Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 April 27

= April 27 =

Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom question
So I was struck by the Poet Laureate of the United Kingdom holders. Besides, Wordsworth and Tennyson, there seem to be no big names of British poets. Obviously each of the holders is notable to some extent, but I'm surprised that Blake, T. S. Eliot, Shelley, Hardy or John Clare never got the post--might there be any reason for this? Were some of these people considered too radical? Aza24 (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Dryden was a pretty big name. William Blake was a kind of eccentric visionary who was not famous during his own time.  It's hard to imagine him writing a sonnet on the occasion of a royal wedding! AnonMoos (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I just realized that William Blake (1757-1827) overlapped Jane Austen's whole lifetime. It's hard to think of two talented creative people who had less in common, even though they were contemporaries who spoke the same language and both lived in the south of England (Austen visited London many times)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That happens with any time period. Thomas Hardy and Lewis Carroll were contemporaries, and yet Far From The Madding Crowd is certainly most unlike Through The Looking Glass in almost every conceivable way.  -- Jayron 32 16:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The appointment of Henry James Pye is instructive here, "His appointment owed nothing to poetic achievement, and was probably a reward for political favours". I suspect many of the lesser known Poets Laureate were so appointed, not so much because they were spectacular poets, but because they were friends of spectacularly well-connected people.  Similarly, Alfred Austin's nomination is described as such: "the choice of Austin for poet-laureate had much to do with Austin's friendship with Lord Salisbury, his position as an editor and leader writer, and his willingness to use his poetry to support the government."  More modern Poets Laureate seem to be more likely to have a better literary renown, Cecil Day-Lewis and Ted Hughes were fairly well regarded in the field.  -- Jayron 32 11:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * A further consideration is that there is only one Poet Laureate at a time, and from 1689 up until Andrew Motion's resignation from the post in 2009 the incumbents all held the post until the year (possibly the day) they died, so any poet who rose to prominence during a given Laureate's span could not be considered until that incumbent had vacated the post. For example, when T. S. Eliot first became well-known in 1915, Robert Bridges had already been Laureate for 2 years, and on Bridges' decease the post went to John Masefield, a fine and perhaps more "establishment-friendly" poet, who held the post until 1967, 2 years after Eliot's death. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.88.97 (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * John Masefield, Robert Bridges and John Betjeman are well known in the UK, not sure what overseas folk makes of them. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. In fact all the names from Masefield onward are significant and well-regarded poets. Phillip Larkin, who would have been another very worthy holder of the title, declined it, and there are probably others who did as well. Given poets are not always recognized in their lifetime, the list of recent holders is unobjectionable. Well, there could have been a few more women, but I expect there will be going forward, especially now that it's no longer a life-long appointment. --Xuxl (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And finally, looking at the three other names you mention reveals one more factor: many poets don't become notable for their poetry until after their death. Per Percy Bysshe Shelley, "Shelley did not achieve fame during his lifetime". Per John Clare, "His work underwent major re-evaluation in the late 20th century" and per Thomas Hardy, "Although his poems were initially not as well received as his novels had been, Hardy is now recognised". 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to brag (well, I do) but I had read Simon Armitage before he became Poet Laureate... --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What is affected by U.S. Section 230? Wikipedia? Web hosting?
(Posted here for "law".)

It's thought that repealing Section 230 might hobble social media providers. But how about other platforms with user-generated content? Like Wikipedia? Web forums? Even web hosting platforms? Would generating content become far more difficult across the entire spectrum of internet providers? Fred Smith II (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The protection afforded by Section 230 solely covers civil lawsuits brought against the Wikimedia Foundation in a court in the US. So within that scope it also protects Wikipedia; see . If repealed, the Wikimedia Foundation may expect to be the target of more lawsuits; whether plaintiffs may win will largely depend on not-yet-existing case law; some cases may end up before the Supreme Court. --Lambiam 07:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)