Talk:This Be The Verse

This Article Is Terrible
The whole thing reads like a college freshman's short essay assignment, and a bad one at that, with all kinds of idiotic rhetorical strategies that have nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Who cares why this poem "may be so memorable?" And why on Earth would an encyclopedia article end with a question mark? What is it with all the unsubstantiated claims on any number of meaningless points? Who cares if a poem has entered the "oral tradition?" Poetry practically IS the oral tradition. I am taking the liberty of at least making this article acceptable. Hopefully others will fix it, or deserves to be deleted entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.121.130 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Firstly, its total rubbish and secondly - and laughably - it counts as original research. Ditch the whole thing... BUT... The link at the bottom is good! Maybe it needs moving to the main Larkin article  Almost - instinct 21:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, utterly cringeworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nofoolinblackman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, the synopsis is more of an interpretation than a summary.Damaris36 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I added more onto the synopsis. I felt there was more to be said about Stevenson.JULIAMOTCH (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is written as more of an interpretation than a summary but I also believe that one way to improve this would be by separating the sections. One section can be used as a summary and the other can be used as an interpretation of the poem.Slocascio123 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I added an interpretation of the las 9-12 linesSlocascio123 (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The criticisms here read as if they had been snarled out by a pack of grad students. NRPanikker (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

... and so is Wikipedia's display of it
The whole thing is displayed on high resolution tablets, often with significantly better resolution than desktop and laptop computers, as though they were tiny-screened "feature" 'phones".

It has been written, in Larkin's style::


 * It fucks you up, this wiki-web
 * It may not mean to, but it do
 * Serving some naff lo-res web page
 * To high-res tablets near to you

Etc. Wikipedia, in particular, has such diabolically broken HTML / CSS that it serves pages designed for tiny "feature 'phone" screens to tablet devices, such as Apple iPads, Google Chrome devices and Samsung Galaxy Devices, as well as many others.

Wikipedia's general layout is not really relevant to the edits that should be made to this page.Damaris36 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Photo?
A photo of Syd & Eva Larkin (pre-copyright; scanned in from one of the biographies?) would be a perfect complement to this article. –Hajor 14:43, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Next time I'm at the library, I'll see if one is available. Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The idea of adding a photo is a good idea but I do not believe it's necessary. Maybe a link to a wiki page about Syd and Eva Larkin would work better.Slocascio123 (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Pounds, Shillings, and Pence
What is the poem/underground nursery rhyme "Pounds, Shillings, and Pence" referred to in this article? --Metropolitan90 01:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pounds, shillings, and pence; a man fell over a fence. He fell on a lady and squashed out a baby, pounds, shillings, and pence. Smerdis of Tlön 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a nursery rhyme. See at £sd. SimonTrew (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you not put the actual poem within the article?!
I tried editing the page to do this and then found it had been taken off when I checked a day later. If you can't cite the poem in the article for copyright reasons, can there then be a prominent link to the poem on another site that does cite it? There's no actual link to any such page that i can see. Thanks, Ethendras.


 * Unless there are copyright reasons then the poem should be here. Power-mad admins may disagree that an article about a poem should not actually include the poem.


 * Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.36.120 (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * given that Larkin is only 23 years dead, I would imagine that the inheritors of Larkin's estate are still collecting copyright on his poems  Almost - instinct 21:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Quoting the first line, at least, is fair use. If the Girl Guides can use it, so can we. SimonTrew (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense? I was replying to the idea that the whole poem should be here. Mind your manners, please  Almost - instinct 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course the first line can be quoted, indeed more than that (say a stanza) is probably fine under fair usage (though it's not a clear-cut standard). But the wholesale inclusion of it is a clear violation of copyright. -- I speak as someone who was involved in the permissions work for an anthology from OUP. Larkin's poems cost a hefty chunk to reprint, I assure you. ND (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost-instict: My apologies, I was having big trouble with my internet connexion so was very curt. You are quite right and I am glad we agree that the whole poem could not be quoted but some lines could be. Please accept my apologies for my harsh wording. I will tb this to you to make sure you're aware this apology is here. SimonTrew (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ndoward: You are probably the best placed here. I must admit even though I thought I had a fairly good grasp of copyright law it still defeats me sometimes (i guess that's why we have copyright lawyers, either that or because they are heathen scum of the earth, the work of the devil, bezlebub incarnate]] and I would not touch one with a porbeagle SimonTrew (talk) 05:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we post the last verse as well? Can we link to a source for the whole poem? I find the first and last verse alone are powerful together, but if we could link a source (perhaps acaemic?) with the entire poem that would be wonderful. Zugamifk (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding the entire poem is definitely copyrighted. I deleted it, and instead added an actual synopsis to the "synopsis" section. The poem is linked to in the citations, I feel that this should be enough for a reader to access it. --Vsous1 (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the last verse should be added. However, I believe that other parts of the poem should be added so that the reader gets a better understanding of the poem.Slocascio123 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Biblical Allusion
I've added a note on the biblical allusion. I've included a quotation of Exodus 20:5. The phrase, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," also occurs in Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:8, and Jeremiah 32:18. Tatwell 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not at all clear why you have squeezed in a Biblical allusion, other, perhaps, than that you like to squeeze in Biblical allusions. The poem is not about "iniquities", nor is it about "visiting them upon" anything.   It is about the propensity for parents to "fuck up" (sic) their offspring, without any recourse to a supposed Deity's vindictiveness (a product of human imaginings, which are simpler and more vindictive than any being of a higher level's mind might be expected to be).


 * I agree.2601:185:301:B6C0:A844:69C6:576:7CBB (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely with the idea of a biblical illusion. I believe that it is starting to far away from the actual poem and does not help the reader understand the poem at all. I believe that it should be deleted. Slocascio123 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Include the poem itself?
WHAT THE?? Can you please at least include the poem in the article? What is wrong with you people? This unholly need to get rid of anything not up to your lofty standards is annoying and elitist. The article was just fine. If you don't find it interesing that many people quote the poem without knowing its origins, then that is fine, but why is it a problem to let others know it? I found it interesting. Every time I look anything up in Wiki there is less information them before, and what info is left is useless. Its more like a slap in the face saying- just go read/watch/research it elsewhere. Wiki is supposed to provide info, not just suggestions of where to look for info. Please stop eliminating information others work hard at putting in there. Add if you like, but do not subtract unless there is a definite error. People contribute time and money to this so others can find useful knowledge. Personally I have never written any articles, or even edited them, I wish I had the means to but I don't have that much knowledge. but I have contributed financially and feel like I can ask that the few people who are constantly deleting realize they are not helping. NOW the article is terrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.228.218 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, not unless you get permission for the poem to appear, at the least. This is not an "unholly" need to meet "lofty standards", it is a need to not be sued, not to break the law, and to treat the owners of copyrights honestly.  It is also a rule.  I am sorry that your edit can't stay at this time.  All the best.  sinneed (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The poem appearing in the article is not what I was talking about when I said that. I was talking about all of the info that was in the older article and many like it. in tI have never personally edited the pages of Wiki, but I will look t the copyright of the poem and see if it is listed publicly. If it is OK Ill try to put it in, if not, of couse I agree it should be omitted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.228.218 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking back through each edit, some have been good, some mediocre, and some bad. I see only 1 block of what I consider useful content killed, and it seems likely to have been done accidentally, by someone adding a link to a website which has the text of the poem.  There is no great conspiracy here, just a lonnnnng list of editors doing what each thought at that moment was a Good Thing.  The only reversals and edit wars I saw were over the repeated addition of the text of the poem.  I added a note that might help with that.  I hope.  All the best.sinneed (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. It is entirely fair use to quote the first line, or title, of a poem. Since it is such a short work it would be tricky to quote the whole lot under fair use criteria, though for War and Peace twelve lines would be OK-- generally it is reckoned at 10% but I am not sure if that is a formal rule. (I mean in a legal system not WP.) I am gonna add first line since it is just ridiculous not to have it. SimonTrew (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree completely. The poem should not be added unless you have special permission. Quoted lines or phrases are ok but not the whole article because you can get sued. I would suggest replacing the whole article with lines and phrases that help give the reader a better understanding of the poem.Slocascio123 (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)