_talk|_edits 06:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have somewhat rewritten the paragraph to sound more neutral and less like a shill for that ... man and his... book. I have left the refs, including to the trailer itself, though my actual preference would be to remove the paragraph and sub-heading entirely on the basis that it was put in there as nothing but an advertisement... but galling as it is, that key-jangling moron is still an influential ... contributor to popular culture [shudder]. Having said that, it is possibly more galling having not one but three references to him on the same page as a kipling poem; kipling can be controversial, but there is no doubt as to whether or not he was a complete idiot, and so on that basis if anyone wishes to delete the entire section, feel free to do so. 124.169.43.176 (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]